Indoor Radon Survey in 31 Provincial Capital Cities and Estimation of Lung Cancer Risk in Urban Areas of China

Xiaoxiang Miao Yinping Su Changsong Hou Yanchao Song Bowei Ding Hongxing Cui Yunyun Wu Quanfu Sun

Xiaoxiang Miao, Yinping Su, Changsong Hou, Yanchao Song, Bowei Ding, Hongxing Cui, Yunyun Wu, Quanfu Sun. Indoor Radon Survey in 31 Provincial Capital Cities and Estimation of Lung Cancer Risk in Urban Areas of China[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2024, 37(11): 1294-1302. doi: 10.3967/bes2024.165
Citation: Xiaoxiang Miao, Yinping Su, Changsong Hou, Yanchao Song, Bowei Ding, Hongxing Cui, Yunyun Wu, Quanfu Sun. Indoor Radon Survey in 31 Provincial Capital Cities and Estimation of Lung Cancer Risk in Urban Areas of China[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2024, 37(11): 1294-1302. doi: 10.3967/bes2024.165

doi: 10.3967/bes2024.165

Indoor Radon Survey in 31 Provincial Capital Cities and Estimation of Lung Cancer Risk in Urban Areas of China

Funds: This study was partly financially supported by National Natural Science Foundation (NO.12105274), China.
More Information
    Author Bio:

    Xiaoxiang Miao, male, born in 1986, PhD students in progress, assistant researcher, majoring in disease prevention and control

    Corresponding author: Yunyun Wu, PhD, E-mail: wuyunyun@nirp.chinacdc.cn, Tel: 13810937787; Quanfu Sun, PhD, E-mail: sunquanfu@nirp.chinacdc.cn, Tel: 13601294430
  • Xiaoxiang Miao, Yinping Su, Changsong Hou, Yunyun Wu, and Quanfu Sun designed this work. Xiaoxiang Miao, Yanchao Song, Bowei Ding, Hongxing Cui, and Yunyun Wu performed the survey and analyzed the data. Xiaoxiang Miao, Yunyun Wu, and Yinping Su wrote the manuscript. Quanfu Sun reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
  • The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
    • 关键词:
    •  / 
    •  / 
    •  / 
    •  
    Xiaoxiang Miao, Yinping Su, Changsong Hou, Yunyun Wu, and Quanfu Sun designed this work. Xiaoxiang Miao, Yanchao Song, Bowei Ding, Hongxing Cui, and Yunyun Wu performed the survey and analyzed the data. Xiaoxiang Miao, Yunyun Wu, and Yinping Su wrote the manuscript. Quanfu Sun reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
    The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
    注释:
    1) AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS: 2) CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
  • Figure  1.  The frequency distribution of indoor radon concentrations.

    Table  1.   Indoor radon concentrations of 31 cities in China (Bq/m3)

    City N AM GM GSD Range
    Beijing 456 54 48 1.63 13–266
    Tianjin 87 53 46 1.69 12–170
    Shijiazhuang 114 70 61 1.69 7–315
    Taiyuan 58 75 62 1.78 31–301
    Hohhot 46 81 67 1.75 29–361
    Shenyang 84 86 78 1.51 31–321
    Changchun 45 89 55 2.38 12–558
    Harbin 73 82 72 1.64 26–312
    Shanghai 154 48 41 1.65 7–171
    Nanjing 98 51 47 1.48 21–175
    Hangzhou 101 82 71 1.65 37–345
    Hefei 55 55 48 1.75 8–135
    Fuzhou 60 39 34 1.64 11–111
    Nanchang 71 124 118 1.42 25–372
    Jinan 54 68 48 2.19 9–553
    Zhengzhou 117 54 43 1.87 11–245
    Wuhan 102 48 42 1.70 12–178
    Changsha 92 51 47 1.45 16–123
    Guangzhou 162 88 77 1.68 20–364
    Nanning 114 43 39 1.50 16–138
    Haikou 62 32 30 1.49 14–90
    Chongqing 138 56 59 1.35 14–149
    Chengdu 59 67 62 1.46 21–169
    Guiyang 43 72 63 1.64 24–203
    Kunming 86 84 68 1.71 27–800
    Lhasa 55 79 63 2.02 13–241
    Xi’an 96 77 72 1.43 28–314
    Lanzhou 59 81 74 1.52 35–230
    Xining 39 89 75 1.78 20–291
    Yinchuan 44 59 56 1.42 25–172
    Urumqi 51 74 69 1.45 38–214
      Note. N, number of samples deployed; AM, arithmetic mean; GM, geometric mean; GSD, geometric standard deviation; Range, min to max range.
    下载: 导出CSV

