Environment and Natural Resources Journal 2020; 18(4): 322-332

Impact of Odor from a Landfill Site on Surrounding Areas: A Case

Study in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Linh Hoang Tran1*, Takehiko Murayama1, Chouzou Enomoto2, and Shigeo Nishikizawa1

1School of Environment and Society, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan

2Odor Analysis Laboratory, Technical Center, Environmental Control Center Co. Ltd., Japan

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Received: 15 Apr 2020 Airborne and odor pollutions generated from landfill operations can adversely
Received in revised: 30 Jun 2020 affect human health and social well-being. These pollutants should be thus
Accepted: 8 Jul 2020 controlled and regulated. Further, the dispersion of odors in the areas
Published online: 24 Jul 2020
surrounding landfills can create public complaints regarding air quality and can
DOI: 10.32526/ennrj.18.4.2020.31
increase social tension. Therefore, in this context, we investigated the odor
Keywords: emission from a landfill in surrounding areas using a combination of measuring
Odor concentration/ Landfill/ Odor odor concentrations and conducting a questionnaire survey. The odor measured
perception/ Health symptom/ Wind in three areas, namely, 1, 2, and 3 were at a distance of 1.5 km, 8.2 km, and 10
direction km from the landfill site, respectively. Results show that the level of odor
concentration in area 1 is much higher than the acceptance level of 10-15 ou/m3
* Corresponding author: with a mean value of 109.75±39.46 ou/m3. Odor concentration levels detected
E-mail: [email protected] 8.2 km and 10 km from the landfill were 18.97±10.84 ou/m3 and 10.97±10.50
ou/m3, respectively. Additionally, odor concentration and people’s perception
of odor varied with geography. This study provides useful information for the
management of odor from the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) management
facility in a developing country like Vietnam. Policymakers should consider
public perception when framing regulations or making decisions about MSW
facilities that also ensure environmental protection.

1. INTRODUCTION al., 2006), and have become a larger social issue in

Odor emissions can cause olfactory annoyance. developed countries (Blumberg and Sasson, 2001;
Industries such as treatment plants for water and Ranzato et al., 2012). Monitoring tools are necessary
wastewater, food production facilities, waste disposal to prevent, manage, and mitigate odor impact in
operations, and intensive farming activities generally communities (Ranzato et al., 2012).
emit odors that are also volatile organic compounds The influence of odors is a combination of
(VOCs). The majority of pollutants from these sources interactive variables known as FIDOL: Odor
are VOCs, and they cause odor episodes at varying frequency (F), perceived odor intensity (I), odor
levels of annoyance (Gallego et al., 2008). Industries duration (D), offensive odors (O), and perceived odor
have an environmental and social obligation to ensure location (L). The FIDOL factors encompass both odor
that their intended performance does not harm their patterns and the environment (Freeman and Cudmore,
surroundings (Parcsi et al., 2012), as detectable odors 2002; Nicell, 2009). An annoyance can be quantified,
may influence daily moods and impact both and there is a propensity of an odor to cause a
psychology and physiology in individuals (Gallego et disturbance within a population if it is exposed to an
al., 2008; Ko et al., 2015). Odors are typically known odor intermittently. The intensity of a perceived level
as contaminants and are subject to specific of odor annoyance depends not only on odor quality
environmental regulations (Nicell, 2009). Nuisances but also on its perceived offensiveness (UK
associated with odor pollution have been one of the Environment Agency, 2002). Odor pollution is most
most common public complaints to authorities disturbing when there is more industrial activity near
regarding air quality (Hayes et al., 2014; Henshaw et residential areas (Capelli et al., 2011).

Citation: Tran LH, Murayama T, Enomoto C, Nishikizawa S. Impact of odor from a landfill site on surrounding areas: A case study in Ho Chi Minh
City, Vietnam. Environ. Nat. Resour. J. 2020;18(4):322-332. (https://doi.org/10.32526/ennrj.18.4.2020.31)
 Tran LH et al. / Environment and Natural Resources Journal 2020; 18(4): 322-332 323

