Radon-222 activity flux measurement using activated charcoal canisters: Revisiting the methodology

The measurement of radon ((222)Rn) activity flux using activated charcoal canisters was examined to investigate the distribution of the adsorbed (222)Rn in the charcoal bed and the relationship between (222)Rn activity flux and exposure time. The activity flux of (222)Rn from five sources of varying strengths was measured for exposure times of one, two, three, five, seven, 10, and 14 days. The distribution of the adsorbed (222)Rn in the charcoal bed was obtained by dividing the bed into six layers and counting each layer separately after the exposure. (222)Rn activity decreased in the layers that were away from the exposed surface. Nevertheless, the results demonstrated that only a small correction might be required in the actual application of charcoal canisters for activity flux measurement, where calibration standards were often prepared by the uniform mixing of radium ((226)Ra) in the matrix. This was because the diffusion of (222)Rn in the charcoal bed and the detection efficiency as a function of the charcoal depth tended to counterbalance each other. The influence of exposure time on the measured (222)Rn activity flux was observed in two situations of the canister exposure layout: (a) canister sealed to an open bed of the material and (b) canister sealed over a jar containing the material. The measured (222)Rn activity flux decreased as the exposure time increased. The change in the former situation was significant with an exponential decrease as the exposure time increased. In the latter case, lesser reduction was noticed in the observed activity flux with respect to exposure time. This reduction might have been related to certain factors, such as absorption site saturation or the back diffusion of (222)Rn gas occurring at the canister-soil interface.

Request for production of documents – UCPR r 222 – manner of compliance

In John Kallinicos Accountants Pty Ltd v Dundrenan Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 141 Irwin DCJ considered the nature of a party’s obligation under r 222 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) to produce documents referred to in the parties’ pleadings, particulars or affidavits. The decision examined whether the approach in Belela Pty Ltd v Menzies Excavation Pty Ltd [2005] 2 QdR 230 in relation to disclosure of documents under UCPR r 214 also applied to production of documents under r 222.