    Table  2.   Number of deaths from indoor radon–induced lung cancer in China

    Age (year) Male (n) Female (n) Total (n)
    Non-smoking Smoking Subtotal Non-smoking Smoking Subtotal
    15–19 13 13 26 23 0 24 49
    20–24 9 59 68 68 5 73 141
    25–29 27 183 210 238 9 247 457
    30–34 61 379 440 439 35 474 914
    35–39 150 994 1,144 1,198 60 1,258 2,401
    40–44 290 2,540 2,830 2,933 199 3,132 5,962
    45–49 661 6,138 6,799 5,363 656 6,019 12,818
    50–54 1,617 12,598 14,215 10,413 1,247 11,660 25,875
    55–59 1,502 13,280 14,783 9,749 1,294 11,042 25,825
    60–64 1,822 13,244 15,065 9,171 1,698 10,868 25,934
    65–69 1,843 10,446 12,289 8,200 1,343 9,543 21,833
    70–74 1,673 7,577 9,250 7,191 891 8,082 17,332
    75–79 1,131 2,819 3,950 3,340 441 3,781 7,730
    ≥ 80 579 844 1,422 2,101 0 2,101 3,524
    Total (n) 11,377 71,114 82,491 60,425 7,879 68,304 150,795
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1] De Jong P, Van Dijk W, van der Graaf ER, et al. National survey on the natural radioactivity and 222Rn exhalation rate of building materials in the Netherlands. Health Phys, 2006; 91, 200−10. doi:  10.1097/01.HP.0000205238.17466.1c
    [2] United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2006 Report Volume II, Annex E—Sources-to-effectsassessment for radon in homes and workplaces.
    [3] World Health Organization. WHO handbook on indoor radon: a public health perspective. WHO. 2009.
    [4] United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA assessment of risks from radon in homes. Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. https://www.epa.gov/radiation/epa-assessment-risks-radon-homes.
    [5] Lubin JH, Wang ZY, Boice Jr JD, et al. Risk of lung cancer and residential radon in China: pooled results of two studies. Int J Cancer, 2004; 109, 132−7. doi:  10.1002/ijc.11683
    [6] Darby S, Hill D, Auvinen A, et al. Radon in homes and risk of lung cancer: collaborative analysis of individual data from 13 European case-control studies. BMJ, 2005; 330, 223. doi:  10.1136/bmj.38308.477650.63
    [7] International Atomic Energy Agency. Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 3, IAEA, Vienna (2014). https://doi.org/10.61092/iaea.u2pu-60vm.
    [8] International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiological protection against radon exposure. ICRP Publication 126. Annals of the ICRP, 2014; 43: 1-77. https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%20126.
    [9] Pantelić G, Čeliković I, Živanović M, et al. Qualitative overview of indoor radon surveys in Europe. J Environ Radioact, 2019; 204, 163−74. doi:  10.1016/j.jenvrad.2019.04.010
    [10] Cheng JP, Guo QJ, Ren TS. Radon levels in China. J Nucl Sci Technol, 2002; 39, 695−9. doi:  10.1080/18811248.2002.9715251
    [11] The Writing Group of the Summary Report on Nationwide Survey of Environmental Radioactivity Level in China. Survey of concentrations of radon and α potential energy of Rn daughter productes in air in some regions of China (1983—1990). Radiat Prot, 1992; 12, 164−71. (In Chinese)
    [12] Shang B, Cui HX, Wu JH, et al. Study on indoor radon level and influence factor in China[C]. The Second National Seminar on natural radiation irradiation and control. 2005. (In Chinese)
    [13] Wang CH, Pan ZQ, Liu SL, et al. Investigation on indoor radon levels in some parts of China. Radiat Prot, 2014; 34, 65−73. (In Chinese) doi:  10.1088/0952-4746/34/3/N65
    [14] Zhuo WH, Wang XY, Jin Y. The level of indoor 222Rn concentrations in 9 cities of China. In: Proceedings of the Third National Conference on Natural Radiation and Control.
    [15] Vineis P, Hoek G, Krzyzanowski M, et al. Air pollution and risk of lung cancer in a prospective study in Europe. Int J Cancer, 2006; 119, 169−74. doi:  10.1002/ijc.21801
    [16] Smith H. Lung cancer risk from indoor exposure to radon daughters. Radiology, 1988; 167, 580.
    [17] National Research Council (US) Committee on Health Risks of Exposure to Radon (BEIR VI). Health effects of exposure to radon: BEIR VI. National Academies Press. 1999.
    [18] Catelinois O, Rogel A, Laurier D, et al. Lung cancer attributable to indoor radon exposure in France: impact of the risk models and uncertainty analysis. Environ Health Perspect, 2006; 114, 1361−6. doi:  10.1289/ehp.9070
    [19] Chen J, Moir D, Whyte J. Canadian population risk of radon induced lung cancer: a re-assessment based on the recent cross-Canada radon survey. Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 2012; 152, 9−13. doi:  10.1093/rpd/ncs147
    [20] Kim SH, Koh SB, Lee CM, et al. Indoor radon and lung cancer: estimation of attributable risk, disease burden, and effects of mitigation. Yonsei Med J, 2018; 59, 1123−30. doi:  10.3349/ymj.2018.59.9.1123
    [21] Wang ZY, Cao JS, Cui HX. Relative risk of lung cancer from radon. Chin J Radiol Med Prot, 2001; 21, 395−6. (In Chinese)
    [22] Sun QF, Tokonami S, Hou CS, et al. Concentrations of indoor radon and thoron in cave-dwellings with discussions on risk estimation of lung cancer. Chin J Radiol Med Prot, 2015; 25, 1−5. (In Chinese)
    [23] Miao XX, Su YP, Zhuo WH, et al. Risk estimation for lung cancer caused by indoor radon exposure in China based on EPA/BEIR-VI model. Chin J Radiol Med Prot, 2022; 42, 45−9. (In Chinese)
    [24] Qiang ZQ, Yao YP, Li ZL, et al. Risk assessment of lung cancer caused by indoor radon exposure in China during 2006-2016: a multicity, longitudinal analysis. Indoor Air, 2023; 2023, 6943333.
    [25] Wu YY, Sun H, Liu D, et al. Levels and distribution of indoor radon concentrations in Shenzhen, China. Chin J Radiol Med Prot, 2016; 36, 513−6. (In Chinese)
    [26] Qiang ZQ, Chen B, Zhuo WH. Risk assessment models of radon-induced lung cancer and their preliminary application. Chin J Radiol Med Prot, 2022; 42, 315−20. (In Chinese)
    [27] Chen J. Lifetime lung cancer risks associated with indoor radon exposure based on various radon risk models for Canadian population. Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 2017; 173, 252−8. doi:  10.1093/rpd/ncw297
    [28] Wu YY, Zhang QZ, Song YC, et al. Impact of energy-saving design of residential buildings on both indoor radon concentration and air exchange rate in severe-cold areas and cold areas. Chin J Radiol Med Prot, 2020; 40, 945−50. (In Chinese)
    [29] Zhuo WH, Chen B, Li DH, et al. Reconstruction of database on natural radionuclide contents in soil in China. J Nucl Sci Technol, 2008; 45, 180−4. doi:  10.1080/00223131.2008.10876003
    [30] Lu ZJ, Tu Y, Yu RS. The changes of radon concentration indoor and outdoor in the late three decades in China. Chin J Radiol Health, 2010; 19, 118−21. (In Chinese)
    [31] Yao YP, Chen B, Zhuo WH. Reanalysis of residential radon surveys in China from 1980 to 2019. Sci Total Environ, 2021; 757, 143767. doi:  10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143767
    [32] Zhao JF. Indoor radon concentrations and radon exhalation rates of building materials in Shanghai. Fudan University. 2009. (In Chinese)
    [33] Arvela H, Holmgren O, Reisbacka H, et al. Review of low-energy construction, air tightness, ventilation strategies and indoor radon: results from Finnish houses and apartments. Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 2014; 162, 351−63. doi:  10.1093/rpd/nct278
    [34] Vasilyev AV, Yarmoshenko IV, Zhukovsky MV. Low air exchange rate causes high indoor radon concentration in energy-efficient buildings. Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 2015; 164, 601−5. doi:  10.1093/rpd/ncv319
    [35] Baeza A, García-Paniagua J, Guillén J, et al. Influence of architectural style on indoor radon concentration in a radon prone area: a case study. Sci Total Environ, 2018; 610-611, 258-66.
    [36] Collignan B, Powaga E. Impact of ventilation systems and energy savings in a building on the mechanisms governing the indoor radon activity concentration. J Environ Radioact, 2019; 196, 268−73. doi:  10.1016/j.jenvrad.2017.11.023