A training process for evaluators (panelists), large landfill site. The study involved recruitment and
according to VDI (2006) (VDI- Association of training of 43 residents living adjacent to the site to
German Engineers), may be used to perform odor make odor observations (Héroux et al., 2004). The
assessment studies on a direct basis. In certain parts of observations of residents confirmed an impact radius
Europe and the USA, this approach is now of 1.5 km from the composting zone center. The area
widespread. However, it is time-consuming, costly, beyond 1.5 km was not covered in the study, and no
and depends largely on local weather conditions maximum distance was identified. In a study in
(Naddeo et al., 2012; Zarra et al., 2011). An analysis Germany, trained panelists have found that the relative
of air quality related to odor perception can be frequency of odor annoyance ranged from less than 10
conducted by using a questionnaire survey for the to 30% at a distance of 870 m from large composting
population affected by the odor source. Odor exposure plants (Albrecht et al., 2008; Fischer et al., 2008). In
is typically a human experience, so it can be beneficial South Korea, a study investigated the concentration
to study a community for the purposes of odor level and variation of odorous gases at the landfill site
evaluation (Capelli et al., 2013). A questionnaire and in nearby areas within a radius of 5 km from the
assessment can be used to test community irritation site. In most surrounding areas, offensive odor was not
levels from all odor sources. The findings of this a significant pollution issue, with the exception of the
assessment can be used to identify the origins of odor high generation of the strong odour compounds such
according to the accumulated stress in a community. as acetaldehyde and propionaldehydes, within a 5 km
This approach is limited to areas where there is an radius of the site (Lim et al., 2018). In these studies,
adequate population density to produce statistically the levels of odor annoyance were not reported for
significant results (New Zealand Ministry for the longer distances. In Vietnam, however, a previous
Environment, 2016). study indicated that areas surrounding Da Phuoc
The primary perception of public risks faced by landfill in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) were under
residents living near a waste treatment facility is affected by odor levels, particularly in urban areas
concerns about health issues, deterioration of within 7 km from waste treatment facility (Tran et al.,
environmental quality (pollution, dust, noise, odor), 2019). Therefore, the purpose of this research was to
increased risk of technical incidents, damage from measure the odor concentration in affected areas in
natural disasters, and devaluation of neighboring comparison with questionnaire survey results. The
property. These concerns are heightened when obtained results can help enhance environmental
residents are in close vicinity to the facility (Al-Khatib protection.
et al., 2014; Al-Yaqout et al., 2002; Giusti, 2009;
Laner et al., 2009; Sankoh et al., 2013; Srangsriwong 2. METHODOLOGY
et al., 2019). The proximity of residents to a planned 2.1 Climate condition of survey area
or current facility appears to be the most significant The survey area is subject to tropical monsoons
factors for influencing the residential perception. along with two traditional weather patterns that
Many studies have shown that health problems are directly affect odor distribution. The first pattern is the
related to the proximity or exposure to sites (Sever, high temperature in two separate seasons: the dry
1997; Vrijheid, 2000): the closer residents are to the season between November and April, and the rainy
sites, the more likely they are to worry about their season between May and October. The second pattern
adverse effects (De Feo et al., 2013; Furuseth and is the direction of the wind, which changes monthly:
Johnson, 1988; Rahardyan et al., 2004). Among the (i) from Jan to May in the South (S) or Southeast (SE)
anxiety, odor annoyance for those who live near the direction; (ii) from June to September in the West (W)
waste treatment center is considered to be the most or Southwest (SW) direction; (iii) from October to
directly perceived response. Thus, there is some December in the Northeast (NE) direction (Tran et al.,
correlation between proximity and odor annoyance 2019). The windrose plot of the study area by each
(Aatamila et al., 2011). quarter for 2019 is shown in Figure 1. As seen in this
In addition, previous studies only investigated figure, the wind direction of the survey location was
the short distance of the odor effect. Particularly, a SE from January to March, SW or SE from April to
study in Canada investigated the perception of odor June, SW from July to September, and NE or
from an area that included a composting plant and a Northwest (NW) or SE from October to December.
 Tran LH et al. / Environment and Natural Resources Journal 2020; 18(4): 322-332 324
WIND ROSE PLOT: DISPLAY:
Wind Speed
COMMENTS: WIND ROSE PLOT: DISPLAY:
Wind Speed
COMMENTS:
TSN Station_Overall_Jan to Mar Direction (blowing from) TSN Station_Overall_Apr to Jun Direction (blowing from)

(a) NORTH (b) NORTH

12% 7.95%
DATA PERIOD: DATA PERIOD:
9.6% Start Date: 1/1/2019 - 00:00 6.36% Start Date: 4/1/2019 - 00:00
End Date: 3/31/2019 - 23:59 End Date: 6/30/2019 - 23:59

7.2% TOTAL COUNT:

CALM WINDS: 4.77% TOTAL COUNT:
CALM WINDS:
2160 hrs. 0.28% 2090 hrs. 1.01%
4.8% 3.18%
AVG. WIND SPEED: AVG. WIND SPEED:
2.4% 3.23 m/s
1.59% 3.00 m/s

COMPANY NAME: COMPANY NAME:

WEST EAST >= 11.10 WEST EAST >= 11.10
8.80 – 11.10 8.80 – 11.10
MODELER: MODELER:
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
5.70 – 8.80 5.70 – 8.80
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
>= 11.10
8.80 - 11.10
3.60
DATE:
– 5.70
3/25/2020
3.60
DATE:
>= 11.10
– 5.70
8.80 - 11.10 3/25/2020
5.70 - 8.80
3.60 - 5.70
2.10 – 3.60 2.10 – 3.60
5.70 - 8.80
3.60 - 5.70

0.50 – 2.10
2.10 - 3.60

0.50 – 2.10
2.10 - 3.60
0.50 - 2.10 0.50 - 2.10
Calms: 0.28% Calms: 1.01%

SOUTH Calms: 0.28 %

PROJECT NO.: SOUTH
Calms: 1.01 %
PROJECT NO.:
WIND ROSE PLOT: DISPLAY: COMMENTS: WIND ROSE PLOT: DISPLAY:
Wind Speed
COMMENTS:
WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software Wind Speed TSN Station_Overall_Oct to Dec_Nighttime Evening
TSN Station_Overall_Jul to Sep Direction (blowing from)
WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software Direction (blowing from)

(c) NORTH (d) NORTH

19.9% 5.9%
DATA PERIOD: DATA PERIOD:
15.9% Start Date: 7/1/2019 - 00:00 4.72% Start Date: 10/1/2019 - 00:00
End Date: 9/30/2019 - 23:59 End Date: 12/31/2019 - 23:59

11.9% TOTAL COUNT:

CALM WINDS: 3.54% TOTAL COUNT:
CALM WINDS:
2180 hrs. 0.95%
2.36%
2208 hrs. 1.22%
7.96% AVG. WIND SPEED:
AVG. WIND SPEED:
3.98% 3.60 m/s
1.18% 2.09 m/s

COMPANY NAME: COMPANY NAME:

