Skip Navigation


Chemical Senses Advance Access originally published online on September 26, 2006
Chemical Senses 2007 32(1):11-20; doi:10.1093/chemse/bjl031
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
32/1/11    most recent
bjl031v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smeets, M. A.M.
Right arrow Articles by Dalton, P. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smeets, M. A.M.
Right arrow Articles by Dalton, P. H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Odor and Irritation Thresholds for Ammonia: A Comparison between Static and Dynamic Olfactometry

Monique A.M. Smeets1, Patricia J. Bulsing1, Sanneke van Rooden1, Ranjita Steinmann1, J. Alexander de Ru2, Nico W.M. Ogink3, Christoph van Thriel4 and Pamela H. Dalton5

1 Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Utrecht University, 3508 TC Utrecht, the Netherlands 2 Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands 3 Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen University and Research Center, 8200 AB Lelystad, the Netherlands 4 Leibniz Research Center for Working Environment and Human Factors, D-14439 Dortmund, Germany 5 Monell Chemical Senses Center, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

Correspondence to be sent to: Monique Smeets, Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.140, 3508 TC Utrecht, the Netherlands. e-mail: m.a.m.smeets{at}fss.uu.nl


  Abstract

Odor and lateralization (irritation) thresholds (LTs) for ammonia vapor were measured using static and dynamic olfactometry. The purpose of the study was to explore the test–retest reliability and comparability of dynamic olfactometry methodology, generally used to determine odor thresholds following European Committee for Standardization guidelines in the context of odor regulations to outside emissions, with static olfactometry. Within a 2-week period, odor and LTs for ammonia were obtained twice for each method for 24 females. No significant differences between methods were found: mean odor detection thresholds (ODTs) were 2.6 parts per million (ppm) for either method (P = 0.96), and mean LTs were 31.7 and 60.9 ppm for the static and dynamic method, respectively (P = 0.07). Test–retest reliability was higher for the dynamic than for the static method (r = 0.61 vs. 0.14 for ODTs and r = 0.86 vs. 0.45 for LTs). The choice of optimal method for any application, however, depends not only on psychometric factors but also on practical factors such as physicochemical properties of the compound, availability of equipment and expertise, task efficiency, and costs.

Key words: olfaction, perceptual threshold, sensory irritation, trigeminal nerve


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.