On harmonization of radon maps

  • Peter Bossew German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), Berlin, Germany
  • Igor Čeliković Vinča” Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Univerity of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
  • Giorgia Cinelli European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Ital
  • Giancarlo Ciotoli Italian National Research Council, CNR-IGAG, Rome, Italy
  • Filipa Domingos University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
  • Valeria Gruber Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Linz, Austria
  • Federica Leonardi Istituto Nazionale Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (INAIL), Rome, Italy
  • Jovana Nikolov University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Science (UNSPMF), Novi Sad, Serbia
  • Gordana Pantelić “Vinča“ Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Univerity of Belgrade, Serbia
  • Alcides Pereira University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
  • Eric Petermann German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), Berlin, Germany
  • Natasa Todorović University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Science (UNSPMF), Novi Sad, Serbia
  • Rosabianca Trevisi Istituto Nazionale Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (INAIL), Rome, Italy
DOI: https://doi.org/10.35815/radon.v3.7554
Keywords: Radon map; Radon priority areas; harmonization; European Basic Safety Standards; Modifiable Areal Unit Problem

Abstract

Background: Maps are important tools for geographic visualization of the state of the environment with respect to resources as well as to hazards. One of the hazards is indoor radon (Rn), believed to be the most important cause of lung cancer after smoking. In particular, as part of Rn mitigation policy and in compliance with the European Basic Safety Standards, EU Member States have to declare areas with elevated indoor Rn concentration levels. However, as this is done by national authorities according to individually chosen criteria, the resulting maps are not easily comparable.

Objective: We aim to identify causes for the lack of compatibility of maps and suggest solutions for the problem.

Design: This study draws from experiences of recent research projects, literature, and personal involvement of the authors in the discussions.

Results: An overview is given on causes and effects of lack of compatibility between maps. Existing experiences are reported. Options for defining lack of compatibility and for identifying it are discussed. Methods for harmonization, that is, remediating lack of compatibility, are addressed.

Conclusions: The difficulty of harmonization increases with the aggregation level of data which support maps. Harmonization is the more difficult, the higher aggregated the data are which support maps. In particular, harmonization of radon priority area maps is technically non-trivial, and theoretical efforts as well as practical tests will have to be undertaken.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References


  1. Cinelli G, Tollefsen T, Bossew P, Gruber V, Bogucarskis K, De Felice L, et al. Digital version of the European Atlas of natural radiation. J Environ Radioact 2019; 196: 240–52. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2018.02.008

  2. European Commission, Joint Research Centre – Cinelli G, De Cort M, Tollefsen T (Eds.). European Atlas of Natural Radiation. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union; 2019. Printed version: ISBN 978-92-76-08259-0; doi: 10.2760/520053; Catalogue number: KJ-02-19-425-EN-C; Online version: ISBN 978-92-76-08258-3; doi: 10.2760/46388; Catalogue number: KJ-02-19-425-EN-N. Available from: https://remon.jrc.ec.europa.eu/About/Atlas-of-Natural-Radiation/Download-page [cited 13 August 2021].

  3. Bossew P, De Cort M, Dubois G, Stöhlker U, Tollefsen T, Wätjen U. AIRDOS – evaluation of existing standards of measurement of ambient dose rate; and of sampling, sample preparation and measurement for estimating radioactivity levels in air. AA N_ TREN/NUCL/S12.378241 JRC Ref. N_ 21894-2004-04 A1CO ISP BE. Download from the private section of EURDEP. Available from: https://eurdep.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Basic/Pages/Private/Downloads/Default.aspx [cited 13 August 2021].

  4. Pebesma E, Cornford D, Dubois G, Heuvelink GBM, Hristopulos D, Pilz J, et al. INTAMAP: the design and implementation of an interoperable automated interpolation web service. Comput Geosci 2011; 37(3): 343–52. doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2010.03.019

  5. European Council. Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation. OJEU 2014; 57(L13): 1–73. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2014:013:FULL&from=EN [cited 13 August 2021].

  6. MetroRADON. Metrology for radon monitoring 2017–2020. Available from: http://metroradon.eu/ [cited 13 August 2021].

  7. Pantelić G, Čeliković I, Živanović M, Vukanac I, Nikolić JK, Cinelli G, et al. Literature review of Indoor radon surveys in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2018. ISBN 978-92-79-97643-8. doi: 10.2760/977726

  8. Pantelić G, Čeliković I, Živanović M, Vukanac I, Nikolić JK, Cinelli G, et al. Qualitative overview of indoor radon surveys in Europe. J Environ Radioact 2019; 204: 163–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2019.04.010

  9. MetroRADON. Deliverable 5 – report and Guideline on the definition, estimation and uncertainty of radon priority areas (RPA). Available from: http://metroradon.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/16ENV10-MetroRADON-D5-with-Annexes_Accepted.pdf [cited 13 August 2021].

  10. Friedmann H. Final results of the Austrian radon project. Health Phys 2005; 89(4): 339–48. doi: 10.1097/01.hp.0000167228.18113.27

  11. Friedmann H, Baumgartner A, Gruber V, Kaineder H, Maringer FJ, Ringer W, et al. The uncertainty in the radon hazard classification of areas as a function of the number of measurements. J Environ Radioact 2017; 173: 6–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2016.08.011

  12. MetroRADON. Deliverable 6 – report on the concept and establishment of a Radon Hazard Index (RHI) including an RHI map of Europe showing areas with high geogenic radon potential and conclusions on the relationships and correlation between indoor Rn concentration and quantities related to geogenic Rn. Available from: http://metroradon.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/16ENV10-MetroRADON-D6_v5.1-with-Annexes_Accepted-1.pdf [cited 13 August 2021].