WEST EAST >= 11.10 WEST EAST >= 11.10
8.80 – 11.10 8.80 – 11.10
WIND SPEED
MODELER:
5.70 – 8.80 WIND SPEED 5.70 – 8.80
MODELER:

3.60
DATE:– 5.70
(m/s) (m/s)
>= 11.10
3.60
DATE:
– 5.70 >= 11.10

2.10 – 3.60
8.80 - 11.10 3/25/2020 8.80 - 11.10 3/25/2020
5.70 - 8.80
3.60 - 5.70
2.10 – 3.60 5.70 - 8.80
3.60 - 5.70

0.50 – 2.10
2.10 - 3.60

0.50 – 2.10
2.10 - 3.60
0.50 - 2.10 0.50 - 2.10
Calms: 1.22% Calms: 0.95%

SOUTH
Calms: 1.22 % Calms: 0.95 %
PROJECT NO.: SOUTH PROJECT NO.:

WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software

Figure 1. Windrose plot for study area in 2019: (a) From January to March; (b) From April to June; (c) From July to September; (d) From
October to December. (Source: prepared from VVTS met data)

2.2 Survey location Regions were classified as Areas 1, 2, and 3 based on

2.2.1 Characteristics of MSW treatment facility odor reports provided by the environmental agency.
The Da Phuoc MSW management facility in The survey locations chosen were the same as a
HCMC was chosen as the target area for our study. previous investigation (Tran et al., 2019) in order to
This facility is the primary solid waste management provide consistent reporting and allow for
facility in HCMC, and was established in 2007. It has comparative analysis. Area 1 is associated with a high
the capacity to treat 5,200 tons of solid waste per day, exposure to odor, and it is located in a rural region.
and mostly relies on landfilling. Since the operation of Areas 2 and 3 are associated with a high sensitivity to
this facility began, it has received around 22.8 Mt of odor impact, and they are located in an urban area.
solid waste. Even though this facility plays a vital role
in reducing the substantial waste problem of this city, 2.3 Structure of the questionnaire
it causes pollution and odor that spreads to nearby The questionnaire survey consisted of face-to-
residential areas and to its management areas. There face interviews with residents surrounding the MSW
have been more than 500 complaints received from treatment facility. The questionnaire aimed to evaluate
residents living in urban areas approximately 7 km respondents’ perception of odor and attitude toward
away from the landfill site. Surrounding residents have the MSW treatment facility. It consisted of four
complained that they are unable to get fresh air inside components. The first component addressed
their apartments. However, the response from demographics (gender, age, years of living in the
authorities has not satisfied these residents. current address). The second component investigated
odor perception (frequency, intensity, duration,
2.2.2 Site description offensiveness of odors, and factors affecting odors)
Three areas were selected for our investigation and included questions regarding the "time of day" and
zone, which was located in the center of the site with "time of year" that odors are perceived. The third
a radius of approximately 10 km (Figure 2). Table 1 component explored respondents' health issues related
show the characteristics of three sampling sites. to odor impacts. It included the following aspects:
 Tran LH et al. / Environment and Natural Resources Journal 2020; 18(4): 322-332 325

"concern about odors"; "respondent's odor-affected and depressed and pain in the heart), and the final
health"; "health symptoms" associated with odors component was concerned with odor annoyance, odor
(such as headache, cough, nausea, sleep problems, issue management, and general attitude towards the
shortness breath, stuffy nose, anxiety, feeling unhappy MSW treatment facility.

3 N

MSW treatment facility

1
0 1 2 3 km

Figure 2. Survey location (Source: google map)

Table 1. Characteristics of sampling sites

Area 1 Area 2 Area 3

Location 10°40'3.30"N 10°43'31.28"N 10°43'54.72"N
106°39'4.82"E 106°42'45.02"E 106°43'45.35"E
Altitude (above sea level) Approximately a similar altitude
Distance from the landfill 1.5 km 8.2 km 10.0 km
Type of land use Suburban Residential Residential
Temperature (average annual) 26.6oC 27.0oC 27.0oc
Rainfall (annual) 1,400-1,700 mm 1,400-1,700 mm 1,400-1,700 mm
Humidity (average annual) 79.5% 80.0% 80.0%
Wind direction S or SE (Jan-May)
W or SW (Jun-Sep)
NE (Oct-Dec)

2.4 Data collection and processing temperature were collected during the odor
An odor level indicator XP-329III (New concentration measurement. Data on wind speed and
Cosmos Electric Co. Ltd.) was utilized to measure wind direction were collected from met station VVTS
odor concentrations. The method for data collection (Tan Son Nhat international airport) which is provided
entailed field sampling monitoring of sensitive by BREEZE Software. The windrose map was
receivers at each location within a radius of 10 km prepared by using WRPLOT View software, which is
from the center of the landfill site. The readings were freely available on the website of Lake Environment.
recorded for 10 min at each sampling area: 20
observations were recorded from area 1 on Sep 20th, 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
2019; 30 observations were recorded for area 2 on 3.1 Odor measurements
Sep 16th, 2019, and 41 observations were obtained In area 1, the odor concentration ranged from 49
from area 3 on Sep 17th, 2019. Meteorological data to 149 ou/m3 with a mean value of 109.75±39.46
such as wind speed, wind direction, humidity, and ou/m3. This area is located 1.5 km from the landfill
 Tran LH et al. / Environment and Natural Resources Journal 2020; 18(4): 322-332 326

