A Gas Chromatograph-Pedestal Olfactometer (GC-PO) for the Study of Odor Mixtures

Gas chromatography - Olfactometry (GC-O) purifies odorants and delivers them as 1 to 2 second doses to an olfactometer where their odor properties (quale and intensity) can be studied independent of other odors. Adding an odor to the olfactometer air before combining it with the GC effluent creates an odor pedestal upon which an odorant eluting from the GC can be studied to provide insight into mixture perception. This paper describes the development and testing of a gas chromatography - pedestal olfactometer (GC-PO) that produces a Gaussian shaped distribution of one odorant in a background of constant odor composition (the pedestal). A constant pedestal composition was generated by a dynamic headspace released from poly(ethylene) glycol (PEG) solutions into the humidified air of a gas chromatograph-olfactometer (GCO). A magnetic stirrer kept the solvent at the interface in equilibrium with the remainder of the solution producing a constant (+ 10%) pedestal concentration. The resulting pedestal was then combined with a GC effluent and sent to the sniff port of the GC-O. Hexanal, octanal and decanal were analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry to test the performance and stability of the pedestal. Volatile concentrations of compounds released in the pedestal of GC-PO were linear, constant and could be turned on and off without any detectable background or residual odo

A Three-Stage Psychosocial Engineering-Based Method to Support Controversy and Promote Mutual Understanding between Stakeholders: The Case of CO₂ Geological Storage

Subsurface engineering projects with high socio-environmental impacts raise strong controversies among stakeholders, which often affects the projects’ implementation. These controversies originate from a loss of public confidence in the decision-making process, lack of information about new technologies, and the desire of some promoters to avoid conflict. The lack of methodologies to structure each stage of the debate can, in this context, lead to the crystallization of the stakeholders’ positions and to the failure of the project. To promote mutual understanding and constructive exchanges, this article presents a combination of methods based on psychosocial engineering principles to support debate and encourage stakeholders to participate with an openness posture. The method is based on a set of studies conducted as part of the “Social Governance for Subsurface Engineering” project and includes three stages: (1) develop stakeholders’ knowledge so that they are able to participate in the debate with an informed viewpoint; (2) commit stakeholders to participate in the debate by adopting a posture conducive to constructive exchanges; and (3) structure exchanges between stakeholders through the use of cooperative methods facilitating the adoption of an openness posture

A Three-Stage Psychosocial Engineering-Based Method to Support Controversy and Promote Mutual Understanding between Stakeholders: The Case of CO2 Geological Storage

International audienceSubsurface engineering projects with high socio-environmental impacts raise strong controversies among stakeholders, which often affects the projects’ implementation. These controversies originate from a loss of public confidence in the decision-making process, lack of information about new technologies, and the desire of some promoters to avoid conflict. The lack of methodologies to structure each stage of the debate can, in this context, lead to the crystallization of the stakeholders’ positions and to the failure of the project. To promote mutual understanding and constructive exchanges, this article presents a combination of methods based on psychosocial engineering principles to support debate and encourage stakeholders to participate with an openness posture. The method is based on a set of studies conducted as part of the “Social Governance for Subsurface Engineering” project and includes three stages: (1) develop stakeholders’ knowledge so that they are able to participate in the debate with an informed viewpoint; (2) commit stakeholders to participate in the debate by adopting a posture conducive to constructive exchanges; and (3) structure exchanges between stakeholders through the use of cooperative methods facilitating the adoption of an openness posture