  13. Laxton JL. Geological map fusion: OneGeology-Europe and INSPIRE. Geol Soc 2017; 408(1): 147–60. doi: 10.1144/sp408.16

  14. Savaton P. The first detailed geological maps of France: contributions of local scientists and mining engineers. Earth Sci Hist 2017; 26(1): 55–73. doi: 10.17704/eshi.26.1.028355877th55714

  15. Gruber V, Baumann S, Alber O, Laubichler C, Bossew P, Petermann E, et al. Comparison of radon mapping methods for the delineation of radon priority areas – an exercise. J Eur Radon Assoc 2021; 2: 5755. doi: 10.35815/radon.v2.5755

  16. Buzzelli M. Modifiable areal unit problem. International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography. 2nd edn., vol. 9. 2020. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10406-8

  17. Cressie N. Change of support and the modifiable areal unit problem. Geogr Syst 1996; 3: 159–80. Available from: www.uow.edu.au/niasra/our-research/centre-for-environmental-informatics/people/dr-noel-cressie/ [cited 15 January 2021].

  18. Fotheringham AS, Wong DWS. The modifiable areal unit problem in multivariate statistical analysis. Environ Plan A 1991; 23: 1025–44. doi: 10.1068/a231025

  19. Gehlke CE, Biehl K. Certain effects of grouping upon the size of the correlation coefficient in census tract material. J Am Statist Assoc 1934; 29(185A): 169–70. doi: 10.2307/2277827

  20. Dubois G. An overview of radon surveys in Europe. Report EUR 21892 EN. Scientific and Technical Research Series. 2005. ISBN 92-79-01066-2. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260095238_An_overview_of_radon_surveys_in_Europe [cited 13 August 2021].

  21. Isaaks EH, Srivastava RM. An introduction to applied geostatistics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1989, 561 p. ISBN 0-19-505012-6, ISBN 0-19-505013-4.

  22. Petermann E, Meyer H, Nussbaum M, Bossew P. Mapping the geogenic radon potential in Germany using machine learning. Sci Tot Environ 2021; 754: 142291. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142291

  23. Ciotoli G, Voltaggio M, Tuccimei P, Soligo M, Pasculli A, Beaubien SE, et al. Geographically weighted regression and geostatistical techniques to construct the geogenic radon potential map of the Lazio region: a methodological proposal for the European Atlas of Natural Radiation. J Environ Radioact 2017; 166: 355–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2016.05.010

  24. Bucci S, Pratesi G, Viti ML, Pantani M, Bochicchio F, Venoso G. Radon in workplaces: first results of an extensive survey and comparison with radon in homes. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2011; 145(2–3): 202–5. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncr040

  25. Žunić ZS, Bossew P, Bochicchio F, Veselinovic N, Carpentieri C, Venoso G, et al. The relation between radon in schools and in dwellings: a case study in a rural region of Southern Serbia. J Environ Radioact 2017; 167: 188–200. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2016.11.024

  26. Trevisi T. Are radon priority areas, identified on survey in dwellings, representative of radon levels in workplaces? JERA 2021; this issue.

  27. MetroRADON. Deliverable 3 – report on indoor and geogenic radon surveys in Europe, including their strategies, the methodologies employed, inconsistencies in the results, and potential methodologies to harmonise data and reduce inconsistencies. Available from: http://metroradon.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/16ENV10-MetroRADON-D3_accepted.pdf [cited 13 August 2021].

  28. Bossew P, Cinelli G, Ciotoli GC, Crowley QG, De Cort M, Elío Medina J, et al. Development of a Geogenic Radon Hazard Index – concept, history, experiences. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17(11): 4134. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17114134

  29. MetroRADON. Deliverable 4 – report on the results from the on-site comparison of indoor radon measurements and geogenic radon measurements under field conditions together with guidelines/recommendations to assist the implementation of the EU-BSS. Available from: http://metroradon.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/16ENV10-MetroRADON_D4_final_accepted.pdf [cited 13 August 2021].

  30. Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of information. Bell Syst Tech J 1948; 27: 379–423 & 623–56. doi: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x

  31. Cinelli G, Bochicchio F, Bossew F, Carpentieri C, De Cort M, Gruber V, et al. Similarities and differences between radon surveys across Europe: results from MetroRADON questionnaire. JERA 2021 (under review).

    32. 32. Petermann E, Bossew P. Mapping indoor radon hazard in Germany: the geogenic component. Sci Tot Environ 2021; 780: 146601. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146601
  32. Goovaerts P. A coherent geostatistical approach for combining choropleth map and field data in the spatial interpolation of soil properties. Eur J Soil Sci 2011; 62(3): 371–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2011.01368.x

Published
2022-03-04
How to Cite
Bossew P., Čeliković I., Cinelli G., Ciotoli G., Domingos F., Gruber V., Leonardi F., Nikolov J., Pantelić G., Pereira A., Petermann E., Todorović N., & Trevisi R. (2022). On harmonization of radon maps. Journal of the European Radon Association, 3. https://doi.org/10.35815/radon.v3.7554
Issue
Volume 3, 2022
Section
Special issue - European Radon Week 2020

Most read articles by the same author(s)