The Science of Nuisance: Quantifying Odor Emissions from Composting and Waste Facilities
By Paul E. Rosenfeld, M.S., Ph.D., Principal Environmental Chemist, RoseyFields LLC, Santa Monica, California
Odor as a scientifically measurable exposure, not just an annoyance
Nuisance litigation over odor from composting, biosolids, and waste-handling facilities is often treated as a subjective quality-of-life dispute. Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld, M.S., Ph.D. of RoseyFields LLC has spent much of his career demonstrating that odor emissions can instead be measured, classified, and modeled with the same rigor applied to any other airborne contaminant, work that predates and directly informed his litigation testimony in composting-nuisance cases (Davis, 2017).
A community composting-facility nuisance case in Washington State
In litigation brought by residents near Cedar Grove Composting’s facility in Snohomish County, Washington, alleging that odor emissions from the facility created a nuisance affecting nearby properties, Dr. Rosenfeld applied his composting-odor research directly to the facility’s operations and emissions profile (Davis, 2017).
The odor wheel: a classification tool developed for exactly this purpose
Dr. Rosenfeld and coauthors developed and published an odor wheel classification system specifically for evaluating human-health risk criteria at compost facilities, providing a structured, repeatable way to categorize and communicate the character and intensity of odor complaints rather than relying on generic nuisance language (Rosenfeld et al., 2007).
Extending the classification framework across the urban environment
That same odor wheel methodology was extended in a companion publication addressing odors from drinking water, wastewater, compost, and the broader urban environment, establishing that the classification approach is not specific to a single facility type but generalizes across odor-generating industries (Rosenfeld & Suffet, 2007).
Quantifying odorant emissions directly at the source
Beyond classification, Dr. Rosenfeld’s research quantified actual odorant emissions from composting operations, measuring biosolids odor and odorant emissions from windrows, static piles, and biofilters to establish which specific stages of the composting process generate the greatest odorant load (Rosenfeld et al., 2004).
Engineering controls with a documented evidence base
That same body of research evaluated engineering controls for odor reduction, including the use of high-carbon wood ash and two-stage biofilters to control compost and biosolids odor emissions, giving Dr. Rosenfeld’s litigation opinions a documented basis for assessing whether a defendant facility employed feasible, published control technologies (Rosenfeld & Suffet, 2004; Rosenfeld & Grey, 2003).
Why there is no federal odor NAAQS
Unlike criteria pollutants such as sulfur dioxide or particulate matter, odor itself is not directly regulated under a federal National Ambient Air Quality Standard; odor nuisance claims are instead typically governed by state and local nuisance and air-quality regulations, making the underlying scientific characterization of the odor, rather than a bright-line federal numeric limit, central to the litigation (Rosenfeld & Suffet, 2004).
Health-relevant compounds underlying compost odor
Composting and biosolids odor is driven by specific volatile compounds, including reduced sulfur compounds and volatile organic acids, that have documented health-relevant effects at sufficiently high concentrations, distinguishing genuine health-risk-relevant odor emissions from purely aesthetic complaints (Rosenfeld et al., 2007).
Applying the same logic to a modern industrial composting operation
The Cedar Grove matter involved a large-scale, modern industrial composting operation processing substantial volumes of yard and food waste, a different scale than some of the biosolids-application research underlying Dr. Rosenfeld’s earlier publications, but governed by the same underlying odorant-generation and control-technology principles.
Why peer-reviewed odor science strengthens a nuisance claim
A nuisance claim resting on published, peer-reviewed odor classification and quantification methodology is materially different from one resting solely on lay testimony about smell. Dr. Rosenfeld’s twenty-year record of composting and biosolids odor research gives Washington State litigation over the Cedar Grove facility, and comparable matters elsewhere, a scientific foundation most odor-nuisance cases lack.
The continuing relevance of odor science to waste-facility siting
As composting and organic-waste diversion programs expand nationally to meet state recycling mandates, conflicts between facility operations and nearby residential communities are likely to increase. Dr. Rosenfeld’s odor classification and control-technology research remains directly applicable to evaluating those future disputes. More information on Dr. Rosenfeld’s odor and air-quality research is available through RoseyFields.com.
References
1. Davis M, Davis J, et al. v Cedar Grove Composting Inc. Case No. 13-2-03987-5, Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish.
2. Rosenfeld PE, Clark JJJ, Hensley AR, Suffet M. The use of an odor wheel classification for evaluation of human health risk criteria for compost facilities. Water Sci Technol. 2007;55(5):345-357.
3. Rosenfeld PE, Suffet IH. The anatomy of odour wheels for odours of drinking water, wastewater, compost and the urban environment. Water Sci Technol. 2007;55(5):335-344.
4. Rosenfeld PE, Grey MA, Sellew P. Measurement of biosolids odor and odorant emissions from windrows, static pile and biofilter. Water Environ Res. 2004;76(4):310-315.
5. Rosenfeld PE, Suffet IH. Control of compost odor using high carbon wood ash. Water Sci Technol. 2004;49(9):171-178.
6. Rosenfeld PE, Grey MA. Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation Symposium; June 2003; Orlando, FL.
7. Rosenfeld PE, Suffet IH. Understanding odorants associated with compost, biomass facilities, and the land application of biosolids. Water Sci Technol. 2004;49(9):193-199.
8. Rosenfeld PE, Henry CL. Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. J Environ Qual. 2000;29:1662-1668.
9. Rosenfeld PE, Henry CL, Bennett D. Wastewater dewatering polymer affects on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environ Res. 2001;73(4):363-367.
10. Rosenfeld PE, Henry CL. Activated carbon and wood ash sorption of wastewater, compost, and biosolids odorants. Water Environ Res. 2001;73:388-393.
11. Rosenfeld PE. RoseyFields LLC: Odor and Air Quality Assessment for Waste and Composting Facilities. Santa Monica, CA: RoseyFields LLC; 2026.
12. US Environmental Protection Agency. Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models. 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W. Fed Regist. 2017;82(10):5182-5235.
13. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Hydrogen Sulfide. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2016.
14. Washington State Department of Ecology. Air Quality Program: Nuisance and Odor Regulations. WAC 173-400.