Overview and large-scale representative estimate of radon-222 flux data in China

Le résumé fourni par la source

The inert radioactive gas radon-222, ubiquitous in the environment, is the first cause of lung cancer in non-smokers and a powerful asset to trace geological fluids and constrain atmospheric transport models. In all of these applications, radon flux (RF) from the ground needs to be estimated. However, obtaining a large-scale representative estimate of RF in continental land is a challenging task and a starting basis is to focus on large countries in the world. Here, we collected a total of 2622 direct RF measurements carried out in continental China from 1988 to 2021 using 69 publications in a 494-document pool. Over the whole dataset, the RF results were classified into geographical provinces, time periods and substratum types. Mean RF values yield 180±32, 36.9±4.8, 31.1±1.0, 66.1±1.6 and 1510±100 mBq m−2 s−1 in metamorphic and igneous (n=71), sedimentary (n=24), Quaternary (n=585), faulted areas (n=832) and uranium-related sites (n=898), respectively. Considering geology only, mean RF for China (66±11 mBq m−2 s−1) is larger than most large-scale estimates worldwide. To account for the distribution of soil thickness, RF values were extrapolated to representative soil thickness values per lithology using a scaling law inferred from natural sites. The inferred corrected mean RF for China yields 20.2±6.1 mBq m−2 s−1, corresponding to a total radon-222 emission of (191±43)×109 Bq s−1, and appears compatible with available large-scale estimates in Europe or at global scale. Potential sources of systematic bias and variability, such as vegetation cover, meteorological and seasonal effects, remain. The contribution of urban areas, estimated for the first time, was found significant. Our study suggests future research directions to better constrain the RF source to the atmosphere in China, and, more generally, to extract robust global-scale representative RF values from direct RF measurements.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.