|
|
 |
ZT-In-Exile |
+ |
Monday, December 12, 2005 at 6:16 AM
Edited Monday, December 12, 2005 at 6:25 AM It turns out people have wikipedia'd similar kinds of scales. Consider the Schmidt Sting Pain Index, that quantizes the pain of stings. * 1.0 Sweat bee: Light, ephemeral, almost fruity. A tiny spark has singed a single hair on your arm.
* 1.2 Fire ant: Sharp, sudden, mildly alarming. Like walking across a shag carpet & reaching for the light switch.
* 1.8 Bullhorn acacia ant: A rare, piercing, elevated sort of pain. Someone has fired a staple into your cheek.
* 2.0 Bald-faced hornet: Rich, hearty, slightly crunchy. Similar to getting your hand mashed in a revolving door.
* 2.0 Yellowjacket: Hot and smoky, almost irreverent. Imagine WC Fields extinguishing a cigar on your tongue.
* 3.0 Red harvester ant: Bold and unrelenting. Somebody is using a drill to excavate your ingrown toenail.
* 3.0 Paper wasp: Caustic & burning. Distinctly bitter aftertaste. Like spilling a beaker of Hydrochloric acid on a paper cut.
* 4.0 Pepsis wasp: Blinding, fierce, shockingly electric. A running hair drier has been dropped into your bubble bath (if you get stung by one you might as well lie down and scream).
* 4.0+ Bullet ant: Pure, intense, brilliant pain. Like walking over flaming charcoal with a 3-inch nail in your heel.
Or the The Scoville to measure the hotness of a chile pepper. I believe Hobo power belongs among the ranks of these scales. —ZT-In-Exile |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Monday, December 12, 2005 at 2:32 PM See, here's the problem I always had with Hobo Power. Adam was always comparing it to BTUs and horsepower and such. The problem is that those measurements have actual mathematical/scientific bases on which their measures are used. You'd have to actually find a way to quantify smell in order to apply a mathematical measurement system to it; qualifying it subjectively isn't good enough. —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rAnCIDsICk@!!! |
+ |
Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 12:49 AM The Scoville to measure the hotness of a chile pepper.
—ZT-In-Exile This reminds me of this morning radio show I listen to. GOOD RADIO! FUNNY FUNNY FUNNY SHIT JUST LISTEN TO IT.
Oh you may have to sign up to hear it but its worth the listen. If you have trouble finding it, its under morning sickness/ morning sickness events pictures/ erics capsaicin experiment.
—rAnCIDsICk@!!! |
|
|
|
|
HazeTrooper |
+ |
Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 4:03 PM I have been considering this for quite some time now and Darky is correct, the subjective nature of smell makes this measurement very difficult to quantify. I shall attempt to explain it this way: About 10 years ago I was working as a paramedic. We were called to a house by the neighbor who hadn’t seen the little old lady that lived there for a couple of days. The neighbor told us that she (the resident in question) was suffering from lung cancer but had not received any treatment for it. Because the door was locked, we had to call law enforcement to gain entrance. One of the law enforcement officers was a female sergant, openly gay – And had a huge attitude toward anything with a penis. After the cops kicked open the door, we found the resident in her bathroom. It was the first time I had ever seen anyone who had literally coughed up their own lung tissue (it looks like a beet red sponge material with very small pores). She had also vomited, deficated, urinated – Basically every ‘ated’ in the book. Oh – Did I forget to mention that she was dead? Maybe 2 or 3 days dead… Which would have been ‘ripe’, but unfortunately it was January, and she collapsed right in front of an electric wall heater, which kept her and all the juices and body matter quite toasty warm, and also added to the funk exponentially. [I add this as an aside – If you’ve ever seen the movie “Fletch”, recall the scene where Chevy Chase is masquerading as a doctor, and gets called in to help with an autopsy. As the Medical Examiner cuts into the cadaver, he looks at Fletch, flares his nostrils and takes a deep breath in through his nose, immediately after which he says ‘Never get used to the smell do ya…?’. Now I didn’t like this particular female cop very much, and it was obvious that she really wasn’t comfortable with the funk coming off this dead lady very much. So naturally, I looked the cop dead in the eyes and, as I took a giant deep breath in through my nose, said to her “Never get used to the smell do ya…?” At this point the officer lost some of the color in her face, ran outside and proceeded to vomit all over this little old dead ladies steps… (the cop had had waffles for dinner… Go figure.)] Now to me, this couple-day-old dead lady with chucks of her lung hanging out of her mouth and laying in a pile of her own feces and urine which was kept at a balmy 80 degrees was serious Hobo-Power, maybe a solid 35 or 40. But to the cop, it had to be like a 55 or 60. After years of smelling all sorts of foul patients and parts of patients, my Hobo-Power scale had obviously adapted to a much more liberal interpretation than the officers (or maybe she had some bad waffles). Hashmeer has an excellent point regarding the use of a logarithmic scale, but whereas he suggests using the scale to measure particles, I propose to use it in the Hobo-Power graph. In other words the graph increases in funk - in portions of ten, such that the graph increases at a higher level the closer it gets to any power of ten. In other words, to go from a Hobo-Power 27 to a 29 is much more difficult to achieve than going from a Hobo-Power 31 to a 33. Meanwhile, the entire graph is increasing as we approach 100. Beyond that, I say 100 is unobtainable, because 1) Hobo-Power 100 is instant death to any carbon-based life form and 2) There is no instrument available to measure it (akin to the infinite warp speed, unobtainable because it would require an infinite amount of energy, and because an infinite amount of available speed and energy would occupy all points in the universe at the same time.)
