A Presentation of Primary Research before the American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists 2014 International Radon Symposium Gordon T. Satoh, M.S. Managing Director of Commercial Markets S.W.A.T. Enterprises, LLC OVERVIEW Radon concentrations can be elevated within walls Simple treatments can help address localized high levels How this research came to be Concrete Masonry Units and Block Wall Construction Measuring Radon within Voids Comparing Inexpensive Treatment Methods Analysis and Discussion Implications of these Findings Why Conduct Research? Out of Curiousity A Corentium Digital Radon Monitor was provided to the researcher for review and consideration The size of the monitor allowed for sampling in a variety of new locations By Accident During one sampling event the researcher dropped the monitor within the void of a wall built of construction masonry units After sixteen days of thought , the researcher came up with a method of retrieving the monitor. Why Conduct Research? WHAT DID THE MONITOR READ? 42 pCi/L (1,554 3 Bq/m ) Over 10 times the United States action threshold of 4.0 pCi/L (148 Bq / m3) ! Could there be a gradient in the void? Can inexpensive treatments address the levels? Concrete Masonry Units Facts Regarding CMUs Existed as early as the mid-1870s as cement block Called cinder blocks – mixed cinders with Portland Nominally 16” x 8” x 8” (41 cm x 20 cm x 20 cm) Lightweight (~40 lbs / 18 kg) and Inexpensive Used for exterior and interior block walls Subject Single Family Residence Exterior walls constructed of CMUs Voids were left hollow - some had Fiberglas® batts Active Soil Depressurization System was operating Measuring Radon within Voids Corentium Digital Radon Monitor From Corentium, based in Oslo, Norway Passive diffusion chamber with silicon diode Not yet approved in U.S. as a certified device Comparative Study: Corentium Device 1.78 (65.86 Bq/m3) (7 day exposure) AirChek AC Device 2.1 ± 0.3 pCi/L (77.1 ± 11.1 Bq/m3) Methodology Pre-marked line with harness to lower device Seven day exposure period Replicates on three elevations Measuring Radon within Voids Radon Gradient Exhibited Within CMU Void in Block Wall 45 Average Air Concentration of Radon (pCi/L) 42.3 40 35 31.0 30 Average pCi/L 25 23.2 20 15.9 15 11.8 10.7 10 5 0 24 48 60 72 Height Above Grade (Inches) 80 88 Application – Treatment Methods Diphenylmethane diisocyanate foam Two penetrations per void, four per CMU Dow Chemical “Great Stuff” Big Gap Filler Seven second actuation per 3/8” penetration Low pressure vessel is safer but use ventilation Owens Corning Foamular 150 Board R-5 insulation board is easily cut to size Sealed to the top of the CMUs Loctite PL Advance Polyurethane Construction Adhesive Board is weighted to prevent gaps from forming Excess adhesive is smoothed and removed Application – Treatment Methods Indoor Air Radon Concentration (pCi/L )Post Application of Treatments INDOOR AIR RADON CONCENTRATION (PCI/L) 3.5 3 2.5 Board Cap 2 Block Fill Linear (Board Cap) 1.5 Linear (Block Fill) 1 0.5 0 0 1 2 3 4 MEASUREMENTS (NON-CHRONOLOGICAL) 5 6 Analysis and Discussion Radon gas within CMU voids decreased in concentration with increasing elevation above grade The momentum of decrease is greater at lower elevations versus upper elevations above grade The decrease is non-linear in nature, however data are insufficient to determine if this is a uniform function Active Soil (sub-slab) Depressurization System may have influenced the gradient Analysis and Discussion Visually the two treatment types possessed similar distributions, favoring insulation board The two sample t test was selected to assess the distribution of data points between the two treatments Alpha was set at 0.05 Variance was defined as unequal Data sets were considered to be unpooled Sample size for each treatment was n = 5 Analysis and Discussion Component Mean (pCi/L) Standard Deviation (pCi/L) Sample Size (n) Alpha (α) Variance Treatment 1 Block Fill Treatment 2 2.49 Insulation Board 2.36 0.62 0.64 5 0.05 0.38 5 0.05 0.41 Null hypothesis is there is not a significant difference between the two treatment methods Two tailed p value was calculated to be 0.76 0.76 > 0.05 therefore the null hypothesis is valid Implications of these Findings Localized radon concentrations may be elevated above average indoor radon screening values Radon concentrations in CMU voids may be considerably higher Inexpensive methods for treating CMU voids make treatment practical in addition to PSD/ASD This study is a platform for further investigations Radon professionals can conduct primary research at a relatively low cost Mr. Jamey Gelina – President, SWAT Enterprises, LLC Mr. Aaron Jones – Vice President of Operations Mr. Joseph Gelina – Vice President of Development Halvor Woien of Corentium AS, Oslo, Norway Stephanie Satoh – Researcher’s Spouse (for allowing research to be conducted in our home) Gordon T. Satoh, M.S. Managing Director of Commercial Markets S.W.A.T. Enterprises, LLC
© Copyright 2024