Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 28;16(7):e0254099. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254099

Soil gas radon and soil permeability assessment: Mapping radon risk areas in Perak State, Malaysia

Habila Nuhu 1,2,*, Suhairul Hashim 1,3,#, Muneer Aziz Saleh 4,#, Mohamad Syazwan Mohd Sanusi 1,‡, Ahmad Hussein Alomari 5,‡, Mohamad Hidayat Jamal 6,‡, Rini Asnida Abdullah 6,‡, Sitti Asmah Hassan 6,‡
Editor: Elisabeth Bui7
PMCID: PMC8318270  PMID: 34320010

Abstract

In this study geogenic radon potential (GRP) mapping was carried out on the bases of field radon in soil gas concentration and soil gas permeability measurements by considering the corresponding geological formations. The spatial pattern of soil gas radon concentration, soil permeability, and GRP and the relationship between geological formations and these parameters was studied by performing detailed spatial analysis. The radon activity concentration in soil gas ranged from 0.11 to 434.5 kBq m−3 with a mean of 18.96 kBq m−3, and a standard deviation was 55.38 kBq m−3. The soil gas permeability ranged from 5.2×10−14 to 5.2×10−12 m2, with a mean of 5.65×10−13 m2. The GRP values were computed from the 222Rn activity concentration and soil gas permeability data. The range of GRP values was from 0.04 to 154.08. Locations on igneous granite rock geology were characterized by higher soil radon gas activity and higher GRP, making them radon-prone areas according to international standards. The other study locations fall between the low to medium risk, except for areas with high soil permeability, which are not internationally classified as radon prone. A GRP map was created displaying radon-prone areas for the study location using Kriging/Cokriging, based on in situ and predicted measured values. The GRP map assists in human health risk assessment and risk reduction since it indicates the potential of the source of radon and can serve as a vital tool for radon combat planning.

Introduction

Radon exists in the natural environment and is a matter of concern due to its human health effects. Radon is a radioactive gas that is released from the decay chains of 238U, 232Th, and 235U which are naturally occurring radionuclides. Radon (222Rn) is the most abundant isotope of radon and it is the decay product of radium (226Ra) in the 238U decay chain. 222Rn decays to stable 206Pb, with some daughters (218Po, 214Po, 214Pb 214Bi) in the decay chain which are solids, and reactive. 222Rn accounts for about 50% of natural radiation dose due to ionizing radiation [1]. Recent studies have attributed cancer incidence to relatively low 222Rn levels and prolonged exposure [2–5]. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) rates 222Rn as a first-class human carcinogen because of it being one of the leading causes of lung cancer after Tobacco [6]. The analysis of 222Rn in any source (soil, water, building materials) is necessary for the protection of the population from exposure. It is important for such action plans to accommodate the identification of the radon-prone areas (RPA) [i.e areas with the potential to generate higher indoor radon levels] [7].

Generally, two methods are used to designate RPA: (i) direct measurement of indoor radon concentrations and (ii) indirect geostatistical-based methods using proxy indicators (soil gas radon concentration, gamma dose rate from the field, and Aerial measurements of uranium/radium content in the soils and rocks) [8–11]. In different parts of the world, studies were conducted by determining the soil gas radon concentration to estimate radon-prone areas and radon risk assessment based on geological formations [3, 11–18]. These studies revealed that there is a strong link between radon concentration in soil gas and the underlying geology.

Geogenic radon potential (GRP) is the parameter that quantifies the amount of radon transported from nearby geological formation to the atmosphere or an indicator of the potential of the soil to constitute a source of indoor radon [15]. Several studies have reported a relationship between GRP and indoor radon concentration, while others have obtained radon risk maps based on the measurement of radon activity concentration and soil gas permeability [15, 19–23]. High GRP indicates a high probability of radon entering indoors due to geogenic reasons, such as radium and uranium content of the bedrock and rock permeability as well as faults that are related to radon mobility [14]. There are several methods used to map the GRP of a place. The most used methods are based on measured parameters such as uranium concentration in rocks, radium, and radon in soils, gamma-ray measurements by airborne gamma spectroscopy, and permeability of rocks or soils [17].

Soil gas permeability is a fundamental parameter for the determination of radon gas mobility [24]. The presence of a superficial soil layer with low permeability could imply an increase in the accumulation of radon below and may also lead to a considerable decrease in the radon’s soil-atmosphere flux [25]. The radon concentration in soil gas is directly dependent on the geological characteristics of the area and can be strongly influenced by soil permeability [16].

A few localized studies of radon in soil gas concentration have been conducted in different parts of Malaysia [26–33], their results ranged from 0.13 to 375.42 kBq m−3. According to the existing literature, the data of Malaysian studies on radon concentration in soil has not yet been fully determined despite its apparent health risk [34]. Limited data are available in the literature for 222Rn concentration in Perak state Malaysia.

The results of field measurements of radon activity concentration and soil permeability from Perak State, Malaysia, are presented in this paper. The goal of the research is to obtain the GRP map of the study area, which is a useful tool for the estimation of radon risk (highlighting regions of elevated 222Rn levels) and land use planning purposes. “Radon risk” here refers to the probability or likelihood of harm or the severity of the harm from radon exposure. The harm is mainly lung cancer, which is a painful and fatal disease [35].

Materials and method

Study area and sampling points

The study area is located in northern Peninsular Malaysia, and its coordinates are between latitudes 3.50o to 5.35o North, and longitudes 100.00o to 101.75o East, within an area of 21,006 km2 [36, 37]. There are two tectonic blocks in Peninsular Malaysia, the Sibumasu block (western region) and Sukhotai Arc (Eastern Malaya block) that are separated by the Bentong-Raub suture zone. These blocks converge at the late Triassic and form a part of the Sundaland continental core of Southeast Asia [38]. The Sibamasu block is in the North-south extension belt known as the western belt of Peninsular Malaysia also referred to as “The main granite range” [39]. The study area is located on this main granite range of Peninsular Malaysia. It is divided into four major geological regions, that is Quaternary (Comprise of marine and continental deposits, such as clay, silt, sand, peat with minor gravel and basalt of early Pleistocene age) covering 24% of the study area; Triassic-Jurassic (Sedimentary rocks of marine origin and form a wide belt. They entail shale, mudstone, siltstone, sandstone, and minor limestone lenses. Interbeds of tuff are common within this openly crumpled sequence) which covers 15% of the study area; Silurian (consists of tightly compressed consolidated shale, slate, argillite, metasandstone, phyllite, and schist) covering 16% of the study area, and Intrusive rocks (Mainly undifferentiated igneous rocks of granitic origin) which cover 45% of the study area [40, 41]. Fig 1 is the Geological map of Perak state with sampling points. The selection of sampling points was done randomly, based on the geological formation and the soil type typical of the region surrounding the sampling site. Each sampling point was picked on the geological and soil map respectively, and its geographical coordinates were noted and used to check the accessibility of the site on google map. The selection of sampling location is also free from exclusive or private and personal areas, which required no permit for an on-ground survey. The data of the sampling points were later imported on the map of the geological formation, using the ArcGIS Pro software. The maps were checked to ensure that each geological formation as well as areas with the tendency of radiological magnitudes of radium content and gamma radiation exposure as reported by previous researchers were captured [42]. Thus, seventy (70) locations were sampled to obtain a statistical distribution of Geogenic radon potential representative of the study area.

Fig 1. Geological map of Perak state (digitized from geological map of Peninsular Malaysia 1985 using Arc GIS Pro software).

Fig 1

Measurement of radon in soil gas

The RAD7 detector was used for the measurement of radon in soil gas. It is an alpha detector, consisting of a solid-state ion-implanted silicon semiconductor, which determines the 222Rn concentration by measuring the radioactivity of the decay products (218Po, and 214Po), which do reach equilibrium with its parent nuclide in fifteen minutes. The instrument has a low intrinsic background of 0.2 Bq m−3, and a measurement range of 4 Bq m−3 to 750,000 Bq m−3. Measurements were made at a depth of 0.8m (which ensures that there is no dilution with the air from the surface) using a cylindrical probe. The Probe was connected to the RAD7 detector and the test was started using selected commands (GRAB Protocol, SNIFF protocol, or THORON protocol) for the desired measurements [43]. Radon activity concentration measurements were carried out at low or no rainfall periods. The drying unit was used to maintain the relative humidity of the RAD7 at low values.