I will add graphs at a later time, to better explain my position. At this time I feel we need to start with a solid acronym for Hobo. Odor, Observed, Olfactory seem to be obvious choices. B could be Based. H possibly Heinous, Horrid or Hellish. After that, we need to come to an agreement on what number would be considered universally unconscious, and universally coma inducing. I welcome and look forward to you thoughts and ideas.
—HazeTrooper |
|
|
|
|
ZT-In-Exile |
+ |
Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 4:49 PM What you're saying doesn't mean the scale changes. It's like with BAC, two people could measure the same, but the physiological and psychological effects could be very different. —ZT-In-Exile |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 5:46 PM If that were the case, though, we could no longer use 50 as the standard for the vomiting-point. —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
Ovid |
+ |
Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 5:55 PM As perceived by humans, odors have fi ve basic
properties that can be quantifi ed: 1) intensity, 2) degree
of offen sive ness, 3) character, 4) frequency, and 5)
dura tion, all of which contribute to the neighbor’s
attitude towards the odor as well as the business
generating the odor. It is generally accepted that the
extent of objec tion and reaction to odor by neigh bors
is highly variable. The reaction can be based on
previous experience, relationship to the odor-producing
enterprise and the sensi tivity of the individual. Weather
(temperature, humidity, wind direction) affects the
volatility of compounds, preventing or enhancing
movement into the gaseous phase where an odor can be
dis persed downwind.
Most of us will accept even a strong odor for a short
period of time, provided we don’t have to smell it often.
But we have a threshold for the frequency and duration
of the odor, above which our tolerance is exceeded
and we view the odor as a nuisance. These thresholds,
however, are person-specifi c. While it is the frequency
and duration of an odor that often triggers a nuisance
complaint, odor measurement procedures typically focus
on the fi rst three traits (intensity, offensiveness, and
character). From a human health standpoint, exposure
time is an essential measure in predicting any negative
effects that may occur and this encompasses frequency
and duration as well as concentration (intensity).
As a result, regulatory procedures often include
concentration, frequency, and duration as part of the
compliance protocol. Defi ning odor
An odorant is a substance capable of eliciting an olfactory
response whereas odor is the sensation resulting from
stimulation of the olfactory organs. Odor threshold is a
term used to identify the concentration at which animals
respond 50 percent of the time to repeated presentations
of an odorant being tested. Most often, however, odor
“threshold” is used to describe the detection threshold,
which identifi es the concen tra tion at which 50 percent
of a human panel can identify the presence of an odor
or odorant without characterizing the stimulus. The
recognition threshold is the concentration at which 50
percent of the panel can identify the odorant or odor.
Although the detection threshold concen trations of
sub stanc es that evoke a smell are low, often times in the
parts per billion (ppb) or parts per trillion (ppt) range,
a concentration only 10 to 50 times above the detection
threshold value often is the maximum intensity that
can be detected by humans. This is in contrast to other
sensory systems where maximum intensities are many
more multiples of threshold intensi ties. For example,
the maximum intensity of sight is about 500,000 times
that of the threshold intensity and a factor of 1 trillion
is observed for hearing. For this reason, smell is often
concerned with identify ing the presence or absence
of odor rather than with quantifying intensi ty or
concentration.
