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

Daniel Rabago, Ismael Fuente, Santiago Celaya, Alicia Fernandez, Enrique Fernandez, Jorge Quindos, Ricardo Pol, Giorgia Cinelli, Luis Quindos and Carlos Sainz
Additional contact information
Daniel Rabago: Radon Group, University of Cantabria, Santander, 39011 Cantabria, Spain
Ismael Fuente: Radon Group, University of Cantabria, Santander, 39011 Cantabria, Spain
Santiago Celaya: Radon Group, University of Cantabria, Santander, 39011 Cantabria, Spain
Alicia Fernandez: Radon Group, University of Cantabria, Santander, 39011 Cantabria, Spain
Enrique Fernandez: Radon Group, University of Cantabria, Santander, 39011 Cantabria, Spain
Jorge Quindos: Radon Group, University of Cantabria, Santander, 39011 Cantabria, Spain
Ricardo Pol: Radon Group, University of Cantabria, Santander, 39011 Cantabria, Spain
Giorgia Cinelli: European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), I-21027 Ispra, Italy
Luis Quindos: Radon Group, University of Cantabria, Santander, 39011 Cantabria, Spain
Carlos Sainz: Radon Group, University of Cantabria, Santander, 39011 Cantabria, Spain

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 5, 1-13

Abstract: Interlaboratory comparisons are a basic part of the regular quality controls of laboratories to warranty the adequate performance of test and measurements. The exercise presented in this article is the comparison of indoor radon gas measurements under field conditions performed with passive detectors and active monitors carried out in the Laboratory of Natural Radiation (LNR). The aim is to provide a direct comparison between different methodologies and to identify physical reasons for possible inconsistencies, particularly related to sampling and measurement techniques. The variation of radon concentration during the comparison showed a big range of values, with levels from approximately 0.5 to 30 kBq/m 3 . The reference values for the two exposure periods have been derived from a weighted average of participants’ results applying an iterative algorithm. The indexes used to analyze the participants’ results were the relative percentage difference D (%), the Zeta score ( ζ ), and the z-score ( z ). Over 80% of the results for radon in air exposure are within the interval defined by the reference value and 20% and 10% for the first and the second exposure, respectively. Most deviations were detected with the overestimating of the exposure using passive detectors due to the related degassing time of detector holder materials.

Keywords: radon; proficiency test; quality assurance; metrology; interlaboratory comparison (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/5/1780/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/5/1780/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:5:p:1780-:d:330446

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().