Soil gas permeability measurement

The RADON JOK Permeameter was used to measure the soil permeability (k) at each sampling point where radon in soil gas has been measured. The RADON-JOK equipment is used for in-situ measurements of gas permeability of soils. Air is pumped from the soil under constant pressure to a specially designed rubber sack, via gravity with the help of one or two weights. The permeability was calculated based on the time taken for the rubber sack to be filled with air and the use of a nomograph supplied by the Radon V.o.s company. The upper detection limit of the RADON JOK permeameter is 6 s, corresponding to the permeability of 1.8 × 10−11 m2. It is recommended that the auxiliary limit for low permeability be set at 5.2 × 10−14 m2 when the measuring time is higher than 1200s [23, 44]. In this study, the above detection limits were adapted.

Ordinary Kriging/Cokriging

Ordinary Kriging/CoKriging is a geostatistical technique used for GIS data interpolation (mapping, zoning, and contouring) purposes. They are both generalized forms of univariate and multivariate linear regression models, for estimation at a point, over an area, or a volume. They are linear-weighted averaging methods, similar to other statistical interpolation methods; however, their weights depend not only on distance but also on the direction and orientation of the neighbouring data to the unsampled location [45].

Ordinary Kriging utilized semivariogram analysis which is a statistical data extrapolation one can use to express autocorrelation between the independent variables either negatively or positively correlated [45, 46]. It also can be used for data transformations and to remove trends due to extreme values, and allow for measurement of residuals to assess the model or map precisions. The estimates are weighting factors calculated from the Kriging data interpolation. The weight factors in kriging are determined by using a user-specified semivariogram model (based on the output of the spatial correlation operation), the distribution of input points, and are calculated in such a way that minimizes the estimation of error in each output pixel. The estimated or predicted values are thus a linear combination of the input values and have a minimum estimation error. This gives Kriging an advantage over moving averages like the inverse distance [45]. The general probabilistic model of semi-variogram is given as;

γ(h)=12n(h)∑i=1n{Z(xi)−Z(xi+h)}2 (1)

where,

n(h) = Set of pairs of observations i for lag distance h.

Z(xi) = sampled variable with GIS information (geographic information system).

CoKriging requires GIS data for each data input (e.g., for this work radon gas and soil permeability data) and projects a raster map with estimations of the model residuals, a data interpolation error based on variances of the predicted values from the best line fit [45, 46].

The semivariogram model used in this study is the stable model, which is relatively fast and flexible and balances performance and accuracy. The fitted model line should be close to the averaged crosses on the semivariogram graph. The search neighbour type is standard with a maximum of 15 and a minimum of 10. The geostatistical wizard tool in ArcGIS Pro software was used for this analysis. The resolution of the maps was 300 DPI, and the dimension of the cell size was 5 km × 5 km.

Statistical analysis

The Origin pro was used to illustrate the data distribution, measures of central tendency, and variability of the measured parameters (radon in soil gas, soil permeability, and geogenic radon potential) in histogram and box plots. The box plot graphically depicts numerical data through their quantiles. The line inside each box represents the median (Q2 or second quartile), while the lower and upper edges of the box are the Q1 and Q3 (first and third quartile) respectively. The vertices of the whiskers stand for the least datum at the range of 1.5 IQR (Interquartile range: Q3 –Q1) of the lower quartile, and the maximum datum at a range of 1.5 IQR of the upper quartile, hence are not considered outliers. Plotting of outliers is done individually at such intervals as dots [47].

Results and discussion

Activity concentration of radon in soil gas

Fig 2 displays the histogram with statistical indicators of the radon activity concentration in the study area. The data distribution is asymmetric with lower values having higher frequencies, ranging from 0.11 to 434.5 kBq m−3. From the distribution, the mean value was 18.96 kBq m−3, while the standard deviation was 55.38 kBq m−3. (81%) of the data are below 20 kBq m−3, with a few values (13%) of the data having high activity concentration (above 20 to 50 kBq m−3), and 6% had very high values (above 50 kBq m−3). The Skewness and kurtosis values show that the data is asymmetric and non-normal distribution, prompting log normal distribution which was tested with the Shapiro-Wilk test (P < 0.05). The data were log-transformed to avoid the effect of remarkably high values on the geostatistical analysis. The coefficient of determination (r2) of the log-normal distribution was 0.89. The result did not reject the null hypothesis at a 5% level of significance, that the data distribution complies with log-normal distribution, having a p-value of 0.38. This theoretical distribution is generally used in geostatistical analysis, in the study of the spatial distribution of minerals and soil formations [48].

Fig 2. Histogram of radon activity concentration distribution in soil and statistical indicators.

Fig 2

The radon activity concentration map computed by Kriging/Cokriging interpolation is elucidated in Fig 3. The class breaks were determined using geometrical interval and a nine-color code of the standard model in ascending order with value labels from low to high activity concentration. Elevated radon activity was found in soils derived from granite geological formation and recent riverine alluvium, with mean values ranging from 4.28 to 44.48 kBq m−3 and a maximum of 434.5 kBq m−3 which is located at the most western granitic region of the state. The soil types include Rengam (Paleudult), Bukit Temiang (Hapludult), Akob (Aeric Tropaquept), Typic Sogomana (Kandiaquult), and Holyrood (Kandiadult). The area is located on the main granite range of Peninsular Malaysia, which consists of igneous granite rock. High radon concentrations are associated with granite rocks, therefore high radon activity concentration in soils derived from such bedrock was expected, as duly obtained. Moderate mean radon activity concentrations were found in miscellaneous soils (Urban and Mined land), and soils derived from sedimentary/metamorphic rocks Serdang (Paleudult-Hapludox), Chenian (Kanhapludlt) which ranged from 8.48 to 9.62 kBq m−3. The lowest mean radon activity concentration (4.28 kBq m−3) was found in marine soils (soils on coastal plains), whose parent materials are of marine, estuarine clays, and organic deposits, with the highest value of (27.6 kBq m−3). These soil types consist of, Kranji (Sulfaquent), Selangor (Aeric Tropic Fluvaquent), Briah (Tropic Fluvaquent), and Rudua (Spodic Quartzipsammant).

Fig 3. Map of radon activity concentration in soil gas Perak state.

Fig 3

Radon activity concentration for each geological type

Presented in Fig 4 is the box plot of the radon concentration according to the geological formations of the study area. The sampling points were allocated to each geological code using the ArcGIS Pro software. The number of samples in each classification were Quaternary (22), Triassic-Jurassic (26), Silurian (10), and Intrusive rocks (12). The overall median (1.98kBq m-3) value of 222Rn activity concentration for this study is higher than the median values obtained from, the areas under the Quaternary (1.13 kBq m−3) and Silurian (1.4 kBq m−3) geological formations. The Triassic-Jurassic geological formation has a median value of 1.97 kBq m-3 almost the same as the overall median and data range of 1.0 to 106.5 kBq m−3. The highest median (10.43 kBq m−3) is from regions with geological formations that composes of undifferentiated intrusive igneous rocks of granitic origin (Intrusive rocks). The data range from the intrusive rock regions ranged from 9.81 to 434.5 kBq m−3. Thus it conforms to the UNSCEAR (2006), in which it is stated that a high concentration of natural radionuclides is found in rocks of granitic origin.

Fig 4. Box plot of radon activity concentration in geological formations of Perak state.