    [37] Chen J. A summary of residential radon surveys and the influence of housing characteristics on indoor radon levels in Canada. Health Phys, 2021; 121, 574−80. doi:  10.1097/HP.0000000000001469
    [38] Gruber V, Baumann S, Wurm G, et al. The new Austrian indoor radon survey (ÖNRAP 2, 2013-2019): design, implementation, results. J Environ Radioact, 2021; 233, 106618. doi:  10.1016/j.jenvrad.2021.106618
    [39] Ivanova K, Stojanovska Z, Kunovska B, et al. Analysis of the spatial variation of indoor radon concentrations (national survey in Bulgaria). Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2019; 26, 6971−9. doi:  10.1007/s11356-019-04163-9
    [40] Vukotic P, Antovic N, Zekic R, et al. Main findings from radon indoor survey in Montenegro. Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 2019; 185, 355−70.
    [41] National Health Commission of China. China reported health hazards of smoking. People's Medical Publishing House. 2020. (In Chinese)
    [42] Pérez-Ríos M, Barros-Dios JM, Montes-Martínez A, et al. Attributable mortality to radon exposure in Galicia, Spain. Is it necessary to act in the face of this health problem? BMC Public Health, 2010; 10, 256.
    [43] Gaskin J, Coyle D, Whyte J, et al. Global estimate of lung cancer mortality attributable to residential radon. Environ Health Perspect, 2018; 126, 057009. doi:  10.1289/EHP2503
    [44] Kou SS, Wu YY, Song YC, et al. Application and analysis of radon-reduction methods in indoor radon pollution control. Chin J Radiol Health, 2022; 31, 149−52. (In Chinese)
    [45] National Bureau of Statistics. Statistical Bulletin of the People's Republic of China on national economic and social development for 2023. National Bureau of Statistics. 2024. (In Chinese)
  • [1] Yu Su, Haoran Zhan, Shangyao Li, Yitong Lu, Ruhuan Ma, Hai Fang, Tingting Xu, Yu Tian.  Development and Validation of Machine Learning Models for Lung Cancer Risk Prediction in High-Risk Population: A Retrospective Cohort Study . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2025, 38(4): 501-505. doi: 10.3967/bes2025.038
    [2] Hui Zhang, Jinfeng Yuan, Yuanyuan Xu, Mengjie Yang, Jialin Lyu, Xinjie Yang, Shuyan Sheng, Zhe Qian, Qunhui Wang, Yu Pang, Ying Hu.  Increased Incidence of Severe Adverse Events in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients with Previous Tuberculosis Episode Treated with PD-1 Inhibitors . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2024, 37(7): 785-789. doi: 10.3967/bes2024.119
    [3] GAO Xue Ren, PAN Jun Jie, NIE Wan Jia, LI Xian Yang, ZHANG Shu Long.  Association between the Missense Variant of PLCE1 and the Risk of Colorectal Cancer . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2023, 36(1): 109-111. doi: 10.3967/bes2023.012
    [4] LI Chun Yan, SONG Yu Jian, ZHAO Lan, DENG Mu Hong, LI Rui Xin, ZHANG Xiao Ling, LI Qiong Xuan, SHI Ying, LUAN Heng Yu, SUN Yuan Yuan, HU Yi, SAI Xiao Yong.  Insomnia Burden among Informal Caregivers of Hospitalized Lung Cancer Patients and Its Influencing Factors . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2023, 36(8): 715-724. doi: 10.3967/bes2023.099
    [5] ZHAO Jian, SHI Yu Lin, WANG Yu Tong, AI Fei Ling, WANG Xue Wei, YANG Wen Yi, WANG Jing Xin, AI Li Mei, HU Kui Ru, WAN Xia.  Lung Cancer Risk Attributable to Active Smoking in China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2023, 36(9): 850-861. doi: 10.3967/bes2023.075
    [6] Farogh Kazembeigi, Parvin Ahmadinejad, Mohammad Reza Aryaeefar, Mehrdad Ghasemi, Ghasem Hassani, Giti Kashi.  The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Urban Litter . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2022, 35(10): 954-956. doi: 10.3967/bes2022.121
    [7] YU Heng Yi, GUO Hua Qi, FENG Yan, CHENG Wei, WANG Yan.  Exosomes from PM2.5-treated Human Bronchial Epithelial Cells Increase Lung Cancer Metastatic Potential . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2022, 35(6): 473-484. doi: 10.3967/bes2022.066
    [8] CHAI Long Long, XIAO Ying Xuan, MENG Ling Han, WANG Huan, FENG Xian Hong, GU Xiu Li, LI Qi Chang, XIONG Qian Tao, CHEN Bi Feng.  The rs2227481 C>T Polymorphism in the IL22 Gene Promoter Significantly Reduces the Risk of Liver, Lung, and Gastric Cancer in a Han Chinese Population . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2021, 34(7): 572-576. doi: 10.3967/bes2021.079
    [9] CHEN Bin, YUAN Tan Wei, WANG Ai Qing, ZHANG Hong, FANG Li Jun, WU Qian Qian, ZHANG Hong Bo, TAO Sha Sha, TIAN Hai Lin.  Exposure to Radon and Kidney Cancer:A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Epidemiological Studies . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2018, 31(11): 805-815. doi: 10.3967/bes2018.108
    [10] Kamila Widziewicz, Wioletta Rogula-Kozłowska, Krzysztof Loska, Karolina Kociszewska, Grzegorz Majewski.  Health Risk Impacts of Exposure to Airborne Metals and Benzo(a)Pyrene during Episodes of High PM10 Concentrations in Poland . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2018, 31(1): 23-36. doi: 10.3967/bes2018.003
    [11] LIN Nan, MU Xin Lin, WANG Gui Lian, REN Yu Ang, TANG De Liang, WANG Bin, LI Zhi Wen, SU Shu, KAN Hai Dong, TAO Shu.  A Genetic Susceptibility Study of Lung Cancer Risk Potentially Associated with Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Inhalation Exposure . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2017, 30(10): 772-776. doi: 10.3967/bes2017.104
    [12] LIAO Yu, XU Lin, LIN Xiao, HAO Yuan Tao.  Temporal Trend in Lung Cancer Burden Attributed to Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in Guangzhou, China . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2017, 30(10): 708-717. doi: 10.3967/bes2017.096
    [13] SUN Yan.  Comment on‘Histological Subtypes of Lung Cancer in Chinese Males from 2000 to 2012’ . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2014, 27(1): 1-2. doi: 10.3967/bes2014.009
    [14] JING Ming Xia, LI Xiao Ju, JIAN Wei Yan.  Preventing Fatal Risk through Outpatient Medical Insurance:Evidence from Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance System in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, China . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2014, 27(7): 544-551. doi: 10.3967/bes2014.068
    [15] ZOU Xiao Nong, LIN Dong Mei, WAN Xia, CHAO Ann, FENG Qin Fu, DAI Zhen, YANG Gong Huan, LV Ning.  Histological Subtypes of Lung Cancer in Chinese Males from 2000 to 2012 . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2014, 27(1): 3-9. doi: 10.3967/bes2014.010
    [16] TüRKAN ALKAN, ?ZLEM KARADEN?Z.  Indoor 222Rn Levels and Effectiv Dose Estimation of Academic Staff in izmir-Turkey . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2014, 27(4): 259-267.
    [17] FEI ZHONG, EIJI YANO, ZHI-MING WANG, MIAN-ZHEN WANG, YA-JIA LAN.  Cancer Mortality and Asbestosis Among Workers in an Asbestos Plant in Chongqing, China . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2008, 21(3): 205-211.
    [18] DAN-HUI LIU, XIAO-MIN WANG, LI-JUAN ZHANG, SONG-WEI DAI, LI-YUN LIU, JI-FU LIU, SHAN-SHAN WU, SHUAN-YING YANG, SAM FU, XUE-YUAN XIAO, DA-CHENG HE.  Serum Amyloid A Protein: A Potential Biomarker Correlated With Clinical Stage of Lung Cancer . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2007, 20(1): 33-40.
    [19] XUE-YUAN XIAO, YING TANG, XIU-PING WEI, DA-CHENG HE.  A Preliminary Analysis of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Biomarkers in Serum . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2003, 16(2): 140-148.
    [20] M.K.J.SIDDIQUI, S.SRIVASTAVA, P.K.MEHROTRA.  Environmental Exposure to Lead as a Risk for Prostate Cancer . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2002, 15(4): 298-305.
  • 加载中
图(1) / 表ll (2)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  325
  • HTML全文浏览量:  140
  • PDF下载量:  26
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2024-09-06
  • 录用日期:  2024-10-24
  • 网络出版日期:  2024-12-06
  • 刊出日期:  2024-11-20

