Long-term evaluation of a reusable radon-in-water proficiency test

Uttam Saha; Pamela Turner; David Parks; Derek Cooper; Michael Kitto

doi:10.35815/radon.v4.9149

Uttam Saha Agricultural and Environmental Services Laboratories, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
Pamela Turner Department of Financial Planning, Housing and Consumer Economics, College of Family and Consumer Sciences, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
David Parks Agricultural and Environmental Services Laboratories, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
Derek Cooper Department of Financial Planning, Housing and Consumer Economics, College of Family and Consumer Sciences, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
Michael Kitto Laboratory of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry, Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35815/radon.v4.9149

Keywords: kiloelectric volt (keV), Mineral-oil, Optifluor, proficiency test, radon (222Rn); liquid scintillation

Abstract

A proficiency test is an integral part of any analytical procedure; however, there is no known proficiency test in place for radon-in-water analysis. This led us to conduct a long-term study. Successful preparation of a reusable radon (²²²Rn)-in-water standard containing a ‘radium (²²⁶Ra)-loaded filter paper (the source)’ sandwiched between polyethylene sheeting has been reported. As the source ‘²²⁶Ra-loaded filter paper’ is sandwiched between polyethylene sheets, the surrounding water (which is sampled and analyzed) in the bottle remains free of ²²⁶Ra. With this type of standards, a previous study reported that at full ingrowth (>30 days), 86% of the ²²²Rn produced by the source was emanated into the water and remained stable thereafter, and the remaining 14% was retarded by the polyethylene sheeting. We periodically measured radon-in-water in two such standard samples allowing a 40- to 50-day ingrowth interval for more than 6 years (2016–2022). In each measurement, we prepared in duplicate the cocktails in four different ways (in Mineral-oil vs. Optifluor in combination with two different ways of ‘pipetting or sample drawing’ and dispensing into the scintillation vials) and measured the radon-in-water using two different Liquid Scintillation Counting (LSC) assays: full-spectrum (0–2,000 keV) versus Region of Interest (ROI) for radon (ROI, 130–700 keV). A substantial number of repeated results unequivocally show that the reusable standards maintained its characteristics satisfactorily for a 6-year long period. Duplicate measurements were precise in almost all cases. We consistently observed significant differences in measured radon concentration between the two different LSC assays and between the two different scintillation fluids, but not between the two sample drawing methods. With full-spectrum assay (0–2,000 keV), both Mineral-oil and Optifluor grossly underestimated the actual radon concentration, and with ROI assay (130–700 keV), Mineral-oil overestimated the radon concentration; therefore, these should be avoided. Preparing the cocktails with Optifluor and measuring by ROI assay (130–700 keV) was the only method that consistently produced results within the acceptance window (±25% of the known), suggesting that a certain way of preparing and measuring the water samples could yield more accurate results for radon. Thus, our findings demonstrate that a proficiency test for radon-in-water using these reusable ²²⁶Ra-free radon-in-water standards is a valid and valuable option, and it should be a part of radon-in-water analysis by the laboratories.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1.
World Health Organization (WHO). Guidelines for drinking water quality. 3rd ed. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2004.

2.
Darby S, Hill D, Auvinen A, Barros-Dios JM, Baysson H, Bochicchio F, et al. Radon in homes and risk of lung cancer: collaborative analysis of individual data from 13 European case-control studies. BMJ 2005; 330: 223–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38308.477650.63

3.
National Academy of Science (NAS). Report of the committee on risk assessment of exposure to radon in drinking water. Board on Radiation Effects Research, Commission on Life Sciences. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy Press; 1999.

4.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). A citizen’s guide to radon, the guide to protecting yourself and your family from radon. EPA402/K-12/002|May2012|www.epa.gov/radon; 2012. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-02/documents/2012_a_citizens_guide_to_radon.pdf [cited 16 May 2022].

5.
Whittaker EL, Akridge JD, Giovano J. Two test procedures for radon in drinking water: inter-laboratory collaborative study. EPA 600/2-87/082.Las Vegas, NV: U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory; 1989.

6.
New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). Environmental laboratory approval program. 2007. Available from: http://www.wadsworth.org/labcert/elap/radon.html [Cited 22 November 2022].

7.
Kitto ME, Fielman EM, Haines DK, Menia A, Bari A. Performance of a commercial radon-in-water measurement kit. J Env Radioactivity 2008; 99: 1255–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2008.03.006

8.
Saha UK, Kitto ME, Lynch DR, Banger A, Turner PR, Dean G. et al. Optimizing sampling, sample processing and analysis methods for radon (²²²Rn) in water by liquid scintillation counting. Am J Anal Chem 2018; 9: 27–45. doi: 10.4236/ajac.2018.91003

9.
Kitto ME, Menia TA, Bari A, Fielman EM, Haines DK. Development and Intercomparison of a reusable radon-in-water standard. Radiat Meas 2010; 45: 231–3. doi: 10.1016/j.radmeas.2010.02.002

10.
Volkovitsky P. NIST ²²²Rn emission standards. Appl Rad Isotopes 2006; 64: 1249–52. doi: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2006.02.031

11.
Pressyanov D, Georgiev S, Dimitrova I, Mitev K, Boshkova T. Determination of the diffusion coefficient and solubility of radon in plastics. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2011; 145: 123–6. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncr069

12.
Pressyanov D, Buysse J, Proffijn A, Van Deynse A, Meesen G. Integrated measurements of ²²²Rn by absorption in Makrofol. Nucl Instrum Meth 2004; A516: 203–8. doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2003.05.002

13.
Taylor BN, Kuyatt CE. Guidelines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement results. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2001. Available from: http://physics.nist.gov/TN1297 [cited 26 May 2023].

14.
Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM). Evaluation of measurement data ─ guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. 1st ed. JCGM 100, 2010. Available from: https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/2071204/JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf [cited 26 May, 2023].

15.
El-Arabya EH, Solimanb HA, Abo-Elmagda M. Measurement of radon levels in water and the associated health hazards in Jazan, Saudi Arabia. J Rad Res Appl Sci 2019; 12: 31–6. doi: 10.1080/16878507.2019.1594134

16.
Duggal V, Sharma S, Mehra R. Radon levels in drinking water of Fatehabad district of Haryana, India. Appl Rad Isotopes 2017; 123: 36–40. doi: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2017.02.028

17.
Saha UK, Sonon L, Turner PR, Lynch D, Dean G. Quality assurance in measurement of radon in water by liquid scintillation counting. Proc. Int. Radon Symp. Hendersonville, NC: American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists (AARST); 2018.

18.
Kitto ME. Characteristics of liquid scintillation analysis of radon in water. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 1994; 185: 91–9. doi: 10.1007/BF02042955

19.
Kitto ME, Kuhland MK, Dansereau RE. Direct comparison of three methods for the determination of radon in well water. Health Phys 1996; 70: 358–62. doi: 10.1097/00004032-199603000-00005

20.
Parekh EM, Haines DK, Bari A, Torres MA. Non-destructive determination of ²²⁴Ra, ²²⁶Ra, and ²²⁸Ra concentration in gamma spectroscopy. Health Phys 2003; 85: 613–20. doi: 10.1097/00004032-200311000-00010

21.
Haki J, Hunyadi I, Csige I, Vasarhelyi A, Somlai J, Faludi G, et al. Determination of dissolved radon and radium content of water samples by track etch method. Environ Int 1996; 22: S315–7. doi: 10.1016/S0160-4120(96)00124-9