Fig 4

The mean 222Rn activity concentration values in soil gas for each geological formation are also illustrated in Fig 4 The overall mean (18.96 kBq m−3) is higher than the means obtained from Quaternary (5.32 kBq m−3), Triassic-Jurassic (17.02 kBq m-3), and Silurian (5.16 kBq m−3) geological formations respectively. The highest mean (60.36 kBq m−3) is obtained from the geological formations that compose of undifferentiated intrusive igneous rocks of granitic origin (Intrusive rocks).

Soil gas permeability

As earlier indicated, soil permeability (k) is a basic parameter that is paramount in the release of radon to the atmosphere or its accumulation in the soil [49]. High permeability allows the upward migration of radon, enabling its’ exhalation to the atmosphere, while low permeability limits the radon exhalation rate to the atmosphere. Soil permeability range has been grouped into three classes (High, Medium, and Low) in this work, following the threshold established by Neznal, Neznal [23] in Table 1.

Table 1. Soil gas permeability classifications [23].

Classification Permeability (m2) Number of samples
High k˃ 4.0 × 10−12 14
Medium 4.0 × 10−12 ≥ k ≥ 4.0 × 10−13 20
Low k< 4.0 × 10−13 36

A summary of the data distribution of the soil permeability for the study area is displayed in the box plot in Fig 5. To make the measurement condition near homogenous, the soil permeability data were collected during a season of low rainfall. The soil permeability of the study falls mostly in the low-medium range, as can be observed in the box plot. The high permeability is about 3% of the distribution. Most of the data was taken from low to medium permeability areas.

Fig 5. Box plot of soil gas permeability of Perak state.

Fig 5

The soil gas permeability distribution according to geological formations is shown in Fig 6. The Overall median (7.6 × 10−14 m2) of soil gas permeability was lower in all except the Quaternary (5.20 × 10−14 m2) geological formation. The highest median value was obtained from the geological formations compose of undifferentiated intrusive igneous rocks of granitic origin (Intrusive rocks).

Fig 6. Box plot of soil gas permeability in geological units.

Fig 6

Fig 6 displays the mean soil permeability across the geological formations as well. The highest mean (7.12 × 10−13 m2) value was obtained from the geological formations composed of undifferentiated intrusive igneous rocks of granitic origin (Intrusive rocks). The mean of the soil gas permeability in the Triassic-Jurassic (Sedimentary rocks with conglomerates) (6.32 × 10−13 m2) and Intrusive rocks (7.12 × 10−13 m2) were higher than the overall mean respectively. However, the means of soil permeability from the Silurian (5.06 × 10−13 m2) and Quaternary (3.11 × 10−13 m2) geological formations were lower than the overall mean. The soil gas permeability in the Quaternary was generally lower. This could be because of its proximity to coastal areas by the straits of Melaka.

The soil gas permeability map is displayed in Fig 7. The area with low permeability were mostly located in the west of Perak in the coastal lands (mostly marine and riverine soils). The medium soil gas permeability was in the central, northern, and southern parts of Perak state, which constitute mostly soils from sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. The high permeability was in the eastern part of Perak state, which is mostly soils from granite rocks. Although efforts were put to take measurements on undisturbed lands, there were certain urban areas in which it was difficult to achieve that. In general, there were isolated areas of medium permeability in high permeability areas and low permeability in medium permeability areas and vice-versa.

Fig 7. Soil permeability map of Perak state.

Fig 7

Geogenic radon potential (GRP) and radon prone areas

The GRP was calculated based on the formula proposed by Neznal, Neznal [23] defined in Eq (2).

GRP=CRn−log(k)−10 (2)

where CRn (kBq m−3) is the 222Rn concentration in soil gas and k (m2) is the permeability of the soil. Higher mean GRP values imply greater potentials for radon to migrate through the soil [16].

Radon-prone areas are usually categorized using the Radon Index (RI) based on the values of GRP. Many years of extensive research in the Czech Republic has led to categorizing radon prone areas into three, depending on the GRP value: low RI (GRP < 10), medium RI (10 < GRP < 35), and high RI (GRP ˃ 35) [2, 22–24].

Using the Czech classification, the GRP values of this study are displayed in Fig 8. The areas with high RI (GRP >35) [6%] are in granitic regions. The areas with medium RI (10 < GRP > 35) [14%] are in Triassic-Jurassic regions, with isolated cases in quaternary. The bulk (80%) of the study locations are in the region with low RI (GRP < 10). An area might be categorized as having low RI, but it is possible to have some isolated radon concentration above the reference level in such areas. Similarly, an area categorized as having high RI can also have some isolated radon levels below the reference level. Processes in the soil causing such low/high concentrations could occur as a result of several factors such as soil permeability, particle size, porosity, water content near saturation level, soil comprising of clay, exhalation, advection, temperature, and diffusion [2].

Fig 8. Box plot of GRP classification Perak state.

Fig 8

The GRP map produced using Kriging\cokriging interpolation is presented in Fig 9. A three-color code was used in categorizing the RI. The map indicates that a large part of the state can be categorized in the low RI areas. The regions with medium to high RI are mostly concentrated in the central and north-western parts of the state, which is predominantly made up of soils derived from sedimentary/metamorphic rocks, granite rocks, and miscellaneous (urban and mined) soils. Buildings in such areas are prone to indoor radon gas accumulation, which is affected by the environmental conditions (temperature gradient) that influence the radon gas transport, to be either by advective transport (temperature gradient present) as the dominant mechanism or transport by diffusion (temperature gradient absent) as the dominant mechanism. Displayed in Fig 10 is the empirical semi-variogram in the theoretical stable model. Most of the empirical semivariances fall along the model line as required.

Fig 9. Geogenic radon potential map of Perak state Malaysia.

Fig 9

Fig 10. Semi-variogram.

Fig 10

The cross-validation procedure that was used in this work is the “leave one out” method. It involves removing a single point in the data set and using all remaining points to predict the location of the point removed. The predicted value is then compared to the measured value and many statistics are generated to determine the accuracy of the prediction. The model cross-validation results in Table 2 indicate that the predicted GRP values match the soil gas radon values measured. The continuous ranked probability score (CRPS) in Table 2 represents the diagnostic score which measures each observed data’s deviation from the predictive cumulative distribution function. The mean error of prediction (ME) and the mean Standardized error (MSE) are 0.01 and 0.005 respectively and near zero, suggesting that the interpolation technique used is hinged on true values and the model is a particularly good one. The average standard error (SE) is 15.44 and is less than the root-mean-square error (RMSE) of prediction, which is 18.23, indicating a slight underestimation of the variability in predictions by the interpolation method.

Table 2. Cross-validation results for model.

Parameter Value
Average CRPS 7.60
Inside 90 percent interval 92.86
Inside 95 percent interval 94.24
Mean error 0.01
Root-mean-square error 18.23
Mean standardized error 0.005
Root-mean square standardized 1.07
Average standard error 15.44

Displayed in Fig 11 is the standard error of the prediction map. The map shows that near the sampling points the prediction is good. However, as we move away from the sampling points the standard error increases. In the areas of high GRP, the uncertainty is relatively moderate (< 20). In low GRP regions, the uncertainty is relatively low (< 16).

Fig 11. Standard error of prediction map for GRP.

Fig 11

Conclusion

Pioneer maps of radon prone areas in Perak state, Malaysia were produced. The regions with high radon risk areas are mostly concentrated in the central and southern part of the state, which is predominantly made up of soils derived from granite rocks. Based on the GRP classification low 222Rn values are observed in the south-eastern and northern-central sectors of the study area which is underlined with medium soil permeability. From the radon risk index based on the GRP classification of Perak state, the area is mostly at low risk. However, there are areas that are in the medium radon risk, with isolated high GRP values. It should be noted that although an area might be categorized as low risk, it is possible to have radon concentration above the reference level. Similarly, an area levelled as high risk can have radon levels below the reference level.

The authorities saddled with the responsibility of radon monitoring and control will find the maps produced in this study a valuable tool in the prevention and mitigation of radon in dwellings and workplaces. It could also help in the inclusion of building techniques that are radon resistant.