Indoor Radon Survey in 31 Provincial Capital Cities and Estimation of Lung Cancer Risk in Urban Areas of China

doi: 10.3967/bes2024.165
    基金项目:  This study was partly financially supported by National Natural Science Foundation (NO.12105274), China.
    作者简介:

    Xiaoxiang Miao, male, born in 1986, PhD students in progress, assistant researcher, majoring in disease prevention and control

    通讯作者: Yunyun Wu, PhD, E-mail: wuyunyun@nirp.chinacdc.cn, Tel: 13810937787; Quanfu Sun, PhD, E-mail: sunquanfu@nirp.chinacdc.cn, Tel: 13601294430
注释:
1) AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS: 2) CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

English Abstract

Xiaoxiang Miao, Yinping Su, Changsong Hou, Yanchao Song, Bowei Ding, Hongxing Cui, Yunyun Wu, Quanfu Sun. Indoor Radon Survey in 31 Provincial Capital Cities and Estimation of Lung Cancer Risk in Urban Areas of China[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2024, 37(11): 1294-1302. doi: 10.3967/bes2024.165
Citation: Xiaoxiang Miao, Yinping Su, Changsong Hou, Yanchao Song, Bowei Ding, Hongxing Cui, Yunyun Wu, Quanfu Sun. Indoor Radon Survey in 31 Provincial Capital Cities and Estimation of Lung Cancer Risk in Urban Areas of China[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2024, 37(11): 1294-1302. doi: 10.3967/bes2024.165
    • Radon (222Rn) is a radioactive gas generated by the radioactive decay of 238U and 226Ra which exist in rocks, soils, and building materials. Soil gas infiltration is recognized as the most important source of radon in dwellings. However, building materials have become the main source of indoor radon for modern high-rise buildings[1]. Radon is a major source of the ionizing radiation dose received by the general population, accounting for approximately 48% of the annual effective dose[2]. When radon gas is inhaled into the lung, densely ionizing alpha particles emitted by deposited short-lived decay products of radon (218Po and 214Po) could interact with biological tissue and lead to DNA damage, which is generally thought to be related with the cellular mutation and development of cancer[3]. Therefore, exposure to radon and its decay products increases the risk of lung cancer among humans[4-6]. Based on recent pooled studies on indoor radon and lung cancer across Europe, North America, and Asia, the proportion of lung cancers attributable to indoor radon ranges from 3% to 14%. Therefore, WHO has proposed and updated the reference level of indoor radon concentration to be as low as 100 to 300 Bq/m3 since 2009[3]. The International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) updated their recommendations on radon[7,8]. IAEA Safety Standards make governments responsible for providing information on indoor radon levels and the associated health risks. Therefore radon surveys were started or repeated in many countries, such as European Union members and other countries, in the last years[9].

