Doses from the exposure to outdoor radon are typically an order of magnitude smaller than those from indoor radon, causing a greater interest on investigation of the latter for radiation protection issues. As a consequence, assessment of radon priority areas (RPA) is mainly based on indoor radon measurements. Outdoor radon measurements might be needed to guarantee a complete estimation of radiological risk and may help to improve the estimation of RPA. Therefore, authors have analysed the available literature on outdoor radon to give an overview of outdoor radon surveys and potential correlation with indoor radon and estimation of RPA. The review has shown that outdoor radon surveys were performed at much smaller scale compared to indoor radon. Only a few outdoor radon maps were produced, with a much smaller density, covering a larger area, and therefore putting doubt on the representativeness of this data. Due to a large variety of techniques used for outdoor radon measurements and requirement to have detectors with a high sensitivity and resistance to harsh environmental conditions, a standardised measurement protocol should be derived. This is no simple endeavour since there are more applications in different scientific disciplines for outdoor radon measurements compared to indoor radon.

Radon flux measurements provide information about how much radon rises from the ground toward the atmosphere, thus, they could serve as good predictors of indoor radon concentrations. Although there are many different mapping methods with many different input data, radon flux data are generally missing and are not included for the delineation of radon priority areas (RPA). The aim of this literature review is to investigate to what extent radon flux was used, or could be used, for the delineation of RPAs. Numerous factors influencing radon flux were identified, but quantifying their contribution to radon flux measurement still remains a challenge. Different methods and measuring devices were used for the determination of radon flux, thus it is necessary to identify possible inconsistencies in order to harmonise different radon flux measurements. Due to the complexity of radon flux measurements, only two countries were identified to have performed national surveys on outdoor radon, which were of much smaller scale compared to those on indoor radon. A positive correlation between radon flux and radon quantities, such as radon in soil gas and indoor radon, indicates that radon flux could be used as an input parameter for the estimation of RPA. By reviewing radon flux models, it was concluded that up-to-date modelled radon flux maps have reached excellent spatial resolution and will be further improved, hence, they could serve as an input for the estimation and delineation of RPA.

Interlaboratory comparisons are a basic part of the regular quality controls of laboratories to warranty the adequate performance of test and measurements. The exercise presented in this article is the comparison of indoor radon gas measurements under field conditions performed with passive detectors and active monitors carried out in the Laboratory of Natural Radiation (LNR). The aim is to provide a direct comparison between different methodologies and to identify physical reasons for possible inconsistencies, particularly related to sampling and measurement techniques. The variation of radon concentration during the comparison showed a big range of values, with levels from approximately 0.5 to 30 kBq/m³. The reference values for the two exposure periods have been derived from a weighted average of participants’ results applying an iterative algorithm. The indexes used to analyze the participants’ results were the relative percentage difference D(%), the Zeta score ( $\zeta$ ), and the z-score ( $z$ ). Over 80% of the results for radon in air exposure are within the interval defined by the reference value and 20% and 10% for the first and the second exposure, respectively. Most deviations were detected with the overestimating of the exposure using passive detectors due to the related degassing time of detector holder materials.

The purpose of this paper is to benchmark several different radon monitors, by quantifying their accuracy and response time. Radon monitors with different characteristics were tested in a purpose-built radon chamber under reference conditions. The radon concentration in the chamber was controlled and maintained at a stable radon concentration of (2648 ± 85) Bq m ⁻³ to evaluate the accuracy and precision of these monitors. The response time of the monitors was analysed for two time intervals. To assess the response time of the monitors, radon concentration was varied from a theoretical value of 0–6441 Bq m ⁻³ and then from 6441 to 2648 Bq m ⁻³ . The results from this study show that general purpose radon monitors are less accurate than those used by radon testing service providers and the research community. All monitors tested reported a mean radon concentration within the ±10% of the reference detector value at the radon equilibrium concentration. Different response time analysis methods were proposed and discussed, and for the particular time intervals analysed, response time was found to be slower for those radon monitors intended for general purpose applications.