Supporting information

S1 File. Minimal data set.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our special gratitude to the Department of Mineral and Geoscience Malaysia under the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources for approving our request to use the Geological Maps of Perak.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

We acknowledged the financial support from the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia through UTMSHINE Signature Grant (No. 07G82, 07G85, 07G90 and 07G91). This study was also partially funded by a contract research DTD grant from Intech Scientific Sdn. Bhd. (R.J130000.7617.4C403)

References

  • 1.WHO. Guidelines for drinking water quality. World Health Organization, Copenhagen. 2011(Vol1. 3rd edition). [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Alonso H, Rubiano JG, Guerra JG, Arnedo MA, Tejera A, Martel P. Assessment of radon risk areas in the Eastern Canary Islands using soil radon gas concentration and gas permeability of soils. Sci Total Environ. 2019; 664(2019):449–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Giustini F, Ciotoli G, Rinaldini A, Ruggiero L, Voltaggio M. Mapping the geogenic radon potential and radon risk by using Empirical Bayesian Kriging regression: A case study from a volcanic area of central Italy. Sci Total Environ. 2019. 661(2019):449–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.ICRP. Lung cancer risk from radon and progeny and statement on radon. ICRP Publication 115. Ann. ICRP 40(1) 1–64 doi: 10.1016/j.icrp.2011.08.011 2010. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 5.UNSCEAR. Effects of Ionizing Radiation-Volume II: Scientific Annexes C, D and E. Vol.II 1–338. Newyork; 2006.
  • 6.Elio J, Crowley Q, Scanion R, Hogdson J, Zgaga I. Estimation of residential radon exposure and definition of radon priority areas based on expected lung cancer incidence. Environ Int 114. 2018:69–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.ICRP. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection; ICRP publication 103, Ann, ICRP. 37(2–4) 1–332 doi: 10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003 2007. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 8.Anderson CE, Ulbak K, Damkjaer A, Kirkegaard P, Gravesen P. Mapping indoor radon-222 in Denmark: design and test of the statistical model used in the second nationwide survey. Sci Total Environ. 2001;272(1–3):231–41. doi: 10.1016/s0048-9697(01)00697-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Appleton JD, Miles JCH, Young M. Comparison of Northern Ireland radon maps based on indoor radon measurements and geology with maps derived by predictive modelling of airborne radiometric and ground permeability data Sci Total Environ. 2011;409:1572–83. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.01.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Garcia-Talavera M, Garcia-Perez A, Rey C, Ramos I. Mapping radon prone areas using γ-radiation dose rate and geological information. J Radiol Prot. 2013;33(3):605–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ielsch G, Cushing ME, Combes P, Cuney M. Mapping of the geogenic radon potential in France to improve radon risk management: methodology and first applications to region Bourgogne. Environmental Radioactivity. 2010. 101(10):813–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bossew P. A radon risk map of Germany based on the geogenic radon potential. In Mathematics of Planet Earth (pp. 527–531). Springer. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Burghele B, Ţenter A, Cucoş A, Dicu T, Moldovan M, Papp B, et al. The FIRST large-scale mapping of radon concentration in soil gas and water in Romania. Science of the Total Environment. 2019;669(2019): 887–92. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.342 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ciotoli G, Voltaggio M, Tuccimei P, Soligo M, Pasculli A, Beaubien S, et al. Geographically weighted regression and geostatistical techniques to construct the geogenic radon potential map of the Lazio region: A methodological proposal for the European Atlas of Natural Radiation. J Environ Radioactivity. 2017;166(Pt2): 355–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2016.05.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kemski J, Klingel R, Siehl A, Valdivia-Manchego M. From radon hazard to risk prediction based on geological maps, soil gas and indoor measurements in Germany. Environ Geol. 2009;56(7):1269–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lara E, Rocha Z, Santos TO, Rios FJ, Oliveira AH. Soil Features and Indoor Radon Concentration Prediction: Radon in Soil Gas, Pedology, Permeability and (226)Ra Content. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2015;167(1–3):126–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pásztor L, Szabó KZ, Szatmári G, Laborczi A, Horváth Á. Mapping geogenic radon potential by regression kriging. Science of the Total Environment, 2016;544(2016):883–91. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.175 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Szabó KZ, Jordan G, Horváth Á, Szabó C. Mapping the geogenic radon potential: methodology and spatial analysis for central Hungary. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 2014;129(2014):107–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2013.12.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Appleton JD, Miles JCH. A statistical evaluation of the geogenic controls on indoor radon concentrations and radon risk J Environ Radioact. 2010;101(10):799–803. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2009.06.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Barnet I, Fojtikava I. Soil gas radon, indoor radon, and gamma dose rate in CZ: Contribution to geostatistical methods for European atlas of natural radiations. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2008;130(1):81–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Barnet I, Pacherova P. Impact of the deeper geological basement on soil gas and indoor radon concentrations in areas of Quaternary fluvial sediments (Bohemian Massif, Czech Republic). Environ Earth Sci. 2011;63(3):7. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Neznal M, Neznal M. Analysis of problems and failures in the measurement of soil-gas radon concentration. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2014;160(1–3):214–6. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncu088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Neznal M, Neznal M, Matolin M, Barnet I, Miksova J. The new method for assessing the radon risk of building sites. In: Prague C, editor. The Czech Republic 1–94. Czech. Geol. Survey Special Papers; 2004. p. 1–94. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Neznal M, Neznal M. Permeability as an important parameter for radon risk classification of foundation soils. Annals of Geophysics. 2005;40(1):175–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Johner H, Surbec H. Soil gas measurement below foundation depth improve indoor radon prediction. Sci Total Environ. 2001;272(1–3):337–41. doi: 10.1016/s0048-9697(01)00712-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ahmad N. Natural radioactivity, radon concentration and heavy metals in soil and water in Kedah, Malaysia: Universiti Sains Malaysia; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Abdul Razab MKA, Abd Karim SF, Azhar NE, Hamzah NL, Abdullah NH, Noor MA, et al. The effects of altitude levels on 222Rn concentration in academic building at Universiti Malaysia Kelantan Jeli campus. Paper presented at the Materials Science Forum. 2017:466–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Abdul Razab MKA, Azhar NE, Hamzah NL, Abd Karim SF, Abdullah NH, Noor MA, et al. Investigations of outdoor and indoor 222Rn concentrations level in academic building at Universiti Malaysia Kelantan Jeli campus. Paper presented at the Materials Science Forum. 2017:471–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Almayahi B, Tajuddin A, Jaafar M, editors. In-Situ radon level measurement for a tropical country. Proceedings of International Conference on Chemical, Biological and Environment Sciences (ICCEBS’2011) in Thailand; 2011.
  • 30.Almayahi B, Tajuddin A, Jaafar M. 210Pb, 235U, 137Cs, 40K and 222Rn concentrations in soil samples after 2010 Thai and Malaysian floods. 2012 Asia Pacific Conference on Environmental Science and Technology Advances in Biomedical EngineeringVol 6. 2012:593–8.
  • 31.Almayahi B, Tajuddin A, Jaafar M. In situ soil 222Rn and 220Rn and their relationship with meteorological parameters in tropical Northern Peninsular Malaysia. Radiation Physics and Chemistry. 2013;90(2013):11–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Saleh MA, Othman SNS, Hamzah K, Zainal J. Vertical distribution of the radon concentration at Batu Pahat District, Johor, Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences. 2020;16(3):324–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Zahariman A, ABDULLAH MI, ABDUL MKA, WAN A. 222Rn Concentration of Soils at Selected Locations in Universiti Sains Malaysia Health Campus. AMCT 2017, Malaysia. International Journal of Current Science, Engineering & Technology. 2018:269–73.
  • 34.Ahmad N, Khan IU, Rehman JU, Nasir T. An overview of radon concentration in Malaysia. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences. 2017;10(4):327–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.WHO. WHO Handbook on Indoor Radon: A Public health perspective. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press; 2009. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Nursama HA, Ramli AT, Sutisna. Activity Concentration of 238U, 232Th, and 40K Based on Soil Types in Perak State, Malaysia Earth Science Research. 2013;2(2):122–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Director of National Mapping M, cartographer Topographic Map of Perak State Ipoh Malaysia: Director of National Mapping 1989.
  • 38.Metcalfe I. Tectonic evolution of the Malay Peninsula. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 2013;76 (2013) 195–213. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hutchison CS, Tan DNK. Geology of Peninsular Malaysia: The University of Malaya and Geological Society of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Director General of Geological Survey M, cartographer Map of Mineral Resources in Peninsular Malaysia. Geological Survey Department, Federation of Malaya: Director General of Geological Survey Malaysia; 1988
  • 41.Omar M, Hassan A, Sulaiman I. Radiation exposure during traveling in Malaysia. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2006;121(4):456–60. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncl060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Arnedo MA, Rubiano JG, Alonso H, Tejera A, Gonzalez A, Gonzalez J, et al. Mapping natural radioactivity of soils in the eastern Canary Islands. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 2017;166 (2): 242–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2016.07.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Durridge Company Soil Gas Probe Manual I. RAD7 Soil Gas Probe Manual USA: Durridge Company, Inc.; 2015 [Available from http://www.durridge.com/documentation/RAD7.
  • 44.Equipment for In situ permeability measurements [Internet]. Radon V.o.s. 2010 [cited 23 October 2017]. Available from: http://www.radon.eu/.
  • 45.Burrough PA. Principles of Geographical Information Systems for Land Resources Assessment: Oxford University Press; 1986. 194 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Burrough PA, McDonnell RA. Principles of Geographical Information Systems: Oxford University Press; 1998. 330 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Devore JL. Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences. Ninth ed. USA: Cengage Learning; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Rendu JMM. Normal and lognormal estimation. Mathematical Geology. 1979. 11(4):407–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Castelluccio M, De Simone G, Lucchettia C, Moronib M, Salvatia F, Tuccimeia P. A new technique to measure in situ soil gas permeability. Geochemical Exploration. 2014;148 (2015):56–9. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Elisabeth Bui

