Testing of thoron cross-interference of continuous radon measuring instruments

Turtiainen, Tuukka; Mitev, K.; Dehqanzada, Rohafza; Holmgren, Olli; Georgiev, S.

doi:10.35815/radon.v3.7694

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The declared accuracy and reproducibility of RadonEye Plus2 are both <10%. A study of the influence of thoron ( 220 Rn with half-life of 55.8(3) s [12]) on radon monitors has shown that RadonEye Plus2 is sensitive to thoron [13,14]. Although, this may be a drawback in rare cases in which thoron is present in the environment, it indicates that the diffusion of radon gas inside the detector's chamber is relatively fast.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study of the performance and time response of the RadonEye Plus2 continuous radon monitor

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study of the performance and time response of the RadonEye Plus2 continuous radon monitor

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Amongst these are as follows: calibration factor, linearity of response, temporal response, thoron cross-interference, etc. In a previous study, the thoron cross-interference of various electronic detectors has been studied systematically (1). During these tests, the RadonEye +2 (RE) electronic radon detectors (2) demonstrated excellent sensitivity to 222 Rn and quick temporal response, which outlined them as good candidates to be tried out in campaigns for continuous 222 Rn monitoring.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent work with electronic radon detectors for continuous Radon-222 monitoring

Mitev¹,

Georgiev²,

Dimitrova³

et al. 2022

radon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Sensitive electronic radon detectors can be an advantageous solution for continuous monitoring of radon dynamics in dwellings and workplaces. In order to investigate their applicability, such detectors must be subjected to adequate metrological assurance, and their performance in field conditions must be tested and evaluated. Objectives: To perform laboratory and field tests in order to evaluate the applicability of RadonEye+2 instruments for continuous radon monitoring. Results: In this work, we have performed laboratory tests of 36 RadonEye+2 detectors, which appear to have linear response for 222Rn concentrations below 3.5 kBq/m3 and a non-linear response (<15%) in the interval from 3.5 to 7 kBq/m3. Their response to 222Rn at 4.7 kBq/m3 is within 15% to the reference. In experiments with sharp variation of the 222Rn concentration, the detectors show fast response within 2 h. For the application of the detectors in dwellings and workplaces, we have developed a database, which collects, stores and visualises the RadonEye data. The database proved to be very useful tool, not only for data analysis but also for the identification of interruptions in the detectors operation and/or their connection to the internet. In a pilot 10-month-long study with three detectors located in different dwellings, we have observed more than 91% uptime of the online data collection from the detectors and more than 96% uptime of the data recording in the internal memory of the instruments. Conclusions: Overall, the results show that the RadonEye+2 instruments are very suitable for continuous radon monitoring and may be useful for follow-up of radon dynamics in long-term measurement campaigns in homes and workplaces.

show abstract