An interlaboratory comparison for European radon calibration facilities was conducted to evaluate the establishment of a harmonized quality level for the activity concentration of radon in air and to demonstrate the performance of the facilities when calibrating measurement instruments for radon. Fifteen calibration facilities from 13 different European countries participated. They represented different levels in the metrological hierarchy: national metrology institutes and designated institutes, national authorities for radiation protection and participants from universities. The interlaboratory comparison was conducted by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) and took place from 2018 to 2020. Participants were requested to measure radon in atmospheres of their own facilities according to their own procedures and requirements for metrological traceability. A measurement device with suitable properties was used to determine the comparison values. The results of the comparison showed that the radon activity concentrations that were determined by European calibration facilities complying with metrological traceability requirements were consistent with each other and had common mean values. The deviations from these values were normally distributed. The range of variation of the common mean value was a measure of the degree of agreement between the participants. For exposures above 1000 Bq/m3, the variation was about 4% for a level of confidence of approximately 95% (k=2). For lower exposure levels, the variation increased to about 6%.

No abstract

The population-averaged risk rate and the annual average effective dose due to residential radon in Germany were calculated. The calculations were based on an epidemiological approach taking into account the age- and gender-specific lung cancer incidence rates for the German population and the excess relative risk of 0.16 per 100 Bq·m-3 for residential radon. In addition, the risk estimates adjusted for the smoking habits were determined. The population-averaged risk rate for the whole population was estimated with 4.1·10-5 y-1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4·10-5-7.6·10-5 y-1). Residential radon causes a detriment per year of 3.3·10-5 y-1 (95% CI 1.1·10-5-6.0·10-5 y-1), which corresponds to an annual average effective dose of 0.6 mSv (95% CI 0.2-1.1 mSv). Annually, ~3400 lung cancer incidences are attributed to residential radon. The results from the epidemiological approach exercised in this study are considerably lower than the effective dose, which would be obtained from the dose conversion coefficient calculated using biokinetic and dosimetric models.

This paper analyses the data having been gathered from interlaboratory comparisons of passive radon instruments over 10 y with respect to the measurement accuracy. The measurement accuracy is discussed in terms of the systematic and the random measurement error. The analysis shows that the systematic measurement error of the most instruments issued by professional laboratory services can be within a range of ±10 % from the true value. A single radon measurement has an additional random measurement error, which is in the range of up to ±15 % for high exposures to radon (>2000 kBq h m(-3)). The random measurement error increases for lower exposures. The analysis especially applies to instruments with solid-state nuclear track detectors and results in proposing criteria for testing the measurement accuracy. Instruments with electrets and charcoal have also been considered, but the low stock of data enables only a qualitative discussion.

Radon is considered to be the main source of human exposure to natural radiation. As stated by the World Health Organization, the exposure due to the inhalation of indoor radon is much greater than the one via the ingestion of water as radon degasses from water during handling. In response to these concerns about the universal presence of radon, environmental assessment studies are regularly commissioned to assess the radon exposure of public and workers. The credibility of such studies relies on the quality and reliability of radon analysis as well as on the sample representativeness of the radiological situation. The standard-setting approach, based on consensus, seemed to lend itself to a settlement of technical aspects of potential comparison. At present, two Working Groups of the International Standardization Organization are focussing on drafting standards on radon and its decay products measurement in air and water. These standards, which aim for a set of rigorous metrology practices, will be useful for persons in charge of the initial characterisation of a site with respect to natural radioactivity as well as to those performing the routine surveillance of specific sites.