      In China, indoor radon measurement has been conducted since the 1980s. The first nationwide indoor radon survey, covering 26 provinces or cities, was conducted by the former Ministry of Health from 1986 to 1994. The indoor radon level was found to be 23.7 Bq/m3 among 9,967 dwellings[10]. Meanwhile, another nationwide indoor radon survey was conducted by the former Environmental Protection Agency from 1983 to 1990, covering 21 cities, with an indoor radon level of 20.2 Bq/m3 among 1,610 dwellings[11]. From 2001 to 2005, a large-scale indoor radon survey covering 26 cities and 3,098 dwellings was conducted by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CCDC) and reported an average radon level of 43.8 Bq/m3[12]. The increasing trend of indoor radon concentrations has aroused the interest of researchers in indoor radon surveys in China. Thereafter, two regional indoor radon surveys were conducted between 2006 and 2010, and reported radon levels of 32.6 Bq/m3 and 34.9 Bq/m3, respectively[13,14]. However, no large-scale indoor radon survey has been conducted after the 2010s in China. Meanwhile, as the urbanization grows, the number of residential dwellings has greatly increased, and modern high-rise buildings have become prevailing in cities of China. New building materials, building constructions, and energy-saving designs are widely used in modern residential buildings, which may increase indoor radon levels in China. Therefore, it is urgent to carry out a new survey on indoor radon in China.

      Study have shown that environmental pollutants, such as tobacco smoke, particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOx), radon, etc., all could contribute to lung cancer for humans[15]. Since indoor radon is recognized as the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking[16], estimating the attributable risk of lung cancer death became essential for assessing its health hazards. Many countries, such as the United States[17], France[18], Canada[19] and Korea[20], have estimated indoor radon risk. In China, some studies have focused on the relationship between indoor radon and lung cancer risk[21,22], but the attributable risk of lung cancer death for indoor radon was only estimated based on regional indoor radon data in recent years[23,24], which could not be generalized to the whole country. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate the attributable risk of lung cancer based on the latest nationwide indoor radon survey in China.

      A new nationwide indoor radon survey was conducted in this study, and the lung cancer attributable risk was estimated using the EPA/BEIR-VI model[4], developed by the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) of the United States and modified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for risk assessment. This study is expected to provide the current national indoor radon levels and the attributable risk of lung cancer, which can provide a reference for making public health policies in China.

    • In this study, 31 capital cities, covering all provinces in Chinese mainland, were chosen for indoor radon measurements between 2018 and 2023. The sample size for each city was primarily determined by its population, following a proportional guideline of at least 1 per 100 thousand populations. There were at least 40 measurements for the selected cities, which had less population. The population of surveyed cities was more than 240 million, and accounted for 1/7 of the total population in China.

      The chosen dwellings predominantly represented multi-story and high-rise residential buildings constructed between the 1960s and 2010s, and 61.6% of the measured dwellings were built after 2010.

      The solid-state nuclear track detector (SSNTD) was used for indoor radon measurement. In each dwelling, a single detector was placed in the bedroom or living room, at a distance of at least 20 cm away from the wall, to prevent interference from 220Rn. The measurement period varied from 3 to 6 months for each dwelling. The housing data, including location, building age and floor details, were collected for each dwelling.

    • The LIH radon detector, developed by the National Institute for Radiological Protection (NIRP) of CCDC was used in this study. The construction of the detector has been described in a previous study[25]. CR-39 (Fukuvi Chemical Industry Co., Ltd) was used as the detecting material. It was fixed at the bottom of the chamber. After exposure, CR-39 was etched with 6.25 mol/L NaOH for 8 hours at 80 °C and subsequently analyzed manually using a microscope. The average radon concentration was then calculated using the following Formula 1:

      $$ {C}_{{R}_{n}}=\frac{N-{N}_{b}}{F\cdot t} $$ (1)

      Where CRn is the average radon concentration in Bq/m3, N is the track density after exposure in tracks/cm2, Nb is the track density caused by background in tracks/cm2, F is calibration factor in track/cm2 (Bq/h·m3), and t is sampling duration in h.

      The detector was calibrated at the China Institute of Metrology and was used in international intercomparison at the radon chamber of the National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS), Japan. The relative percentage difference (PD) between the measured radon concentrations and the reference values was within a range of 20%. Background measurements were conducted for each batch of detectors. After exposure, the detectors were sealed and returned to the laboratory for etching and analysis as soon as possible.

    • Based on the comprehensive comparison of risk assessment models for radon-induced lung cancer, it was found that among different models, the result of the EPA/BEIR-VI model was closest to the average value, which was conducive to reducing bias[26], which was consistent with a Canadian study[27]. Therefore, in this study, the EPA/BEIR-VI model was selected to estimate the number of lung cancer deaths attributable to indoor radon exposure in China. Mortality data primarily came from tumor registries at the National Cancer Center of China and mortality registration reports were obtained from the CCDC. The smoking rate data were obtained from the 2018 Adult Tobacco Survey conducted by the CCDC, while population data for 2018 were obtained from the National Bureau of Statistics of China.