site. The measured levels of odor concentration and related complaints dramatically. The odor levels in
the windrose plot for this area are shown in Figure 3. area 1 are consistent with the perception of the
From this data, we can see that the odor concentration population that was surveyed, where the majority of
in area 1 was more than 7 times the acceptable level of the respondents (more than 55.0%) reported high odor
10-15 ou/m3, which is the level specified by the nuisance levels. This is likely because the area is very
Offensive Odor Control Law (Japan Ministry of the close to the MSW treatment facility and is also located
Environment, 2003). The rapid industrial expansion on the upwind side of the facility, as seen in Figure 2.
and urbanization of Japan during 1960s resulted in a However, the surrounding regions of the MSW
mounting number of complaints related to air treatment facility are profoundly affected by odor
pollution, noise, and offensive odors. To tackle this pollution regardless of the direction of the wind, a
chronic issue, the "Offensive Odor Control Law" was finding which is supported by previous studies
introduced in 1972. Since its inception, the regulation (Badach et al., 2018; Che et al., 2013; Srangsriwong et
has helped reduce the number of offensive-odor al., 2019).

(a) (b)
200
WIND ROSE PLOT: DISPLAY:
Wind Speed
COMMENTS:

180
TSN Station_Overall_20Sep Direction (blowing from)

NORTH
160
Odor concentration (ou/m3)

140 21.3%
DATA PERIOD:
17%
120 Start Date: 9/20/2019 - 00:00
End Date: 9/20/2019 - 23:59

12.8% TOTAL COUNT:

CALM WINDS:

100 8.5%
24 hrs.

AVG. WIND SPEED:

4.17%

4.25% 2.09 m/s

80 >=COMPANY
11.10NAME:
WEST EAST
60 8.80 – 11.10
5.70 – 8.80
MODELER:

40
WIND SPEED

3.60
DATE:– 5.70
(m/s)

>= 11.10

2.10 – 3.60
3/25/2020
8.80 - 11.10

20 5.70 - 8.80
3.60 - 5.70
2.10 - 3.60
0.50 – 2.10
0
0.50 - 2.10

Calms: 4.17%
Calms: 4.17%
13:30
13:21

13:36
13:40
13:43
13:51
14:01
14:05
14:10
14:14
14:20
14:29
14:33
14:40
14:45
14:50
14:55
15:00
15:10
15:18

SOUTH PROJECT NO.:

WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software

Time

Figure 3. (a) Odor concentration; (b) Windrose plot for area 1 of Sep 20th, 2019 (Source: prepared from field survey 2019)

In area 2, which is located 8.2 km away from The results of odor concentration and windrose plot
the facility, the odor concentration ranged between 2 for this area are shown in Figure 5. This area is located
and 44 ou/m3 with a mean value of 18.97±10.84 ou/m3. 10 km from the MSW plant, and includes
Figure 4 shows the results of odor concentration and approximately 86.0% of the respondents who reported
the windrose plot for this area. In this area, the odor odor nuisance in this survey. Area 3 is the sector with
concentration is also above the acceptable limit for the highest perceived threat by odor emission from the
residential areas (Japan Ministry of the Environment, MSW facility, and it exhibited the highest odor
2003). It is important to note that this area is a annoyance level in the survey. However, the average
residential area, and is located in the southwest (SW) odor concentration in area 3 did not exceed the
wind direction (Figure 2). This is a novel finding acceptable limit. When examining our monitoring
because this area is located more than 8 km from the data, we found that the maximum odor concentration
MSW treatment plant, and people still reported odor here was 40 ou/m3. From Figure 5, it is apparent that
nuisance here (almost 80.0% of respondents reported the odor concentration was highest during the period
odor annoyance). However, this could be explained by 18:00-19:00, i.e., 6 to 7 pm. This supports the results
the social demographics of respondents since odor of the perception survey, where the majority of
perception is profoundly influenced by individual respondents claimed that odor nuisance was highest
differences such as gender, age, and occupation (Bliss from 18:00-24:00, i.e., 6 pm to 12 am the next day
et al., 1996; Dalton, 1996). (Figure 8). It should be noted that this is in good
In area 3, the odor concentration ranged from 1 agreement with wind direction as seen in Figure 6
to 40 ou m-3 with a mean value of 10.97±10.50 ou/m3. which shows the windrose plot for area 3 during the
 Tran LH et al. / Environment and Natural Resources Journal 2020; 18(4): 322-332 327

evening time for September 2019. It is apparent that of 57.0%. Moreover, in area 3, there are human
Southwest was the predominant wind direction during activities such as development of infrastructure and
the evening time of September 2019, with a frequency high-rise buildings, which would affect the dispersion.

(a) (b)
45
WIND ROSE PLOT: DISPLAY:
Wind Speed
COMMENTS:
TSN Station_Overall_16Sep

40
Direction (blowing from)

NORTH
35
Odor concentration (ou/m3)

29.7%
30 DATA PERIOD:
23.8% Start Date: 9/16/2019 - 00:00
End Date: 9/16/2019 - 23:59

25 17.8% TOTAL COUNT:

24 hrs.
CALM WINDS:
8.33%
11.9%
AVG. WIND SPEED:
20 5.95% 2.79 m/s

COMPANY NAME:
WEST EAST >= 11.10
15 8.80 – 11.10
MODELER:

10 WIND SPEED
(m/s)
5.70 – 8.80
>= 11.10
8.80 - 11.10
3.60 – 5.70
DATE:
3/25/2020

5
5.70 - 8.80
3.60 - 5.70
2.10 – 3.60
0.50 – 2.10
2.10 - 3.60
0.50 - 2.10

0
Calms: 8.33%

SOUTH Calms: 8.33%

PROJECT NO.:
19:54
16:44
17:00
17:09
17:31
17:55
18:09
18:20
18:40
19:09
19:20
19:24
19:28
19:34
19:45

WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software

Time

Figure 4. (a) Odor concentration; (b) Windrose plot for area 2 of Sep 16th, 2019 (Source: prepared from field survey 2019)

