Articles | Volume 10, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-1299-2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-1299-2017
Research article
 | 
03 Apr 2017
Research article |  | 03 Apr 2017

A European-wide 222radon and 222radon progeny comparison study

Dominik Schmithüsen, Scott Chambers, Bernd Fischer, Stefan Gilge, Juha Hatakka, Victor Kazan, Rolf Neubert, Jussi Paatero, Michel Ramonet, Clemens Schlosser, Sabine Schmid, Alex Vermeulen, and Ingeborg Levin

Related authors

Assessment of 222radon progeny loss in long tubing based on static filter measurements in the laboratory and in the field
Ingeborg Levin, Dominik Schmithüsen, and Alex Vermeulen
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 1313–1321, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-1313-2017,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-1313-2017, 2017
Short summary
A process-based 222radon flux map for Europe and its comparison to long-term observations
U. Karstens, C. Schwingshackl, D. Schmithüsen, and I. Levin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 12845–12865, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-12845-2015,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-12845-2015, 2015
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Gases | Technique: In Situ Measurement | Topic: Validation and Intercomparisons
Comparison of photoacoustic spectroscopy and cavity ring-down spectroscopy for ambient methane monitoring at Hohenpeißenberg
Max Müller, Stefan Weigl, Jennifer Müller-Williams, Matthias Lindauer, Thomas Rück, Simon Jobst, Rudolf Bierl, and Frank-Michael Matysik
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 4263–4270, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-4263-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-4263-2023, 2023
Short summary
Performance assessment of state-of-the-art and novel methods for remote compliance monitoring of sulphur emissions from shipping
Jörg Beecken, Andreas Weigelt, Simone Griesel, Johan Mellqvist, Alexander Vladimir Conde, Daniëlle van Dinther, Jan Duyzer, Jon Knudsen, Bettina Knudsen, and Leonidas Ntziachristos
Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2023-93,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2023-93, 2023
Preprint under review for AMT
Short summary
Comparison of atmospheric CO, CO2 and CH4 measurements at the Schneefernerhaus and the mountain ridge at Zugspitze
Antje Hoheisel, Cedric Couret, Bryan Hellack, and Martina Schmidt
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 2399–2413, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2399-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2399-2023, 2023
Short summary
Intercomparison of commercial analyzers for atmospheric ethane and methane observations
Róisín Commane, Andrew Hallward-Driemeier, and Lee T. Murray
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 1431–1441, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-1431-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-1431-2023, 2023
Short summary
Real-time measurement of phase partitioning of organic compounds using a proton-transfer-reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometer coupled to a CHARON inlet
Yarong Peng, Hongli Wang, Yaqin Gao, Shengao Jing, Shuhui Zhu, Dandan Huang, Peizhi Hao, Shengrong Lou, Tiantao Cheng, Cheng Huang, and Xuan Zhang
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 15–28, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-15-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-15-2023, 2023
Short summary

Cited articles

Biraud, S.: Vers la régionalisation des puits et sources des composes à effet de serre: analyse de la variabilité synoptique à l'observatoire de Mace Head, Irlande, PhD Thesis, University of Paris VII, France, 2000.
Capuana, C.-A.: Calibration of ionization chambers and comparison of two monitors for radon measurement, BA Thesis, Institut für Umweltphysik, Heidelberg University, 2016 (in German).
Chambers, S., Williams, A. G., Zahorowski, W., Griffiths, A. D., and Crawford, J.: Separating remote fetch and local mixing influences on vertical radon measurements in the lower atmosphere, Tellus B, 63, 843–859, 2011.
Cuntz, M.: The Heidelberg 222Rn monitor: Calibration, optimisation, application, Diploma Thesis, Institut für Umweltphysik, Heidelberg University, Germany, 1997.
Dörr, H., Kromer, B., Levin, I., Münnich, K. O., and Volpp, H. J.: CO2 and Radon-222 as tracers for atmospheric transport, J. Geophys. Res., 88, 1309–1313, 1983.
Short summary
A European-wide 222radon/222radon progeny comparison study has been conducted at nine measurement stations in order to determine differences between existing 222radon instrumentation and atmospheric data sets, respectively. Mean differences up to 45 % were found between monitors. These differences need to be taken into account if the data shall serve for quantitative regional atmospheric transport model validation.