    • The excess relative risk (ERR) in the calculation of the EPA/BEIR-VI risk model was formulated as follows (Formula 2):

      $$ \text{e}\left(\text{a}\right)={\beta }(\text{w}_{5-14}+0.78\text{w}_{15-24}+0.51\text{w}_{25+}){{\phi }}_{\text{age}} ...... $$ (2)

      Where: a represents age, β represents the parameter denoting the risk increase per unit exposure, with ERR value per working level month (WLM). For smokers, β = 0.069; for non-smokers, β = 0.153. The cumulative exposure W (expressed in WLM) was calculated by weighting three exposure periods: W5−14 for exposure 5–14 years before age a, W15−24 for exposure between 15–24 years before age a, and W25+ for exposure 25 years or more before age a. The assumption in the calculation was that the latent period of radon-induced lung cancer was 5 years, implying that radon exposure within the first 5 years before the onset of lung cancer did not increase the risk. EPA provides a continuous function for $ \varnothing age\left(a\right) $ in risk calculation. Continuous exposure to a radon concentration of 1 Bq/m³ results in an annual exposure of 4.4 × 10−3 WLM (assuming 70% occupancy time in indoor residences and a radon equilibrium factor of 0.4)[3].

      The radon concentrations from this nationwide survey were categorized into five groups: ≤ 40 Bq/m³, 40–80 Bq/m³, 80–100 Bq/m³, 100–150 Bq/m³, and ≥ 150 Bq/m³. Then, the proportion of dwellings exposed to each concentration and the relative population exposed to different concentrations were calculated. Based on these data, the ERR was estimated for lung cancer attributable risk of indoor radon.

      The formula for lung cancer risk calculation is presented in Formula 3:

      $$ \begin{aligned} {R}_{e}=& {\sum }_{i=1}^{110}\frac{{h}_{i}(1+{e}_{i})}{{h}_{i}^{*}+{h}_{i}{e}_{i}}{\prod }_{k=1}^{i-1}exp(-({h}_{i}^{*}+{h}_{k}{e}_{k}\left)\right)\\ & \times \left[1-exp(-({h}_{i}^{*}+{h}_{i}{e}_{i}\left)\right)\right] ...... \end{aligned} $$ (3)

      where Re represents the lifetime risk of lung cancer under specific exposure, $ {h}_{i} $ and $ {h}_{i}^{*} $ denote the lung cancer mortality rate and the overall mortality rate at age a, respectively. $ {e}_{i} $ represents the ERR value induced by exposure to radon and its progeny at age a (given by Formula 2). $ {\prod }_{k=1}^{i-1}exp(-({h}_{i}^{*}+{h}_{k}{e}_{k}\left)\right) $ represents the probability of survival until year i, considering the product of the survival probabilities for each year k from 1 to i-1. $ {\prod }_{k=1}^{i-1}exp(-({h}_{i}^{*}+{h}_{k}{e}_{k}\left)\right)\left[1-exp(-({h}_{i}^{*}+{h}_{i}{e}_{i}\left)\right)\right] $ represents the probability of surviving until i-1 and then dying in the ith year. Following standard literature conventions, the lifelong lung cancer mortality rate was computed using formula 3. Considering $ {e}_{i} $ = 0, then $ {R}_{e} $ is the baseline risk, indicating the lung cancer risk at the background radon concentration level.

      Population attributable fraction (PAF) can indicate the degree of hazard that exposure to risk factors poses to the total population, and the extent to which the health hazards to the total population can be reduced after eliminating this exposure. In this study, it was assumed that the PAF of indoor radon-induced lung cancer was equal to the ratio of the number of deaths from indoor radon-induced lung cancer to the total number of deaths from lung cancer. The 95% confidence interval (CI) estimation formula for PAF is given as follows:

      $$ \text{PAF} \pm {Z}_{{\alpha}/2}\sqrt{\frac{\text{PAF}(1-\text{PAF})}{n}} $$ (4)
    • In total, 3,450 detectors were placed in the survey and approximately 17% of them were missing during measurement. Data on indoor radon concentrations were collected from 2,875 dwellings. The results of indoor radon concentrations from 31 provincial capital cities were shown in Table 1. The overall AM and GM of indoor radon concentrations were respectively 65 Bq/m3 and 55 Bq/m3, ranging from 7 Bq/m3 to 800 Bq/m3. The city of Nanchang showed the highest indoor radon level of 124 Bq/m3, and Haikou had the lowest average indoor radon concentration of 32 Bq/m3.

      Table 1.  Indoor radon concentrations of 31 cities in China (Bq/m3)

      City N AM GM GSD Range
      Beijing 456 54 48 1.63 13–266
      Tianjin 87 53 46 1.69 12–170
      Shijiazhuang 114 70 61 1.69 7–315
      Taiyuan 58 75 62 1.78 31–301
      Hohhot 46 81 67 1.75 29–361
      Shenyang 84 86 78 1.51 31–321
      Changchun 45 89 55 2.38 12–558
      Harbin 73 82 72 1.64 26–312
      Shanghai 154 48 41 1.65 7–171
      Nanjing 98 51 47 1.48 21–175
      Hangzhou 101 82 71 1.65 37–345
      Hefei 55 55 48 1.75 8–135
      Fuzhou 60 39 34 1.64 11–111
      Nanchang 71 124 118 1.42 25–372
      Jinan 54 68 48 2.19 9–553
      Zhengzhou 117 54 43 1.87 11–245
      Wuhan 102 48 42 1.70 12–178
      Changsha 92 51 47 1.45 16–123
      Guangzhou 162 88 77 1.68 20–364
      Nanning 114 43 39 1.50 16–138
      Haikou 62 32 30 1.49 14–90
      Chongqing 138 56 59 1.35 14–149
      Chengdu 59 67 62 1.46 21–169
      Guiyang 43 72 63 1.64 24–203
      Kunming 86 84 68 1.71 27–800
      Lhasa 55 79 63 2.02 13–241
      Xi’an 96 77 72 1.43 28–314
      Lanzhou 59 81 74 1.52 35–230
      Xining 39 89 75 1.78 20–291
      Yinchuan 44 59 56 1.42 25–172
      Urumqi 51 74 69 1.45 38–214
        Note. N, number of samples deployed; AM, arithmetic mean; GM, geometric mean; GSD, geometric standard deviation; Range, min to max range.

