4.6 Article

Sensory evaluation of emissions from selected building products exposed to ozone

Journal

INDOOR AIR
Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages 223-231

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0668.2003.00182.x

Keywords

climate chamber study; emission; indoor chemistry; odor; ozone; perceived air quality

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The interaction of ozone with eight different building products was studied in test chambers. The products were plasterboard, two types of paints on plasterboard, two types of carpet, linoleum, pinewood, and melamine-covered particleboard. Four months of conditioning prior to the experiment had left the products with a low emission. The products' ability to remove ozone from the air covered a wide range. For three of the products ( plasterboard with paint, carpet, and pinewood), it was shown that the removal was primarily due to interactions in the products' surfaces and only to a minor extent due to gas-phase reactions. Sensory evaluations were carried out for five of the products, with different ozone-removal potentials. A sensory panel assessed the emissions from sets of two specimens of each product; one specimen was exposed to a high, but realistic, ozone concentration (10 or 80 ppb) and one specimen was exposed to no ozone ( background level <3 ppb). The panel assessed odor intensity and was asked to choose which odor of the two specimens they preferred. The perceivable changes in emissions due to exposure of the products to ozone depended on the type of product. The greatest effect was seen for carpet. Carpet was the only product that showed significantly higher odor intensity when exposed to ozone. Besides, the effect of ozone on preference was strongest for carpet and resulted in a clear negative sensory evaluation. A similar but less pronounced effect was seen for pinewood and plasterboard with paint. No clear preference was seen for melamine and linoleum.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available