19 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-31278

Soil gas radon and soil permeability assessment: Mapping radon risk areas in Perak State, Malaysia.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nuhu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The two reviewers have concluded that this work is worth publishing but that it requires major revision first. Both reviewers have made constructive comments to improve the paper. Please address these and re-submit.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 27 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Elisabeth Bui

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained to collect samples for the present study. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. We note that Figures 1, 3, 7, and 8 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

(1) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 3, 7, and 8 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

(2) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript "soil gas radon and soil permeability assessment: mapping radon risk areas in Perak State, Malaysia" by Nuhu et al. presents a case study in a region where data and maps of the radon related risk have been rarely published. Therefore, I generally encourage publication of this pioneering work. However, before publication I suggest the authors to substantially revise the manuscript, especially regarding these general aspects:

1. A large fraction of the observed data on soil gas radon concentration seem to be extraordinarily low (more in the range of outdoor air rather than soil gas). Please give a physical reasoning for these large amount of observations with very low values.

2. The interpolation method (empirical bayesian kriging) is not described at all. Please give a brief description. Also, please elaborate why you have chosen this interpolation technique (which is rather novel and sophisticated) and not a simpler one such as a more basic kriging alternatives. What are the advantages of EBK?

3. How was cross-validation conducted? Please give details on fold assignment. Did you consider spatial autocorrelation in the observational data during cross-validation? What is the range of spatial auto-correlation in your data?

4. You showed a dependence of GRP on geology. Why do you not exploit this knowledge for spatial prediction/interpolation, e.g. by using geology as co-variable?

5. The conclusion is only partly supported by your results. The high risk of granitic areas seems to be rather your hypothesis than your finding. Large parts of the high GRP areas are not in the granitic areas. For instance, a large fraction of the area covered with quaternary sediments (in the south and south-west of the study area) has a higher GRP than the granitic areas. This might be a consequence of the interpolation technique that you selected by not implementing geology as co-variable.

6. In many cases the language is not precise enough, partly ambiguous and grammatically not always sound.

Minor comments

• L50: Rn is one of the leading causes for lung cancer, not for cancer in general

• L54: “generate higher indoor Rn levels”

• L 56: these methods are not geology-based. I guess you mean statistical methods (geostatistics, regression) using co-variable/proxy data

• L 57: Ariel? Please explain

• L76: What do you mean with “baseline” data? Unclear.

• L 93: consider replacing geological “contexts” with “regions”

• L96-98: The description of the sampling design is unclear to me. Please specify. Did you use the same fraction of measurements per geological region or did you sample preferentially in areas with expected higher values or higher geological heterogeneity?

• Fig.1: What is the scale of the map? Please add sampling locations. Your geological classification in the legend is a mix of stratigraphic and lithologic classes. Please be consistent. Either stratigraphic or lithologic or lithostratigraphic.

• Please indicate sampling locations also in Fig. 3, 7 & 8. This will help interpreting the maps.

• Fig 2: please consider using smaller bins (e.g. 5 or 10 kBq/m³) for the histogram. In the box statistical indicators, a median of 0.15 seems to be unrealistic given my experience and also the data shown in the plot. Consider using standard deviation instead of error since you want to give a measure of dispersion in your data set rather than an error/uncertainty of an individual observation. There is no boxplot in this figure (figure caption)

• I would recommend not using two decimal digits because it pretends an accuracy that is not existing in reality

• L132: A soil gas Rn concentration of 0.01 kBq/m³ is a very low value. This is rather a Rn concentration observed in outdoor air than in soil (where Rn is continouosly produced). I would suspect such low values as erroneous measurements (e.g., due to contamination of your measured volume with outdoor air). If you consider these values to be realistic please elaborate on the processes in soil causing such low concentrations.

• L136: You performed log-transformation of your data prior to geostatistical modelling. How did you backtransform your data to the original scale after interpolation.

• L 166: “marine soils” are misleading for soils with marine sediments as parent material. Please consider revising.

• Fig. 3. In this map a few apparent artefacts (e.g., in the east next to the label of Kelantan) are existent. Further, I suggest using even value breaks instead of giving two decimal digits.

• L 174ff: I suggest shifting the explanation of a boxplot into the caption of Fig4 because it breaks somewhat the flow in your text and it can be assumed that most readers are familiar with the concept of a boxplot.

• L180: The highest mean Rn conc. was found in Granite but the highest median in sed./metamorph. Please be more precise.

• Fig 4: Does Fig. show Rn data on the original scale or log-transformed data. If it shows data on the original scale, most values are exceptionally low which would require a physical explanation. How many samples do you have in each class? Please give n per class.

• L 211ff: the GRP is practically dimensionless since the log of k is used in eq. 1

• L227: Please describe your geostatistical model. What are the parameters of your variogram?

• L227: What is the reasoning for using 9 colour codes? If you do a classification in low, medium and high, it would be straightforward to use only 3 codes

• L240: Please describe your cross-validation procedure. How did you assign observation to the testing fold? Random, stratified, spatially blocked?

• Fig. 8: resolution of the figure is poor.

• L259ff: your conclusion is not fully supported by your results. You claim that high GRP areas are mainly found in the granitic areas. In fact, the high GRP regions in Fig 7 and the outline of the granitic rocks (Fig1) do overlap only partly. I feel that this granitic regions being at higher risk is rather your hypothesis than your finding. Further, large parts of the high GRP areas are located in the quaternary sediments. This might be a consequence of their proximity to high GRP observations in the nearby granitic areas. If this is the case (I can only speculate on this issue because information on sampling locations is missing), I suggest considering the implementation of your knowledge (dependence of GRP on geology) in your spatial prediction/interpolation model (e.g., by using geology as co-variable).

• L 267: Why do you refer to a reference level of 300 Bq/m³? Your paper deals with the GRP, while the reference level of 300 Bq/m³ (or 100 Bq/m³or 200 Bq/m³) applies to indoor environments. The indoor reference level cannot be applied to your GRP estimates.