Perception of a mixture of odorants, such as those
in livestock odor, is very different from how each
chemical would be perceived independently. Odorants
can act as additive agents, counteractants, masking
agents, or be synergistic in nature. The combination
of two odorants can have an odor equal to that of
either one of the components, have an odor less than
that of one of the components, have an odor equal
to the sum of the components, or even have an odor
greater than the sum of the components. This makes
odor quantifi cation and characterization a challenging
process.
Odor can be evaluated subjectively in terms of intensity
(strength) or in terms of quality (i.e., offensiveness).
Odor quality is evaluated by describing the odor
or comparing the sample odor to familiar odors.
Evaluation of odor quality is diffi cult because of the
challenges that come with trying to describe odors. Odor measurement techniques
Dilution-to-threshold methods
Dilution-to-threshold techniques dilute an odor
sample with odorless air at a number of levels and the
dilution series is presented in ascending order of odor
concentration. From one level to the next, the dilution
decreases and the amount of odorous air increases.
The fi rst few levels include the sample diluted with a
large amount of odorless air so evaluation can begin
below the threshold of detection. Preferably, multiple
presentations (two odorless air samples and the diluted
odor sample) are made at each level of dilution.
When a forced-choice method is used, a panelist,
typically trained to conduct these evaluations, must
identify the presentation that is different from the
others at each level, even if it is a guess. This permits
use of all the data. The threshold of detection is the
dilution level at which the panelist can determine
a difference between the diluted and the odorless
samples. After the detection threshold is reached, the
panelist continues the evaluation at the next level or
two to be certain the identifi cation was not made by
chance. Examples of the dilution-to-threshold methods
include use of scentometery and olfactometery. Scentometry
One method of odor concentration evaluation that is
available on-site employs the use of a Scentometer®
(Barneby and Cheney, Columbus, OH) or a Nasal
Ranger® (St. Croix Sensor y, St. Elmo, MN). The
Scentometer® is a plastic box with a number of air
inlets and two sniffi ng ports. Two of the air inlets
have activated charcoal fi lters to remove odors and
provide clean air. The remaining inlets are of varying
diameter to permit a range of dilutions of odorous air
to be sampled. An observer begins by opening the port
of smallest diameter to start with the largest dilution
(lowest concentration) of the odor.
As successively larger ports are opened, the dilution of
the odorous air decreases and the odor concentration
increases. When the evaluator can fi rst detect the
odor, the odor threshold has been reached. Odor
concentrations are expressed as dilutions to threshold.
The range of dilutions to threshold possible for the
Scentometer includes 1.5, 2, 7, 15, 31, 170, and 350.
The Nasal Ranger® operates on the same principles
and has selectable dilution ratios of 2, 4, 7, 15, 30, and
60. Inhalation or airfl ow rate is controlled on the Nasal
Ranger®. For both instruments, an individual observer
or a couple of people rather than a larger panel of
evaluators frequently conducts measurements. Olfactometry
Olfactometers operate much like the Scentometer®
and the Nasal Ranger®. The primary differences are
that olfactometers are not portable and an operator
closely controls sample delivery. Larger dilutionto-
threshold ranges are available. The AS’CENT
International Olfactometer® (St. Croix Sensory, St.
Elmo, Minn.), for example, allows samples to be
presented at 14 dilutions that represent a range in
dilution-to-threshold of 8 to 66,667. These units are
often used in a laboratory setting by 7 to 10 panelists to
evaluate each sample rather than the small number of
evaluators that are used in the fi eld measurements (See
Photo 2). Efforts to establish the relationship between
olfactometer readings and that from the portable units
are currently underway at Iowa State University. Ranking methods
Odor can be evaluated using panelists to rank samples,
a procedure in which an arbitrary scale is used to
describe either the intensity or offensiveness of an
odor. Typically, a scale of 0 to 10 is used, with 0
indicating no odor or not offensive and 10 representing
a very intense or offensive odor. Such methods use
either odor adsorbed onto cotton or a liquid sample
that has been diluted. Manure can be diluted with
water to a range of concentrations and then evaluated
by a panel.
