Main results of the international intercomparison of passive radon detectors under field conditions in Marie Curie’s tunnel in Lurisia (Italy)

Abstract

Abstract. In recent years a large number of radon intercomparison exercises has been organized; most of them took place in radon chambers, in reference atmosphere of the parameter to control (i.e. radon gas) under temperature, humidity and atmospheric pressure stable conditions. In 2014, in the tunnel belonging to the Lurisia spas complex (Lurisia, Piedmont, Italy), with natural high concentrations of uranium and radon gas, an intercomparison exercise has been held to give to radon measurement services and laboratories the possibility to test their passive systems under fi eld conditions, which are less controlled and much more challenging. The response of laboratories was very positive: 46 participants from 10 European countries and 3 non-European countries. Generally about 80% of results of participants were considered acceptable even if it was observed a global trend of a substantial underestimation of the actual radon concentration.

Intercomparison of Indoor Radon Measurements Under Field Conditions In the Framework of MetroRADON European Project

“…However, the real scenarios, dwellings, and working places, where the radon monitors or passive detectors are laid can differ from the stable conditions usually performed to test them. Accordingly, some intercomparisons have been carried out in field environments in order reproduce such situations, which should be periodically conducted [4][5][6][7]. The exercise presented in this article is the comparison of indoor radon gas measurements under field conditions performed with passive detectors, giving an integrated measurement over time, and active monitors, continuously monitoring radon concentration, within the European MetroRADON project (http://metroradon.eu/).…”

“…A total of 23 groups of passive detectors and 22 active monitors were exposed in Room1 (see Figure 2). The statistical criteria employed to select the number of exposed and transit detectors were based on the usual international intercomparison requirements [6,7,12] and with enough of a number that assured obtaining a representative average with a low uncertainty. order to decide when to remove the passive detectors of every exposure period.…”

“…However, the real scenarios, dwellings, and working places, where the radon monitors or passive detectors are laid can differ from the stable conditions usually performed to test them. Accordingly, some intercomparisons have been carried out in field environments in order reproduce such situations, which should be periodically conducted [4][5][6][7].…”

Radon Kinetics in a Basement Space Measured with Different Devices

“…Thorough analysis and comparison of different models of non-integrating active radon monitors under realistic and variable conditions would provide valuable information for consumers and researchers alike. However, published work intercomparing radon monitors, often focusing on integrating detectors or performed under laboratory conditions, is somewhat limited (Burghele and Cosma 2013; Cardellini et al 2016; Gunning et al 2016; Janik et al 2010; Papp et al 2017).…”

Main results of the second AIRP international radon-in-field intercomparison for passive measurement devices

“…The main scope was to test passive radon devices exposed in "extreme" environmental conditions (average radon activity concentration above 10,000 Bq/m 3 , huge fluctuations of radon concentration values and relative humidity near to 95%). More details are available elsewhere (Cardellini et al, 2016a(Cardellini et al, , 2016b.…”