Short-Term vs. Long-Term: A Critical Review of Indoor Radon Measurement Techniques

Abstract

Radon is a known carcinogen, and the accurate assessment of indoor levels is essential for effective mitigation strategies. While long-term testing provides the most reliable data, short-term testing (STT) offers a quicker and more cost-effective alternative. This review evaluated the accuracy of STT in predicting annual radon averages and compared testing strategies in Europe (where long-term measurements are common) and the United States (where STT is prevalent). Twenty (20) studies were systematically identified through searches in scientific databases and the grey literature, focusing on STT accuracy and radon management. This review revealed several factors that influence the accuracy of STT. Most studies recommended a minimum four-day test for initial screening, but accuracy varied with radon levels. For low levels (<75 Bq/m3), a one-week STT achieved high confidence (>95%) in predicting annual averages. However, accuracy decreased for moderate levels (approximately 50% success rate), necessitating confirmation with longer testing periods (3 months). High radon levels made STT unsuitable due to significant fluctuations. Seasonality also played a role, with winter months providing a more representative picture of annual radon averages. STT was found to be a useful method for screening low-risk areas with low radon concentrations. However, its limitations were evident in moderate- and high-level scenarios. While a minimum of four days was recommended, longer testing periods (3 months or more) were crucial for achieving reliable results, particularly in areas with potential for elevated radon exposure. This review suggests the need for further research to explore the possibility of harmonizing radon testing protocols between Europe and the United States.