One study, for example, diluted stored dairy manure
with water to create fi ve dilution levels. For each
level, two blank samples of water and one diluted
manure sample were presented in fl asks that had been
painted black to avoid bias based on appearance of
the diluted manure. Panelists evaluated the samples in
an ascending series; the dilution decreased and odor
increased from one level to the next. At each dilution
level, panelists identifi ed the fl ask in each set of three
that contained the odorous sample (forced-choice).
A separate study analyzed panelist variability when
this procedure was used and observed that each panel
member had a distinct and repeatable odor probability
distribution. Referencing methods
This method uses different amounts of 1-butanol as a
standard to which sample odor intensity is compared,
again using a human panel. The range of 1-butanol
concentrations is often from 0 to 80 ppm. As the
concentration of butanol is changed, the sample odor
is compared to the butanol to determine at what
concentration of butanol the sample’s intensity is
equivalent. The use of butanol as a reference standard
is widely accepted as common practice in Europe and
has been incorporated into portable and laboratory
scale instrumentation. Most of the methods currently
used in the United States employ butanol as a means
of assessing panelist suitability rather than as the
sole means of determining an odor’s strength or
acceptability. Challenges with current methods
Challenges with current methodology include the use
of humans for assessment. Work has shown that the
same panelist’s response from one day to the next can
vary by as much as three-fold, possibly due to health
or mood of the individual. Variability in the sensitivity
of the individual conducting the evaluation and
odor fatigue are further concerns that are commonly
addressed in procedural protocol.
Odor fatigue is a temporary condition where a person
becomes acclimated to an odorant or odor to the point
that they are no longer aware that the odor is present.
An example would be when you walk into a barbeque
restaurant and by the time you leave, you are unaware
of the aroma that attracted you in the door. Onsite
methods are complicated by the infl uence that visual
perception might have in an evaluation (smelling
with your eyes, so to speak). Each of us has a unique
odor acuity. While methods try to minimize panelist
variation, the difference in sense of smell from one
person is another consideration in human assessment
methods.
The measurement of odor concentration by dilution
is more direct and objective than that of odor quality
or intensity. However, each of the above procedures
requires the use of the human nose as a detector, so
not one is completely objective. The imprecision that
results from the large difference between the dilution
levels has been identifi ed by researchers as a concern as
well. Use of a forced-choice method, such as that used
with dynamic olfactometers, in which a panelist must
simply identify the presence or absence of an odor is
generally a better method than ranking, as the human
nose cannot distinguish small differences between
levels of intensity. Emerging methods
Efforts are underway across the United States to
develop evaluation methods that can be used onsite
and without the infl uence of human subjectivity with
the goal of providing an objective and affordable means
of quantifying odors. Surrogate compounds
Odors from livestock facilities contain hundreds
of different compounds, all interacting with each
other and their environment in additive and nonadditive
(counteractant, masking) manners. From the
standpoint of odor control, it is desirable to know
which compounds are most important in defi ning an
odor, so that those few compounds can be targeted
with control strategies.
Compounds that have been well-correlated to odor
measures in studies led by Iowa State University
and elsewhere, and might be useful as surrogates in
determining odor, include volatile fatty acids (acetate,
butyrate, propionate) and phenolics (phenol, cresol,
indole, skatole).
In order to identify and quantify the constituents
of odor, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry
(GC/MS) is most frequently employed. Samples are
commonly trapped (adsorbed) onto some type of
sorbent material that concentrates compounds of
interest then quantifi ed by GC/MS. Concentrations
of identifi ed compounds and the interactions of the
identifi ed compounds are mathematically correlated to
odor measurements made using traditional methods,
most commonly the dilution-to-threshold methods.
Interpretation of the results is complicated because
odors that are equal in concentration may not be equal
in offensiveness or intensity. Furthermore, two odors
of equal concentration may be perceived as having
different intensities.
While gas chromatography coupled to mass
spectrometry (GC/MS) is frequently used to identify
and quantify odorous compounds and the use of
surrogate compounds is an objective method, this
approach does not represent the experience of odor
sensation as perceived by humans. Efforts to combine
both instrumental and human methods are under
development.
Electronic nose
Electronic nose analysis with a sensor array is a
potential technology for odor evaluation. To date,
relatively little research has been conducted with
electronic noses in the area of agricultural manure
odors. The electronic nose has been developed in an
attempt to mimic the human sense of smell and is
frequently used in the food, beverage, and perfume
industries for product development and quality
control.