(a) (b)
45
WIND ROSE PLOT: DISPLAY:
Wind Speed
COMMENTS:
TSN Station_Overall_17Sep_Nighttime Evening Direction (blowing from)

40
NORTH
Odor concentration (ou/m3)

35
25.5%
30 DATA PERIOD:
20.4% Start Date: 9/17/2019 - 00:00
End Date: 9/17/2019 - 23:59

25 15.3% TOTAL COUNT:

24 hrs.
CALM WINDS:
0.00%
10.2%
AVG. WIND SPEED:
20 5.1% 4.12 m/s

WEST EAST >=COMPANY

11.10NAME:
15 8.80 – 11.10
5.70 – 8.80
MODELER:
10 WIND SPEED

3.60
DATE:– 5.70
(m/s)

>= 11.10

2.10 – 3.60
8.80 - 11.10 3/25/2020

5
5.70 - 8.80
3.60 - 5.70
2.10 - 3.60
0.50 - 2.10
0.50 – 2.10
0
Calms: 0.00%

Calms: 0.00%
SOUTH PROJECT NO.:
22:00
16:46
16:52
17:42
17:48
18:05
18:20
18:35
18:55
19:05
19:25
19:45
21:20
21:40

23:00

3:52
2:30
3:00
3:15

4:30
4:54

WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software

Time

Figure 5. (a) Odor concentration; (b) Windrose plot for area 3 of Sep 17 th, 2019 (Source: prepared from field survey 2019)
WIND ROSE PLOT: DISPLAY:
Wind Speed
COMMENTS:
TSN Station_Overall_Sep_Nighttime Evening Direction (blowing from)

NORTH Figure 7 shows the difference in odor

concentration in each area. It is clear that odor
17%
13.6%
DATA PERIOD:
Start Date: 9/1/2019 - 19:00
End Date: 9/30/2019 - 23:00
concentration decreases by distance. This finding is
10.2% TOTAL COUNT:
150 hrs.
CALM WINDS:
0.67%
consistent with Gȩbicki et al. (2016), which
6.8%
3.4%
AVG. WIND SPEED:
2.78 m/s determined that the odor concentration from the
municipal landfill in Gda. sk, Poland ranged from
COMPANY NAME:
WEST EAST >= 11.10

WIND SPEED
8.80 – 11.10
MODELER:
5.70 – 8.80
12.50 to 36.70 ou/m3 along the north-east direction.
Furthermore, other research has indicated that the
(m/s)

>= 11.10
8.80 - 11.10
3.60
DATE:
– 5.70
6/19/2020

2.10 – 3.60 spatial distribution of odor concentration from the

5.70 - 8.80
3.60 - 5.70
2.10 - 3.60

0.50 – 2.10
municipal wastewater treatment plant in Poland was
0.50 - 2.10
Calms: 0.67%

SOUTH Calms: 0.67%

PROJECT NO.:

WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software higher in the vicinity of the facility (Barczak and
Figure 6. Windrose plot of area 3 in the evening time for Sep 2019 Kulig, 2016).
(Source: prepared from field survey 2019)
 Tran LH et al. / Environment and Natural Resources Journal 2020; 18(4): 322-332 328

160
Mean of odor concentration
140

Odor concentration (ou/m3)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Distance (km)

Figure 7. Odor concentration in each area (Source: field survey 2019)

3.2 Summary of community survey results characteristic), is summarized in Table 2. The

For a population of 76,602 inhabitants within responses were classified according to a Likert scale;
the investigation area, a minimum number of 409 they were categorized as "not at all, a little bit,
questionnaires were calculated and applied. moderately, very, and extremely". In terms of
Approximately 50.6% of the inhabitants studied were response-related odor annoyance, if the response
male and 49.4% were female. Further, 85.0% of the indicated that the person was "very annoyed" or
inhabitants were over the age of 30 years old. "extremely annoyed," the answer was counted as
Questionnaire data, which dealt with the perception of "percent at-least annoyed" (Freeman and Cudmore,
odor (i.e., frequency, duration, level, and 2002).

Table 2. Results of odor perception by studied area (source: field survey 2018)

Frequency Duration Level Characteristic

<3 km 92.7% at least once a week 61.0% at least 1-4 h 64.6% at least annoyed 98.8% offensive
3-5 km 91.4% at least once a week 64.3% at least 1-4 h 45.7% at least annoyed 94.3% offensive
5-7 km 58.9% at least once a week 63.6% at least 1-4 h 77.7% at least annoyed 95.5% offensive
>7 km 76.6% at least once a week 54.5% at least 14 h 85.5% at least annoyed 93.8% offensive

