The assessment of odour annoyance varies vastly among countries even within the European Union. Using so-called odour-hour frequencies offers the distinct possibility for either applying dispersion models or field inspections, both generally assumed to be equivalent. In this study, odour-hours based on field inspections according to the European standard EN 16841-1 (2017) in the vicinity of a pig-fattening farm have been compared with modelled ones using the Lagrangian particle model GRAL, which uses odour-concentration variances for computing odour hours as recently proposed by Oettl and Ferrero (2017). Using a threshold of 1 ou m⁻³ (ou = odour units) for triggering odour hours in the model, as prescribed by the German guideline for odour assessment, led to reasonable agreements between the two different methodologies. It is pointed out that the individual odour sensitivity of qualified panel members, who carry out field inspections, is of crucial importance for selecting a proper odour-hour model. Statistical analysis of a large number of data stemming from dynamic olfactometry (EN 13725, 2003), that cover a wide range of odorants, suggests that the prescribed method in Germany for modelling odour hours may likely result in an overestimation, and hence, equivalence with field inspections is not given. The dataset is freely available on request.

即使在欧盟内部，各国对气味烦恼的评估也有很大差异。使用所谓的气味小时频率为应用色散模型或现场检查提供了明显的可能性，两者通常被认为是等效的。在这项研究中，将根据符合欧洲标准EN 16841-1（2017）的养猪场附近野外检查的气味时数与使用拉格朗日粒子模型GRAL（使用气味浓度）进行建模的气味时数进行了比较Oettl和Ferrero（2017）最近提出的计算气味小时数的方差。使用1 ou m ^-3的阈值根据德国气味评估指南的规定，用于触发模型中的气味小时的（ou =气味单位）导致了两种不同方法之间的合理协议。需要指出的是，进行现场检查的合格小组成员的个人气味敏感性对于选择合适的气味小时模型至关重要。对来自动态嗅觉测定法（EN 13725，2003年）的大量数据的统计分析，这些数据涵盖了广泛的气味剂，表明德国规定的用于模拟气味时间的方法可能会导致高估，因此与没有进行现场检查。该数据集可根据要求免费提供。