The sensor array of an electronic nose detects the
chemicals that humans perceive as odors and records
numerical results. The instrument will generate a
different pattern of response for different types of
samples. Commercially available electronic noses
have 32, 64, or 128 sensors. Each sensor has an
individual characteristic response, and some of the
sensors overlap and are sensitive to similar chemicals,
as are the receptors in the human nose. A single
sensor is partially responsive to a broad range of
chemicals and more responsive to a narrow range of
compounds. Multiple sensors in a single instrument
provide for responsive to a great number and many
types of chemicals, with certain sensors that mix
being moderately to extremely sensitive to specifi c
compounds.
The technology is relatively new to the agricultural
industry, although the potential for application is
certainly great. Recent work demonstrated that an
electronic nose can distinguish between pig and
chicken slurry and between emissions from swine and
dairy facilities because the sensor response patterns
between the comparisons were different. At the current
point of development, the electronic nose appears to
be less sensitive than olfactometry measures, though
sensor improvements occur routinely. Sensor selection
is critical from both the standpoint of sensitivity to
compounds that contribute to the offensive odors
(malodor) as well as response and durability of the
sensors in humid environments. Conclusions
Odor measurement is a complicated task. While a
number of methods are available, none are without
drawbacks. However, dilution-to-threshold methods
are the most widely accepted methods at the current
time. —Ovid |
|
|
|
|
youreamormon |
+ |
Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 6:16 PM Hostile, Overwhelming, Belligerent Odor (HOBO, for short) is measured in HOBO power, or the level of cumulative stink purity, density, and malice. Exact amounts of different compounds are sprayed through a nebulizer into a room of a predetermined size filled with filtered air. Depending on the physical reaction of the participant (his/her vitals are being monitored) and personal evaluation of the odor, a HOBO power heirarchy position is assigned. There will be a control smell, such as an orange (or some kind of stench that the human body cannot make), then a mild stink, such as one's own flatulent, followed by something more flagrant (such as a beer fart from the guy who played Newman on Seinfeld), and finally, the almighty stench, a dead hobo's trapped gasses. Before each scent is introduced, the room's air is filtered and new air introduced. This sequence is done with hundreds of thousands of different people and with hundreds of thousands of different scents, and averages will begin to emerge. Coma-inducing stink is 100 Hober power. It is an absolute, nothing else out side of that can be measured. Everything else fits between 0 and 100. The more information that is added to the hobo scale, the more accurate it becomes. It would probably take at least 10 years before it could be released, and 20 to be referred to by experts in court. —youreamormon |
|
|
|
|
Hashmeer Shashmeer |
+ |
Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 8:07 PM I think a more subjective scale is needed than just the concentration of stink particles. One stinky volume. could be more powerful than an equal volume. —Hashmeer Shashmeer |
|
|
|
|
Ovid |
+ |
Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 8:27 PM The guy who played Newman is skinny now. —Ovid |
|
|
|
|
oh-for |
+ |
Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 8:50 PM Sweet Jesus! What ever happened to the 4 line rule? Where's the dust-man when I need him? —oh-for |
|
|
|
|
Dusty TheHick |
+ |
Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 9:37 PM In the "bin." After reading (and enjoying) HazeTrooper's post, he moved on to Ovid's, and immediately suffered a complete nervous breakdown. —Dusty TheHick |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rAnCIDsICk@!!! |
+ |
Wednesday, December 14, 2005 at 2:31 AM I like stinky vagina. —greymatters Best inhaled from the knuckles after a 3 hour incubator period. —rAnCIDsICk@!!! |
|
|
|
|
catloaf |
+ |
Wednesday, December 14, 2005 at 3:39 AM The guy who played Newman is skinny now.
—Ovid Is his cranium still enormous? Those never seem to shrink with weight loss. —catloaf |
|
|
|
|
von zipper |
+ |
Wednesday, December 14, 2005 at 8:23 PM Could we stay on the subject of stink measurement?
I have something stinky that I want to gauge, so let's establish a stink standard of measurement a.s.a.p.
Hash was on to something.
I need a Chalkboard to figure this out. —von zipper |
|
|
|
|
pookie |
+ |
Wednesday, December 14, 2005 at 8:35 PM Hey Loafie, his skull looks the same, but his face and jowls are smaller. —pookie |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