The results of the community survey indicate once a week). In other words, this area has high
that the odor impact was influenced by wind direction exposure to odor effects. It is also noteworthy that
and seasonal change in the area investigated. The odors are continuously produced by the MSW facility,
observed wind directions were 62.1%, 5.9%, and 1.2% as odors in four areas were perceived for multiple
corresponding to Southwest, West wind, and calm hours daily. The majority of respondents reported that
hour, respectively (Figure 1(c)). It is implied that the the odor from the MSW facility was offensive, and the
high concentration of odor dispersion probably area of less than 3 km from the facility again had the
occurred in the downwind side of the facility. As a highest proportion with 98.8% of respondents
result, nearly 46.2% of respondents perceived bad reporting an offensive odor. Interestingly, the area of
odors between June and August, followed by 33.0% of more than 7 km from the facility had the highest rate
respondents from September to December. This of odor level annoyance (85.5%). Nausea, shortness of
finding is supported by previous works (Damuchali breath, and feelings of unhappiness and depression
and Guo, 2020; Palmiotto et al., 2014), which have were symptoms recorded in the population. Tran et al.
discovered the high concentrations of air pollutants (2019) indicated that residents who live more than 5
downwind of the emission source. As seen in Table 2, km away from the MSW facility had severe odor
the area of less than 3 km from the facility exhibited a annoyance from June to October and the period of time
high perception of odor frequency (i.e., 92.7% at least during which respondents perceived the worst odor is
 Tran LH et al. / Environment and Natural Resources Journal 2020; 18(4): 322-332 329

shown in Figure 8. As shown in Figure 8, the majority next day. This is consistent with the community
of respondents perceived odor pollution during a results.
period between 18:00-24:00, i.e., 6 pm to 12 am in the

60%
1.5 km 8.2 km 10 km
50%
Percentage of respondents

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Nighttime Nighttime Daytime Morning Daytime
Evening Nocturnal Afternoon

Figure 8. Period of perceived odor (Source: field survey 2018)

Table 3 summarizes the concern, annoyance, bad/very bad about MSW facility operation. To deal
and reaction of an area’s population that is dealing with odor issues, approximately 58.0% of people
with odor pollution. The attitude of the populations surveyed close their windows when they detect the
toward the MSW facility operation is also odor, while 0.3% (2 out of 409) leave their homes. A
summarized. The odor level has a strong effect on proportion of respondents reported odor emissions in
exposure and annoyance. Areas more than 7 km from their living areas (i.e., informed authorities). From
the facility again had high proportions of respondents this, it can be inferred that all areas were affected when
that were concerned and annoyed with odor effects compared with an acceptable level of cumulative
(88.3% very/extremely worried and 85.5% adverse odor effect. The criterion for this acceptable
very/extremely annoyed). From this data, it is apparent level is that ≤20% of the population are annoyed
that most of the respondents in the four areas felt (Freeman and Cudmore, 2002).

Table 3. Results of community survey by studied area (source: field survey 2018)

Concern Annoyance Reaction Attitude

<3 km 75.6% very/extremely worried 59.8% very/extremely annoyed 62.2% informed authorities 76.8% bad/very bad
3-5 km 81.4% very/extremely worried 68.6% very/extremely annoyed 45.7% informed authorities 61.4% bad/very bad
5-7 km 75.9% very/extremely worried 71.4% very/extremely annoyed 69.6% informed authorities 88.4% bad/very bad
>7 km 88.3% very/extremely worried 85.5% very/extremely annoyed 60% informed authorities 87.6% bad/very bad

3.3 Comparison between physical condition of odor consciousness, and the effect of different odors
measurement and community survey results (Davoli et al., 2003; De Gisi et al., 2017; Gallego et
The mean odor concentration of the three al., 2008). Personal perception also is related to other
locations and the perceived odor intensity is plotted in environmental stressors, socioeconomic status, and
Figure 9. As seen in this figure, there was a marked disruptions in social activity (Nimmermark, 2004;
difference between mean odor concentration and Sucker et al., 2001). Cognitive differences when
intensity of odor perceived. All areas other than area 1 considering demographics such as age, gender,
showed a remarkable difference in terms of mean odor occupation, and lifestyle habits are regulated further
concentration and perception of odor intensity. This is by psychological variables in olfactory perception
likely because odor perception relies on several (Bowler et al., 1996; Davies and Davies, 1999; Doty,
parameters, such as climatic conditions, subjective 1997; Hayes and Jinks, 2012). Thus, it is important to
 Tran LH et al. / Environment and Natural Resources Journal 2020; 18(4): 322-332 330

note that residents with a higher level of education and odor levels. These residents also exhibited greater
a higher income level felt more annoyed from lower concern about environmental issues in general.

160 90

140 80
70

Odor concentration (ou/m3)

120
60
100

Annoyance %
50
80
40
60
30
40 20
20 10
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Distance (km)
Mean of odor concentration Intensity of odor perceived

Figure 9. Comparison between odor concentration and odor annoyance (Source: field survey 2018 and 2019)

It is known that intermittent odor exposure may and 3 reading 18.97±10.84 ou/m3 and 10.97±10.5
lead to adaptation or sensitivity of individuals, altering ou/m3, respectively.
their capacity to perceive the odor through Additionally, odor concentration and
physiological changes (Dalton and Dilks, 1997; Press respondents’ perception of odor varied by geography.
and Minta, 2000). However, because members of the This study provides useful information for the
community were exposed continuously to industrial management of odor from MSW management
smells, they were accustomed to odors at a peripheral facilities in developing countries like Vietnam.
level. When populations were less conscious of odors, Policymakers should consider public perception when
their attitudes were more disagreeable and more developing regulation or making decisions about
negative (Dalton and Dilks, 1997). It is possible that MSW facilities that also ensure environmental
people who had lived for less than five years at their protection. Since there are no clear guidelines on odor
current address were more sensitive to odor issues in management for landfill operations in Vietnam, this
comparison to those who had lived there for more than research suggests the Japanese Offensive Odor
ten years. Control Law as a reference for Vietnamese authority.
This piece of regulation is a good demonstration of
4. CONCLUSION how to deal with offensive odors from business
In this study, we have investigated the level of activities for the protection of the living environment
odor concentration as well as the perception of odor and human health. Public participation is a very
impact in areas surrounding the MSW treatment plant important aspect of waste management facilities. We
in HCMC, Vietnam. Specifically, the odor level was also recommend ensuring public consultation towards
measured in three areas, namely, area 1, 2, and 3. Area better landfill management. In addition, as touched
1 is 1.5 km upwind, while areas 2 and 3 are downwind upon in this study, socio-demographic parameters
of the facility at distances of 8.2 and 10 km, such as education level and income also significantly
respectively. From the investigation, it was observed influence odor perception, and this can be explored in
that the odor concentration for area 1 was future research.
109.75±39.46 ou/m3. This is considerably higher
than the acceptable level for an area within that radius, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
10-15 ou/m3. As a result, significant odor The authors would like to thank the respondents
concentrations were detected in areas downwind of the who provide all information during the field survey.
facility with observed concentration levels in area 2
 Tran LH et al. / Environment and Natural Resources Journal 2020; 18(4): 322-332 331

