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
Evaluation of optimized flux chamber design for measurement of ammonia emission after field application of slurry with full-scale farm machinery
Johanna Pedersen, Sasha D. Hafner, Andreas Pacholski, Valthor I. Karlsson, Li Rong, Rodrigo Labouriau, and Jesper N. Kamp
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 4493–4505, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-4493-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-4493-2024, 2024
Short summary
Preparation of low-concentration H2 test gas mixtures in ambient air for calibration of H2 sensors
Niklas Karbach, Lisa Höhler, Peter Hoor, Heiko Bozem, Nicole Bobrowski, and Thorsten Hoffmann
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 4081–4086, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-4081-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-4081-2024, 2024
Short summary
Alternate materials for the capture and quantification of gaseous oxidized mercury in the atmosphere
Livia Lown, Sarrah M. Dunham-Cheatham, Seth N. Lyman, and Mae S. Gustin
Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-50,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-50, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for AMT
Short summary
Pico-Light H2O: intercomparison of in situ water vapour measurements during the AsA 2022 campaign
Mélanie Ghysels, Georges Durry, Nadir Amarouche, Dale Hurst, Emrys Hall, Kensy Xiong, Jean-Charles Dupont, Jean-Christophe Samake, Fabien Frérot, Raghed Bejjani, and Emmanuel D. Riviere
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 3495–3513, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3495-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3495-2024, 2024
Short summary
Mobile air quality monitoring and comparison to fixed monitoring sites for instrument performance assessment
Andrew R. Whitehill, Melissa Lunden, Brian LaFranchi, Surender Kaushik, and Paul A. Solomon
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 2991–3009, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2991-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2991-2024, 2024
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.