Distribution of radon in large workplaces: an analysis performed on radon levels measured in UK schools

Abstract

Radon is a radioactive, carcinogenic gas formed by the radioactive decay of uranium and radium that occur naturally in small amounts in all rocks and soils. It is the largest single source of radiation exposure to the UK population, contributing to more than 1 100 lung cancer deaths each year according to an analysis conducted in 2005. Regulations exist to protect employees (and other persons) where radon concentrations exceed the reference level of 300 Bq m-3. Once the reference level is exceeded, annual doses of more than the public dose limit of 1 mSv a-1are considered to be excessive. A radon measurement campaign for schools, which started in 2009, generated a large dataset, including those with high numbers of simultaneous radon measurements. Radon data between buildings (e.g. homes) have been shown to correspond broadly to the lognormal distribution, after the additive contribution of outside air has been removed. However, there are fewer studies of the distribution of radon levels within a single, large property. Radon data collected from 533 UK schools with at least 20 valid, simultaneous results were analysed against several statistical models. In approximately 50% of schools the radon levels could be represented by the lognormal distribution and in 60% by the loglogistic lognormal distribution, the latter being a better fit probably owing to its lower sensitivity to the tails of the distribution. Qualitatively, the lognormal and the loglogistic probability plots appeared to be indistinguishable. These findings indicate that the lognormal and loglogistic might be appropriate models to characterise the distribution of radon in most large workplaces. For each statistical model, the two distribution parameters can be used to provide a better estimate of the average dose to the occupants. However, caution is required when assessing doses, since the average estimator of the radon concentration does not predict the highest value and may significantly underestimate or overestimate the dose in specific areas.