REFERENCES Davoli E, Gangai ML, Morselli L, Tonelli D. Characterisation of

Aatamila M, Verkasalo PK, Korhonen MJ, Suominen AL, odorants emissions from landfills by SPME and GC/MS.
Hirvonen MR, Viluksela MK, Nevalainen A. Odour Chemosphere 2003;51(5):357-68.
annoyance and physical symptoms among residents living De Feo G, De Gisi S, Williams ID. Public perception of odour and
near waste treatment centres. Environmental Research environmental pollution attributed to MSW treatment and
2011;111(1):164-70. disposal facilities: A case study. Waste Management
Albrecht A, Fischer G, Brunnemann-Stubbe G, Jäckel U, Kämpfer 2013;33(4):974-87.
P. Recommendations for study design and sampling strategies De Gisi S, Casella P, Sabia G, Farina R, Landolfo P, Notarnicola
for airborne microorganisms, MVOC and odours in the M, et al. Assessing the public perception of islanders regarding
surrounding of composting facilities. International Journal of the implementation of new technologies to optimize the
Hygiene and Environmental Health 2008;211(1-2):121-31. municipal solid waste management system: A Mediterranean
Al-Khatib IA, Ajlouny H, Al-Sari’ MI, Kontogianni S. Residents’ case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 2017;164:1586-601.
concerns and attitudes toward solid waste management Doty RL. Studies of human olfaction from the university of
facilities in Palestine: A case study of Hebron district. Waste Pennsylvania smell and taste center. Chemical Senses
Management and Research 2014;32(3):228-36. 1997;22:565-86.
Al-Yaqout AF, Koushki PA, Hamoda MF. Public opinion and Freeman T, Cudmore R. Review of odor management in New
siting solid waste landfills in Kuwait. Resource, Conservation Zealand. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment [Internet].
and Recycling 2002;35(4):215-27. 2002 [cited 2020 Jun 16]. 2002 Available from:
Badach J, Kolasi. ska P, Paciorek M, Wojnowski W, Dymerski T, https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/odour-tr-
Gębicki J, et al. A case study of odour nuisance evaluation in aug02.pdf.
the context of integrated urban planning. Journal of Fischer G, Albrecht A, Jäckel U, Kämpfer P. Analysis of airborne
Environmental Management 2018;213:417-24. microorganisms, MVOC and odour in the surrounding of
Barczak R, Kulig A. Odour monitoring of a municipal wastewater composting facilities and implications for future
treatment plant in poland by field olfactometry. Chemical investigations. International Journal of Hygiene and
Engineering Transactions 2016;54:331-6. Environmental Health 2008;211(1-2):132-42.
Bliss PJ, Schulz TJ, Senger T, Kaye RB. Odor measurement- Furuseth OJ, Johnson MS. Neighbourhood attitudes towards a
factors affecting olfactometry panel performance. Water sanitary landfill: A North Carolina study. Applied Geography
Science and Technology 1996;34(3-4):549-56. 1988;8(2):135-45.
Blumberg DG, Sasson A. Municipal hotlines and automated Gallego E, Soriano C, Roca FX, Perales JF, Alarcón M, Guardino
weather stations as a tool for monitoring bad odour dispersion: X. Identification of the origin of odour episodes through social
The northern Negev case. Journal of Environmental participation, chemical control and numerical modelling.
Management 2001;63(1):103-11. Atmospheric Environment 2008;42(35):8150-60.
Bowler RM, Huel G, Mergler D, Cone J, Rauch S, Hartney C. Gębicki J, Dymerski T, Namieśnik J. Evaluation of ambient air
Symptom base rates after chemical exposure for White, odour quality in vicinity of municipal landfill using electronic
Hispanic and African Americans. Neurotoxicology 1996;17(3- nose technique. Chemical Engineering Transactions 2016;
4):793-802. 54:253-8.
Capelli L, Sironi S, Del Rosso R, Céntola P, Rossi A, Austeri C. Giusti L. A review of waste management practices and their
Olfactometric approach for the evaluation of citizens' exposure impact on human health. Waste Management 2009;29:2227-
to industrial emissions in the city of Terni, Italy. Science of the 39.
Total Environment 2011;409(3):595-603. Hayes JE, Jinks AL. Evaluation of smoking on olfactory
Capelli L, Sironi S, Del Rosso R, Guillot JM. Measuring odours in thresholds of phenyl ethyl alcohol and n-butanol. Physiology
the environment vs. dispersion modelling: A review. and Behavior 2012;107(2):177-80.
Atmospheric Environment 2013;79:731-43. Hayes JE, Stevenson RJ, Stuetz RM. The impact of malodour on
Che Y, Yang K, Jin Y, Zhang W, Shang Z, Tai J. Residents’ communities: A review of assessment techniques. Science of
concerns and attitudes toward a municipal solid waste landfill: the Total Environment 2014;500:395-407.
Integrating a questionnaire survey and GIS techniques. Henshaw P, Nicell J, Sikdar A. Parameters for the assessment of
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2013; odor impacts on communities. Atmospheric Environment
185(12):10001-13. 2006;40(6):1016-29.
Dalton P. Odor perception and beliefs about risk. Chemical Senses Héroux M, Pagé T, Gélinas C, Guy C. Evaluating odour impacts
1996;21(4):447-58. from a landfilling and composting site: Involving citizens in
Dalton P, Dilks D. Odor, annoyance, and health symptoms in a the monitoring. Water Science and Technology 2004;
residential community exposed to industrial odors. South 50(4):131-7.
Camden Citizens in Action; 1997. p. 1-21. Japan Ministry of the Environment. Odor Measurement Review
Damuchali AM, Guo H. Evaluation of odour properties, their (MOE) [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2020 Mar 9]. Available from:
relationships, and impact of an oil refinery plant on the https://www.env.go.jp/en/air/odor/measure/index.html.
surrounding environment using field measurements. Ko JH, Xu Q, Jang YC. Emissions and control of hydrogen sulfide
Atmospheric Environment 2020;230:117480. at landfills: A review. Critical Reviews in Environmental
Davies CW, Davies S. Prediction of olfactory response based on Science and Technology 2015;45(19):2043-83.
age, gender and smoking habits. Journal of Medical Laner D, Fellner J, Brunner PH. Flooding of municipal solid waste
Engineering and Technology 1999;23(2):73-6. landfills-An environmental hazard? Science of the Total
Environment 2009;407(12):3674-80.
 Tran LH et al. / Environment and Natural Resources Journal 2020; 18(4): 322-332 332