Reviewer #2: Dear Dr. Bui

The manuscript by Nuhu et al. (Ref. No.: PONE-D-20-31278) deals an important issue on study of spatial distribution of geogenic radon potential. The experimental part of the study includes measurements of radon concentration in soil gas and soil permeability; the applied geostatistical method is consistent with the scope of the study. However, the geostatistical analyses are not described in sufficient detail, and the discussion is quite superficial therefore, in my opinion, a MAJOR revision of the manuscript is necessary.

My detailed comments on manuscript are given below:

Introduction

Lines 53-54: Please, check the definition of RPA, and clarify its relationship with indoor radon. “Radon Prone Area” is a term that describes an area where the probability of enhanced radon concentration is much higher than average. The establishment of such areas, by national authorities, can be based on geological conditions and/or the results of measuring campaigns of indoor radon concentration. See ICRP 1993 (Protection against radon-222 at home and at work. ICRP Publication 65. Paragraph 3.3)

Line 57: “Ariel” ?

Lines 67-68: High GRP indicates a high availability of geogenic radon that can enters indoor. Also, express clearly that GRP is related to Ra content (but also U content!) because it is a Rn source, whereas permeability (but also faults!) is related to Rn mobility.

Line 69: I suggest to add here a short review of the methods previously used to map GRP.

Lines 75-76: Please, summarize the results of previous studies.

Line 78: What data? Please, add description and reference.

Line 82: A strict definition of “radon risk” should be presented.

2.0 Materials and Method

In this section, after the description of the study area and the analytical techniques, I expected to read a paragraph about the geostatistical technique used to map the GRP. Practically, the discussion is based on the maps elaborated using Empirical Bayesian Kriging (EBK), but the method description is absent. Please, add the description of EBK model and explain why you chose this interpolation method. What semivariogram did you select? What the maximum number of points in each local model? What software did you use? What is the resolution of your maps?

2.1 Study area and sampling points

Lines 92-95: The geological description is too scarce, please add more information. Faults and structural discontinuities may be important pathways for radon movement in the subsoil, so you should describe the tectonic frame of the study area.

Line 96-97: please, add the location of sampling points in Fig.1. Also, calculate the sampling density. How many samples for each geological formation?

2.2 Measurement of radon in soil gas

Please, specify in what period of the year and meteorological conditions the measurements were performed.

Line 109: Did you use a drying tube to maintain the relative humidity at low values?

Results and discussion

3.1 Activity concentration of radon in soil gas

Lines 131-132: for non-normal distribution, better to use geometric mean

Lines 132-134: this description is does not fit to the histogram of fig. 2, probably a histogram with more classes will be better describe your data. Please, consider using a normal probability plot; it can help to recognize both anomalous samples and multiple populations in log-normally distributed data

Lines 152-153: here the Authors introduce for the first time the Empirical Bayesian Kriging; see the comment above.

Lines 153-155: this description is unnecessary; better to specify how you have determined the class breaks (e.g., manual interval, quantile, natural breaks etc.)

Line 157: “ Manjung District”, and other localities cited later in the text (e.g., line 214), are unknown to non-Malaysian. Please, add it in the Figures.

Lines 158-159: An explanation is needed of how this list of soil types is used and how these soils were identified. Did you identified these soils in field? Did you extrapolated from a pedological map? Is there a correlation between soil types and Rn concentration and/or permeability?

Lines 159-162: This statement causes some doubts. The Authors identified the area with the highest values of soil gas radon in Manjung District, which is located in the southwestern part of the state of Perak; here, granite rocks outcrops and therefore the Authors explain the high Rn values because it derived from such bedrock. However, the geological map of fig. 2 shows that granite rocks extensively outcrop in the eastern part of the study area, where the soil gas Rn concentrations are not particularly high (Fig.3). So, how the Authors explain these spatial distribution? Did you consider the presence of permeable structures such as fractures and/or faults?

Line 163: What mines/quarries are in the study area? Where they are located?

Line 169: I suggest to add a table (or a box-plot) with the statistics (average values, ranges of values) of soil gas Rn concentration and permeability in different soil types, I think that it can be help the reader.

3.2 Radon activity concentration for each geological type

Sincerely, there is no reason to separate this paragraph from the previous one.

Lines 174-178: the general description of box-plot should be moved in the method section. A sub-paragraph describing statistical and geostatistical elaborations might be appropriate.

3.3 Soil gas permeability

Lines 197-198: Please, add a map of spatial distribution of permeability, it could be very useful here. Please, also discuss how permeability influences radon in soil, in general and in your case study.

Table 1: Add the number of your samples that fall within each class of permeability.

3.4 Geogenic Radon Potential (GRP) and Radon prone areas

Line 210: “Many years of extensive research in the Czech Republic”…please, add references.

Line 232: the title of the paragraph is “Geogenic Radon Potential (GRP) and Radon prone areas”, but where in the text the RPA are described?

Please, compare the map of GRP with the map of Terrestrial Gamma Dose Rate (TGDR) published by Ramli et al (2016) - Predicting terrestrial gamma dose rate based on geological and soil information: case study of Perak state, Malaysia. J. Radiol. Prot. 36(1), 20-36.

4.0 Conclusion

Lines 268-270: this concept should be emphasized in Discussion.

Figures

Figure 1: add the location of sampling points, the prevailing tectonic lines, names of the district cited in the text

Figure 2: delete “and box plot” in the figure caption

Figures 3 and 7: add the corresponding semivariograms.

Figure 4: what represent the blue dashed lines? How many samples for each geological type?

Figure 5: add box plots classified according to geological formations and/or soil types.

Figure 7: add a layer of urbanized areas, in order to evaluate if the areas of high RI are already urbanized or not yet; in the first case, the map could indicate the areas where it could be necessary monitoring the indoor radon concentration, in the second case the map could be a tool for future urbanistic plans.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 28;16(7):e0254099. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254099.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Jan 2021

Manuscript Number: PONE-D-20-31278

Response to reviewers’ comment

Academic editor

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that we have revised the manuscript format accordingly.

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained to collect samples for the present study. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that there is no permit required for the on-ground radon survey as the sampling locations are located or selected in personal territory areas or highly risk areas. On top of that, this is government funding work and special privilege is granted for the researcher. A brief statement is given in methodology to address these comments.

3. We note that Figures 1, 3, 7, and 8 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

(1) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 3, 7, and 8 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

(2) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that all Fig. 1,3,7,8 are original work from authors, digitised images which produced from ArcGIS software. On top of that the geological map of Peninsular Malaysia is free for educational and research purpose. Please refer to our communication email with the officer at the Department of Mineral and Geoscience Malaysia under the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources for approving our request to use the Geological Maps of Perak. The acknowledgement to this department has been added to express our gratitude on their cooperation.

Reviewer #1

1. A large fraction of the observed data on soil gas radon concentration seem to be extraordinarily low (more in the range of outdoor air rather than soil gas). Please give a physical reasoning for these large amount of observations with very low values.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that this could occur as a result of several factors such as soil permeability, particle size, porosity, water content near saturation level, soil comprising of clay, exhalation, advection, temperature and diffusion.

Alonso, H., Rubiano, J. G., Guerra, J. G., Arnedo, M. A., Tejera, A., & Martel, P. (2019). Assessment of radon risk areas in the Eastern Canary Islands using soil radon gas concentration and gas permeability of soils. . Science of the Total Environment, 664(2019), 449-460. doi:. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.411

2. The interpolation method (empirical bayesian kriging) is not described at all. Please give a brief description. Also, please elaborate why you have chosen this interpolation technique (which is rather novel and sophisticated) and not a simpler one such as a more basic kriging alternatives. What are the advantages of EBK?

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that the description of EBK model, the explanation of why I chose this interpolation technique, has been added as a section. The advantage of EBK include: (a)It requires minimal interactive modelling (b) It gives more accurate standard errors of prediction than other kriging methods (c) It allows accurate predictions of moderately nonstationary data and (d) More accurate method for small data set than other Kriging methods.