      The frequency distribution of indoor radon concentrations is depicted in Figure 1, exhibiting a log-normal distribution. In total, 13.6% of the measured data exceeded 100 Bq/m3, and 0.6% of the measured data exceeded 300 Bq/m3, which was recommended by the WHO. In comparison, 8.6% and 0.2% of dwellings exceeded 100 Bq/m3 and 300 Bq/m3 in the 2000s survey, respectively. This study indicated a significant increase in the number of dwellings exhibiting elevated indoor radon levels.

      Figure 1.  The frequency distribution of indoor radon concentrations.

    • Based on the distribution of radon concentration in this survey, the Chinese population was stratified into groups by gender and smoking status. The indoor radon-induced lung cancer risk and attributable mortality were estimated for each group. Attributable deaths were segmented into 5-year age groups ranging from 15 to 79 years. Those aged 80 years and above were assigned to a separate group. The results were summarized in Table 2.

      Table 2.  Number of deaths from indoor radon–induced lung cancer in China

      Age (year) Male (n) Female (n) Total (n)
      Non-smoking Smoking Subtotal Non-smoking Smoking Subtotal
      15–19 13 13 26 23 0 24 49
      20–24 9 59 68 68 5 73 141
      25–29 27 183 210 238 9 247 457
      30–34 61 379 440 439 35 474 914
      35–39 150 994 1,144 1,198 60 1,258 2,401
      40–44 290 2,540 2,830 2,933 199 3,132 5,962
      45–49 661 6,138 6,799 5,363 656 6,019 12,818
      50–54 1,617 12,598 14,215 10,413 1,247 11,660 25,875
      55–59 1,502 13,280 14,783 9,749 1,294 11,042 25,825
      60–64 1,822 13,244 15,065 9,171 1,698 10,868 25,934
      65–69 1,843 10,446 12,289 8,200 1,343 9,543 21,833
      70–74 1,673 7,577 9,250 7,191 891 8,082 17,332
      75–79 1,131 2,819 3,950 3,340 441 3,781 7,730
      ≥ 80 579 844 1,422 2,101 0 2,101 3,524
      Total (n) 11,377 71,114 82,491 60,425 7,879 68,304 150,795

      Approximately 150,795 people may die from indoor radon-induced lung cancer in China. Among them, 71,114 were smoking males and 11,377 were non-smoking males, indicating that the lung cancer death rate among smoking males was 6.25 times higher than that of non-smoking males. Among females, 7,879 smokers and 60,425 non-smokers died from lung cancer. The lung cancer death rate among non-smoking females was 7.67 times higher than that among smoking females.

    • According to the calculation method for PAF and the 95% CI estimation formula, it was found that nearly 20.30% (95% CI: 20.21%–20.49%) of lung cancer deaths in the Chinese population were attributed to indoor radon exposure. This result was comparable with that found in the previous studies[23,24]. The population-attributable risk in 2016 was estimated to range from 6.66% to 22.42%, with a median of 15.33% for 15 Chinese cities. The variations among the studies were attributed to differences in radon concentrations and other baseline data.

    • This study conducted a new round of nationwide indoor radon survey covering all of the 31 provinces in China from 2018 to 2023. It was the most recent large-scale indoor radon survey in China, and it is essential to estimate the lung cancer risk of the public. The results indicated that the overall AM and GM of indoor radon concentrations in China were 65 Bq/m3 and 55 Bq/m3, respectively. We found indoor radon concentration was the highest in northeastern China, with an AM and GM of 85 Bq/m3 and 71 Bq/m3, respectively, followed by northwest and southwest regions. The high indoor radon concentration in the northeast and northwest regions may be attributed to the extreme cold weather. Longer period of cold days may shorten natural ventilation by opening windows, which may result in elevated indoor radon levels[28]. The higher indoor radon level in the southwest area may be related to the geological background since the highest soil radium content was reported in this region[29]. It indicates that the public should be aware of indoor radon problems in these areas, and measurement of indoor radon levels should be encouraged.

      Based on the average radon concentrations in different surveys, it can be inferred that indoor radon concentration markedly increased in China. It increased by approximately 50% compared to that in 2000s[12]. A review[30] of indoor radon concentrations in China over the past 30 years showed that indoor radon concentration was 46.1 Bq/m3 after 2000, indicating 57.0% increase compared to the 1980s. A systematic review[31] of nearly 40 years of indoor radon concentration surveys in China from 1980 to 2019 showed the rapid increase in residential radon concentration. There were two reasons for this trend. On one hand, the wide use of building materials mixed with industrial waste residues in modern high-rise buildings, which have higher radium content compared to soil[32], might have increased radon concentrations in newly constructed dwellings. On the other hand, the energy-saving design in newly constructed buildings also contributed to the increased trend of indoor radon concentrations. The widespread use of energy-saving building designs decreases the air exchange rate, leading to indoor radon accumulation. Increased radon accumulation due to decreased ventilation rate in energy-saving buildings has been reported in other countries, such as Finland[33], Russia[34], Spain[35], and France[36]. This situation deserve more attention.

      The indoor radon level was reported in several countries in recent years, such as Canada[37], Austria[38], Bulgaria and Montenegro[39, 40]. The GM of 55 Bq/m3 in this study was in agreement with that of Canada and Montenegro (57 Bq/m3 and 58 Bq/m3, respectively). However, the GM found in this study was much lower than that of Austria and Bulgaria (109 Bq/m3 and 81 Bq/m3 respectively).

      After summarizing data on male and female lung cancer deaths due to indoor radon exposure, lung cancer deaths among men were more common than among women. This difference is primarily due to two factors. First, the relative risk of lung cancer subsequent to smoking and radon exposure exhibited a sub-multiplicative relationship in the BEIR VI model. Second, the smoking rate among males was significantly higher than that among females (50.48% vs. 2.07%). However, the proportional relationship between smoking and the risk of radon-induced lung cancer death needs further studies. Smoking is the primary cause of cancer, accounting for 56.8% and 12.5% of male and female cancer patients, respectively[41]. Hence, it is important to investigate how smoking may modify the risks associated with radon exposure. Previous studies have analyzed the specific differences in the attribution of lung cancer mortality between indoor radon exposure alone and smoking combined with indoor radon exposure[42]. These studies used an epidemiological attribution method to calculate attributable deaths for different risk categories based on radon exposure and smoking status. The thresholds of 37 Bq/m3 and 148 Bq/m3 were used for radon exposure, and it was found that lung cancer deaths caused solely by radon exposure accounted for 3% to 5%, while lung cancer deaths caused by smoking combined with radon exposure accounted for approximately 22% (with the total proportion of lung cancer deaths attributable to radon being 25%). Thus, the proportion of lung cancer deaths caused solely by radon exposure may not be very high, but the proportion increases significantly when combined with smoking. This indicates that an important solution for preventing and controlling the health hazards of radon is smoking cessation.