Lim JH, Cha JS, Kong BJ, Baek SH. Characterization of odorous Granville Brook dumpsite, Freetown, Sierra Leone. Journal of
gases at landfill site and in surrounding areas. Journal of Environmental Protection 2013;04(07):665-70.
Environmental Management 2018;206:291-303. Sever LE. Environmental contamination and health effects: What
Naddeo V, Zarra T, Giuliani S, Belgiorno V. Odour impact is the evidence? Toxicology Industrial Health 1997;13(3):145-
assessment in industrial areas. Chemical Engineering 61.
Transactions 2012;30:85-90. Srangsriwong A, Olapiriyakul S, Yenradee P. Factors influencing
New Zealand Ministry for the Environment. Good practice guide public perception and impact distance of a municipal solid
for assessing and managing odour [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 waste dumpsite in Thailand. Asia-Pacific Journal of Science
Apr 13]. Available from: https://www.mfe.govt.nz/ and Technology 2019;24(1):APST-24-01-05.
sites/default/files/media/Air/good-practice-guide-odour.pdf. Steinnes E, Hvatum OO, Bølviken B, Varskog P. Atmospheric
Nicell JA. Assessment and regulation of odour impacts. pollutants and trace gases. Journal of Environmental Quality
Atmospheric Environment 2009;43(1):196-206. 2001;34(1):192-7.
Nimmermark S. Odour influence on well-being and health with Sucker K, Both R, Winneke G. Adverse effects of environmental
specific focus on animal production emissions. Annals of odours: Reviewing studies on annoyance responses and
Agricultural and Environmental Medicine 2004;11(2):163-73. symptom reporting. Water Science and Technology
Palmiotto M, Fattore E, Paiano V, Celeste G, Colombo A, Davoli 2001;44(9):43-51.
E. Influence of a municipal solid waste landfill in the Tran LH, Murayama T, Nishikizawa S. Social impact of odor
surrounding environment: Toxicological risk and odor induced by municipal solid waste treatment facilities in Ho Chi
nuisance effects. Environment International 2014;68:16-24. Minh city. Asian Journal of Environment and Ecology
Parcsi G, Sivret EC, Wang X, Stuetz RM. Odor: Characterisation 2019;16:1-3.
and transformation. Chemical Engineering Transactions UK Environment Agency. Assessment of community response to
2012;30:193-8. odorous emissions [Internet]. 2002 [cited 2020 Apr 13].
Press D, Minta SC. The smell of nature: olfaction, knowledge and Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
the environment. Ethics, Place and Environment government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/29
2000;3(2):173-86. 0405/sp4-095-tr-e-e.pdf.
Rahardyan B, Matsuto T, Kakuta Y, Tanaka N. Resident’s Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI). Measurement of odor impact
concerns and attitudes towards Solid Waste Management by field inspection-Measurement of the impact frequency of
facilities. Waste Management 2004;24(5):437-51. recognizable odors-Grid measurement, (VDI 3940). Verlag
Ranzato L, Barausse A, Mantovani A, Pittarello A, Benzo M, des Vereins Deutscher Ingenieure; 2006.
Palmeri L. A comparison of methods for the assessment of Vrijheid M. Health effects of residence near hazardous waste landfill
odor impacts on air quality: Field inspection (VDI 3940) and sites: A review of epidemiologic literature. Environmental
the air dispersion model CALPUFF. Atmospheric Health Perspectives 2000;108(Suppl 1):101-12.
Environment 2012;61:570-9. Zarra T, Naddeo V, Giuliani S, Belgiorno V. Optimization of field
Sankoh FP, Yan X, Tran Q. Environmental and health impact of inspection method for odor impact assessment. Chemical
solid waste disposal in developing cities: A case study of Engineering Transactions 2011;23:93-8.