Krivoruchko, K. (2012). Empirical Bayesian Kriging Implemented in ArcGIS Geostatistical Analyst. ArcUser Fall 2012 Software Development Team, Esri.

3. How was cross-validation conducted? Please give details on fold assignment. Did you consider spatial autocorrelation in the observational data during cross-validation? What is the range of spatial auto-correlation in your data?

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that spatial autocorrelation was considered. The range of spatial auto-correlation in the data was inside the 95 percent interval.

4. You showed a dependence of GRP on geology. Why do you not exploit this knowledge for spatial prediction/interpolation, e.g. by using geology as co-variable?

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation please note that, the EBK prediction/interpolation uses the geographical coordinates for the prediction/interpolation and it was done on a shape file of the geological map.

5. The conclusion is only partly supported by your results. The high risk of granitic areas seems to be rather your hypothesis than your finding. Large parts of the high GRP areas are not in the granitic areas. For instance, a large fraction of the area covered with quaternary sediments (in the south and south-west of the study area) has a higher GRP than the granitic areas. This might be a consequence of the interpolation technique that you selected by not implementing geology as co-variable.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that the conclusion has been rewritten to account for the outcropping of high GRP in quarternary and some low in granite areas.

6. In many cases the language is not precise enough, partly ambiguous and grammatically not always sound.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that the partly ambiguous and grammatical structures have been crossed checked and corrected.

Minor comments

• L50: Rn is one of the leading causes for lung cancer, not for cancer in general

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that the sentence has been modified to reflect “one of the leading causes of lung cancer”

• L54: “generate higher indoor Rn levels”

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that “generate higher indoor Rn levels” has been reframed to “the potential to generate higher indoor radon levels”

• L 56: these methods are not geology-based. I guess you mean statistical methods (geostatistics, regression) using co-variable/proxy data

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that “geology based” has been corrected to “geostatistical-based”

• L 57: Ariel? Please explain

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that “Ariel” was a typographical error and has been corrected to “Aerial” and has to do with the design of semiconductor and scintillation gamma ray sensors integrated into aerial robotic plat forms, for the surveillance in hard to reach, hazardous areas while allowing for the measurements to be dynamically tracked and mapped

• L76: What do you mean with “baseline” data? Unclear.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that “baseline” has been deleted so that the sentence will be clear.

• L 93: consider replacing geological “contexts” with “regions”

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that “contexts” has been replaced with “regions”

• L96-98: The description of the sampling design is unclear to me. Please specify. Did you use the same fraction of measurements per geological region or did you sample preferentially in areas with expected higher values or higher geological heterogeneity?

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that the sampling has carried out such a manner that each geological formation will be included. It was difficult to get uniform number of sampling per geological formation because of the challenge of accessibility of some locations and denial of permission by some property owners.

• Fig.1: What is the scale of the map? Please add sampling locations. Your geological classification in the legend is a mix of stratigraphic and lithologic classes. Please be consistent. Either stratigraphic or lithologic or lithostratigraphic.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that the scale of the map has been inserted and sampling locations added to the map. The geological classification in the legend has been adjusted to lithologic.

• Please indicate sampling locations also in Fig. 3, 7 & 8. This will help interpreting the maps.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that the sampling locations have been indicated in Fig. 3, 7, & 8 as suggested.

• Fig 2: please consider using smaller bins (e.g. 5 or 10 kBq/m³) for the histogram. In the box statistical indicators, a median of 0.15 seems to be unrealistic given my experience and also the data shown in the plot. Consider using standard deviation instead of error since you want to give a measure of dispersion in your data set rather than an error/uncertainty of an individual observation. There is no boxplot in this figure (figure caption)

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that smaller bins have been used for the histogram and standard deviation has been considered for measure of dispersion in the data. Box plot in figure caption has been deleted

• I would recommend not using two decimal digits because it pretends an accuracy that is not existing in reality

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that the decimal digits have been adjusted.

• L132: A soil gas Rn concentration of 0.01 kBq/m³ is a very low value. This is rather a Rn concentration observed in outdoor air than in soil (where Rn is continouosly produced). I would suspect such low values as erroneous measurements (e.g., due to contamination of your measured volume with outdoor air). If you consider these values to be realistic please elaborate on the processes in soil causing such low concentrations.

 

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that this could occur as a result of several factors such as soil permeability, particle size, porosity, water content near saturation level, soil comprising of clay, exhalation, advection, temperature and diffusion.

Alonso, H., Rubiano, J. G., Guerra, J. G., Arnedo, M. A., Tejera, A., & Martel, P. (2019). Assessment of radon risk areas in the Eastern Canary Islands using soil radon gas concentration and gas permeability of soils. . Science of the Total Environment, 664(2019), 449-460. doi:. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.411

• L136: You performed log-transformation of your data prior to geostatistical modelling. How did you backtransform your data to the original scale after interpolation.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that the backtransform is done using the geostatistical analyst tool in the ArcGIS software

• L 166: “marine soils” are misleading for soils with marine sediments as parent material. Please consider revising.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that the line has been revised.

• Fig. 3. In this map a few apparent artefacts (e.g., in the east next to the label of Kelantan) are existent. Further, I suggest using even value breaks instead of giving two decimal digits.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that the map has been adjusted and the two decimal digits values has been changed.

• L 174ff: I suggest shifting the explanation of a boxplot into the caption of Fig4 because it breaks somewhat the flow in your text and it can be assumed that most readers are familiar with the concept of a boxplot.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that the paragraph has been matched with the previous one and the general description of boxplot has been moved to the materials and method as a sub-section.

• L180: The highest mean Rn conc. was found in Granite but the highest median in sed./metamorph. Please be more precise.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that the confusing sentence has been revised by removing “mediume” & “highest value”.

• Fig 4: Does Fig. show Rn data on the original scale or log-transformed data. If it shows data on the original scale, most values are exceptionally low which would require a physical explanation. How many samples do you have in each class? Please give n per class.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that Rn data was on the original scale. The physical explanation is that the low values are because of low soil permeability, high humidity and other meteorological factors. The number of samples have been indicated.

• L 211ff: the GRP is practically dimensionless since the log of k is used in eq. 1

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that the dimension has been corrected

• L227: Please describe your geostatistical model. What are the parameters of your variogram?

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that the geostatistical model and the parameters of the variogram has been describe in the sub-section Empirical Bayesian Kriging (EBK).

• L227: What is the reasoning for using 9 colour codes? If you do a classification in low, medium and high, it would be straightforward to use only 3 codes

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that the classification low, medium and high has been changed to 3 colour codes

• L240: Please describe your cross-validation procedure. How did you assign observation to the testing fold? Random, stratified, spatially blocked?

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that the cross-validation procedure that was used has been described in the section as suggested.

• Fig. 8: resolution of the figure is poor.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that the resolution of the figure has been improved.

• L259ff: your conclusion is not fully supported by your results. You claim that high GRP areas are mainly found in the granitic areas. In fact, the high GRP regions in Fig 7 and the outline of the granitic rocks (Fig1) do overlap only partly. I feel that this granitic regions being at higher risk is rather your hypothesis than your finding. Further, large parts of the high GRP areas are located in the quaternary sediments. This might be a consequence of their proximity to high GRP observations in the nearby granitic areas. If this is the case (I can only speculate on this issue because information on sampling locations is missing), I suggest considering the implementation of your knowledge (dependence of GRP on geology) in your spatial prediction/interpolation model (e.g., by using geology as co-variable).

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that the conclusion has been rewritten to account for the outcropping of high GRP in quarternary and some low in granite areas.

• L 267: Why do you refer to a reference level of 300 Bq/m³? Your paper deals with the GRP, while the reference level of 300 Bq/m³ (or 100 Bq/m³or 200 Bq/m³) applies to indoor environments. The indoor reference level cannot be applied to your GRP estimates.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that the line has been reconstructed in terms of the GRP only.

