Field R W, Kross B C
University of Iowa, Institute of Agricultural Medicine and Occupational Health, Department of Preventive Medicine and Environmental Health, Iowa City 52242.
Am J Public Health. 1990 Aug;80(8):926-30. doi: 10.2105/ajph.80.8.926.
To determine the accuracy and precision of commercially available radon detectors in a field setting, 15 detectors from six companies were exposed to radon and compared to a reference radon level. The detectors from companies that had already passed National Radon Measurement Proficiency Program testing had better precision and accuracy than those detectors awaiting proficiency testing. Charcoal adsorption detectors and diffusion barrier charcoal adsorption detectors performed very well, and the latter detectors displayed excellent time averaging ability. Alternatively, charcoal liquid scintillation detectors exhibited acceptable accuracy but poor precision, and bare alpha registration detectors showed both poor accuracy and precision. The mean radon level reported by the bare alpha registration detectors was 68 percent lower than the radon reference level.
为了在现场环境中确定市售氡探测器的准确性和精密度,将来自六家公司的15个探测器暴露于氡环境中,并与参考氡水平进行比较。已经通过国家氡测量能力验证计划测试的公司生产的探测器比那些等待能力验证测试的探测器具有更好的精密度和准确性。活性炭吸附探测器和扩散阻挡活性炭吸附探测器表现非常出色,后者显示出优异的时间平均能力。相比之下,活性炭液体闪烁探测器显示出可接受的准确性,但精密度较差,而裸α计数探测器的准确性和精密度都很差。裸α计数探测器报告的平均氡水平比氡参考水平低68%。