Dicu Tiberius, Botoş Marius, Cucoş Alexandra, Grecu Şerban, Florică Ştefan, Tunyagi Arthur
"Constantin Cosma" Radon Laboratory (LiRaCC), Faculty of Environmental Science and Engineering, "Babeş-Bolyai" University, Fântânele Street, No. 30, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, C. Daicoviciu Street, No. 15, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Heliyon. 2024 Aug 31;10(17):e37144. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37144. eCollection 2024 Sep 15.
Effective mitigation of the health impacts of radon exposure begins with accurate measurement of this environmental contaminant. Typically, radon surveys require measurements over a period of several months. This process involves the application of temporal correction factors (TCF). Disparities in indoor radon concentration (IRC) are evident across building types. While the integrated technique has traditionally been considered the most reliable for measuring IRC, the active method is becoming more prevalent due to the availability of commercial radon measurement instruments. The aim of this study is to compare IRC using passive (CR-39) and active (ICA device) methods across 69 indoor spaces, including 35 workplaces and 34 residential buildings. The investigation was conducted over a span of one year and included 966 CR-39 detectors that were replaced every 3 and 6 months, respectively, to assess seasonal fluctuations and facilitate the computation of TCF. Statistically significant differences in IRC were observed between residential and workplace buildings (p < 0.001). Among workplaces, educational and research institutions showed the highest average IRC (166 Bq/m), while hospitals exhibited the lowest (25 Bq/m). Significant differences in TCF were found between the two measurement methods (p < 0.05), making TCF specific to the passive method inapplicable to active method. Moreover, distinctions between workplace and residential buildings, including the presence of air conditioning units and differing occupancy patterns, lead to substantial differences in both IRC (p < 0.001) and TCF. The assessment of radon exposure based on room occupancy duration revealed substantial variations: workplaces showed lower actual exposure (62 Bq/m vs. 75 Bq/m, p < 0.001), while residential settings, particularly at night, displayed higher exposure (278 Bq/m vs. 245 Bq/m, p = 0.02) than integrated measurements suggest. Continuous monitoring systems offer critical insights into true radon exposure levels.
有效减轻氡暴露对健康的影响始于对这种环境污染物的准确测量。通常,氡调查需要在几个月的时间内进行测量。这个过程涉及到应用时间校正因子(TCF)。不同建筑类型的室内氡浓度(IRC)存在明显差异。虽然传统上认为积分技术是测量IRC最可靠的方法,但由于商用氡测量仪器的出现,主动测量方法正变得越来越普遍。本研究的目的是比较在69个室内空间中使用被动(CR - 39)和主动(ICA设备)方法测量的IRC,其中包括35个工作场所和34个住宅建筑。调查持续了一年,包括966个CR - 39探测器,分别每3个月和6个月更换一次,以评估季节性波动并便于计算TCF。在住宅和工作场所建筑之间观察到IRC存在统计学上的显著差异(p < 0.001)。在工作场所中,教育和研究机构的平均IRC最高(166 Bq/m),而医院的IRC最低(25 Bq/m)。两种测量方法之间的TCF存在显著差异(p < 0.05),这使得特定于被动方法的TCF不适用于主动方法。此外,工作场所和住宅建筑之间的差异,包括空调设备的存在和不同的入住模式,导致IRC(p < 0.001)和TCF都存在显著差异。基于房间占用时长对氡暴露的评估显示出很大差异:工作场所的实际暴露较低(62 Bq/m对75 Bq/m,p < 0.001),而住宅环境,特别是在夜间,显示出比积分测量结果更高的暴露(278 Bq/m对245 Bq/m,p = 0.02)。连续监测系统为真实的氡暴露水平提供了关键见解。