Two quotes are of particular interest: 1) “The... RadonEye was identified as a likely candidate for other experiments due to its strong performance, low price tag, ability to record measurements over set time intervals, and the ability to extract data using only a smartphone." 2) "The ease of use of the... RadonEye is another feature that makes it desirable for use. It is merely plugged into an outlet and all the data can be extracted with a cell phone using their app."
The University of Kansas personnel performed a 72-hour study at the Kansas State University Radon Chamber (Manhattan, KS) with settings at 10-20 pCi/L (Day 1), 55-65 pCi/L (Day 2), and 25-35 pCi/L (Day 3), as monitored by a Pylon AB-S. [Ref. 2] Three sets of five each of the following consumer devices were tested: RadonEye, Airthings Wave, and Airthings Wave Plus.
Significant differences were found between the values reported by the units tested. The data taken show a standard deviation of 1.15 for RadonEye, vs. 1.81 for Wave+, and 2.61 for Wave in Individual Relative Error (IRE) versus the average 32.6 pCi/L radon concentration ofthe chamber as measured by the Pylon AB-5. Expressed in a simpler way, approximately 1 /3 of the time, both Airthings Wave devices will produce a value outside the variation of the RadonEye. Figure 3 shows an example of this testing comparing the IRE of the RadonEye and the Wave versus the Pylon AB-5.
Third Party Validation Studies
University of Michigan
Electronics, Inc. (Ottawa, Canada), the Sun Nuclear Model 10273 and Model 1030 from Sun Nuclear Corp.
(Melbourne, FL), the Durridge Rad7 from Durridge, Inc. (Billerica, MA), and the Femto- Tech CRM-510 from Femto-Tech, Inc. (Carlisle, OH).
Figure 2 shows that in the University of Michigan study, the RadonEye is essentially as accurate as the AlphaGuard.
Figure 4 provides an example of a systematic difference in the pCi/L hourly data provided by a representative subset of the devices studied.
54
Continued on next page ...