      Based on the EPA/BEIR-VI risk model, the PAF of lung cancer deaths caused by indoor radon exposure in China was estimated to be 20.30% (95% CI: 20.21%–20.49%). When comparing our results with those of other studies, it was found that different risk models and inherent parameters, such as indoor radon concentration, population size, smoking prevalence, and lung cancer deaths, lead to different results. A nationwide survey in Canada[27] using the EPA/BEIR-VI risk model and an indoor radon concentration of 41.9 Bq/m3 showed that 16% of lung cancer deaths among Canadians may be attributed to indoor radon exposure. Based on the BEIR-VI (EAC/EAD) risk model, another study from France[18] estimated that 9% to 13% of lung cancer deaths could be attributed to indoor radon exposure when the average indoor radon concentration was 89 Bq/m3. The average radon concentration level in the United States in 1995 was approximately 46 Bq/m3, and the related attributable risk was estimated to be 13.5% using the BEIR-VI (EAC/EAD) risk model[16]. Using the BEIR-VI (EAC/EAD) risk model, the estimated attributable risk was 12.5% to 24.7% in Korea in 2010 when the indoor radon concentration was 62.5 Bq/m3[20]. A retrospective study[43] based on radon concentration survey data from 66 countries estimated the attributable risk of indoor radon-induced lung cancer in China in 2012. With an indoor radon concentration of 34 Bq/m3, the attributable risk was 12.4%–15.9%, based on the BEIR VI (EAC) model and the Hunter model and Cruse model, respectively. Although the results of these studies varied, the attributable risk of lung cancer increased as indoor radon concentrations increased, regardless of the model. The results of this study were comparable to those of the above studies and were consistent with the trend of findings from Canada and Korea.

      Reducing indoor radon concentration can be achieved through several methods, which have been analyzed and applied in the context of indoor radon pollution control in China. (a) Natural ventilation: This is considered the most economical and effective method for reducing radon levels. By simply opening windows for 2 to 10 hours, the average reduction rates of radon and its decay products can reach significant levels, with an average reduction rate of 87.7% for radon gas[44]. (b) Air purifiers: While not as effective as natural ventilation for reducing radon gas, air purifiers can significantly decrease the concentrations of attached radon decay products, with a reduction rate of up to 94.5%[44]. (c) Applying radon-resistant materials or sealants to the walls and floors can help to reduce radon levels. (d) Choosing high-quality building materials and paints can prevent radon from seeping through the inner walls of buildings. In China, there has been an increase in indoor radon concentrations, which has increased the need for radon reduction research and practices. The above-mentioned studies and practices have been part of the efforts to address this issue and promote public health. It should be confirmed that effectively reducing indoor radon concentration can lower the risk of lung cancer. To validate this, the estimations were conducted with the same EPA/BEIR VI model and other parameters in this study. If the indoor radon concentration in China decrease to 40 Bq/m³, the PAF of radon-induced lung cancer death can be reduced to 13.3%. If the indoor radon concentration further decrease to 30 Bq/m³, the attributable proportion may decrease to 10.0%. Therefore, more indoor radon mitigation efforts should be implemented to prevent and control this health hazard. In particular, when formulating and issuing public health policies related to indoor radon prevention and control, it is necessary to standardize the quality of building materials, promote the health education of natural ventilation, pay attention to tobacco control, and emphasize the harmful effects of concomitant exposure to indoor radon and smoking.

      Frankly speaking, there were still some limitations of this study. Firstly, this nationwide survey mainly focused on the urban residential dwellings of provincial capital cities in China. The results may not be representative of the national level, although the Chinese urbanization rate had exceeded 66% in 2023[45] and no significant differences between radon concentrations in urban and rural areas in China were found in some studies[13]. It is necessary to conduct surveys that are able to reflect the indoor radon concentrations in different living environments of urban and rural areas. Secondly, although the EPA/BEIR VI risk model was optimized, the smoking rate, the amount of smoking, and the risk of lung cancer subsequent to smoking of Chinese citizens may be different from that of American citizens, so the application of EPA/BEIR-VI model originally used in the United States may inevitably bring uncertainties. Thirdly, considering the rapid economic and social development and the rapid population movement among regions in China, it is assumed that the lifetime radon exposure level of the population is constant, which may lead to the uncertainty of the results. In general, the survey data and estimation results of this study provide a valuable reference for the gradual establishment of a more comprehensive indoor radon concentration database and a mature risk estimation model for indoor radon-induced lung cancer.

    • The survey on indoor radon concentrations in modern apartments was conducted across 31 capital cities, covering 31 provinces in China from 2018 to 2023 in this study. It was found an arithmetic mean (AM) indoor radon concentration of 65 Bq/m3. Approximately 13.6% of the measured points exceeded 100 Bq/m3, with 0.6% exceeding 300 Bq/m3. Furthermore, this study estimated the risk of lung cancer deaths attributable to indoor radon exposure using the EPA/BEIR-VI risk model, combined with Chinese lung cancer mortality rates, and other demographic data. In 2018, there were 150,795 lung cancer deaths, and approximately 20.30% of these deaths were attributed to indoor radon exposure. This study provided the latest nationwide data on indoor radon levels and their associated health hazards. Moreover, the findings provided support for further research on estimating and evaluating the disease burden and economic impact of indoor radon exposure in China, which are crucial for making public health policies and raising public awareness about health hazards of indoor radon.

参考文献 (45)

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回