 

Reviewer #2:

Introduction

Lines 53-54: Please, check the definition of RPA, and clarify its relationship with indoor radon. “Radon Prone Area” is a term that describes an area where the probability of enhanced radon concentration is much higher than average. The establishment of such areas, by national authorities, can be based on geological conditions and/or the results of measuring campaigns of indoor radon concentration. See ICRP 1993 (Protection against radon-222 at home and at work. ICRP Publication 65. Paragraph 3.3)

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that the sentence with the term “Radon Prone Area” has been reframed to contain “the potential to generate higher indoor radon levels”

Line 57: “Ariel” ?

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that “Ariel” was a typographical error and has been corrected to “Aerial” and has to do with the design of semiconductor and scintillation gamma ray sensors integrated into aerial robotic plat forms, for the surveillance in hard to reach, hazardous areas while allowing for the measurements to be dynamically tracked and mapped

Lines 67-68: High GRP indicates a high availability of geogenic radon that can enters indoor. Also, express clearly that GRP is related to Ra content (but also U content!) because it is a Rn source, whereas permeability (but also faults!) is related to Rn mobility.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that the sentence has been reframed to include, “238U content” and “faults which are related to 222Rn mobility”.

Line 69: I suggest to add here a short review of the methods previously used to map GRP.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that a short review of the methods previously used to map GRP has been added.

Lines 75-76: Please, summarize the results of previous studies.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that summary of the results of previous studies are per the references numbers 26 – 33.

Line 78: What data? Please, add description and reference.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that it is referring to available data from literature on radon concentration studies in soil gas in Malaysia as per reference number 34.

Line 82: A strict definition of “radon risk” should be presented.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that “Radon risk” is herein defined as the probability or likelihood of harm or the severity of the harm from exposure to radon. The harm is mainly lung cancer, which is a painful and fatal disease

WHO. WHO Handbook on Indoor Radon: A Public health perspective. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press; 2009.

2.0 Materials and Method

In this section, after the description of the study area and the analytical techniques, I expected to read a paragraph about the geostatistical technique used to map the GRP. Practically, the discussion is based on the maps elaborated using Empirical Bayesian Kriging (EBK), but the method description is absent. Please, add the description of EBK model and explain why you chose this interpolation method. What semivariogram did you select? What the maximum number of points in each local model? What software did you use? What is the resolution of your maps?

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that the description of EBK model, the explanation of why I chose this interpolation method, the semivariogram I selected, the maximum number of points in each local model, the software I used and the resolution of my maps has been added as a sub-section “Empirical Bayesian Kriging”.

2.1 Study area and sampling points

Lines 92-95: The geological description is too scarce, please add more information. Faults and structural discontinuities may be important pathways for radon movement in the subsoil, so you should describe the tectonic frame of the study area.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that more information has been added to the geological description. The tectonic frame of the study area has also been described as suggested.

Line 96-97: please, add the location of sampling points in Fig.1. Also, calculate the sampling density. How many samples for each geological formation?

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that the sampling points have been added to figure 1. The samples in each geological formation were Quaternary (22), Sedimentary/Metamorphic rocks (26), Silurian (10), and Granite rocks (12) respectively.

2.2 Measurement of radon in soil gas

Please, specify in what period of the year and meteorological conditions the measurements were performed.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that measurements were carried out at low or no rainfall periods and moderate temperatures.

Line 109: Did you use a drying tube to maintain the relative humidity at low values?

Authors reply:

Thanks for your question, please note that the drying unit was used to maintain the relative humidity of the RAD7 at low values.

Results and discussion

3.1 Activity concentration of radon in soil gas

Lines 131-132: for non-normal distribution, better to use geometric mean

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that the distribution standard deviation has been used instead in order to account for measure of dispersion.

Lines 132-134: this description is does not fit to the histogram of fig. 2, probably a histogram with more classes will be better describe your data. Please, consider using a normal probability plot; it can help to recognize both anomalous samples and multiple populations in log-normally distributed data

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that a histogram with more bins have been used.

Lines 152-153: here the Authors introduce for the first time the Empirical Bayesian Kriging; see the comment above.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that Empirical Bayesian Kriging has now been introduced as a sub-section in the manuscript as earlier suggested.

Lines 153-155: this description is unnecessary; better to specify how you have determined the class breaks (e.g., manual interval, quantile, natural breaks etc.)

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that lines 153 – 155 have been re-written in terms of how the class breaks were determined.

Line 157: “ Manjung District”, and other localities cited later in the text (e.g., line 214), are unknown to non-Malaysian. Please, add it in the Figures.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that “Manjung District” has replaced with the most western granitic region of the state”. It is not necessary to point out specific place. The rest of cited localities is removes and replaced with geological/cardinal direction.

Lines 158-159: An explanation is needed of how this list of soil types is used and how these soils were identified. Did you identified these soils in field? Did you extrapolated from a pedological map? Is there a correlation between soil types and Rn concentration and/or permeability?

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that an explanation of how the list of soil types used and how these soils were identified has been added in the materials and method section.

Lines 159-162: This statement causes some doubts. The Authors identified the area with the highest values of soil gas radon in Manjung District, which is located in the southwestern part of the state of Perak; here, granite rocks outcrops and therefore the Authors explain the high Rn values because it derived from such bedrock. However, the geological map of fig. 2 shows that granite rocks extensively outcrop in the eastern part of the study area, where the soil gas Rn concentrations are not particularly high (Fig.3). So, how the Authors explain these spatial distribution? Did you consider the presence of permeable structures such as fractures and/or faults?

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that this could occur as a result of several factors such as soil permeability, particle size, porosity, water content near saturation level, soil comprising of clay, exhalation, advection, temperature and diffusion. Moreover, most of the eastern part extensively outcropped by granite rocks were not accessible as the area is covered by thick forest and so were not sampled as seen in fig. 2 now that the sampling points have been indicated.

Line 163: What mines/quarries are in the study area? Where they are located?

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that these were not considered in the scope of the study.

Line 169: I suggest to add a table (or a box-plot) with the statistics (average values, ranges of values) of soil gas Rn concentration and permeability in different soil types, I think that it can be help the reader.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that it is impossible to perform boxplot as the data per soil types (~ less than 7 samples per soil types) is too low, compared to geological influence which only 4 types.

3.2 Radon activity concentration for each geological type

Sincerely, there is no reason to separate this paragraph from the previous one.

Lines 174-178: the general description of box-plot should be moved in the method section. A sub-paragraph describing statistical and geostatistical elaborations might be appropriate.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that the paragraph has been matched with the previous one and the general description of boxplot has been moved to the materials and method section.

3.3 Soil gas permeability

Lines 197-198: Please, add a map of spatial distribution of permeability, it could be very useful here. Please, also discuss how permeability influences radon in soil, in general and in your case study.

Table 1: Add the number of your samples that fall within each class of permeability.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that a map of spatial distribution of permeability has been added, and how permeability influences radon in soil has been discussed, and the number of samples that fall within each class of permeability has been added to Table 1.

3.4 Geogenic Radon Potential (GRP) and Radon prone areas

Line 210: “Many years of extensive research in the Czech Republic”…please, add references.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that references have been added.

Line 232: the title of the paragraph is “Geogenic Radon Potential (GRP) and Radon prone areas”, but where in the text the RPA are described?

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that, “Radon prone areas” has been described already in L53 – 54 in the introduction.

Please, compare the map of GRP with the map of Terrestrial Gamma Dose Rate (TGDR) published by Ramli et al (2016) - Predicting terrestrial gamma dose rate based on geological and soil information: case study of Perak state, Malaysia. J. Radiol. Prot. 36(1), 20-36.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that it is impossible to compare two different measurement units between map. TGDR map produced by Ramli et al 2016 is an in-situ data of absorbed dose in air (nGy/h) meanwhile GRP map is a statistical score map. On top of that, 70 preliminary sampling data of the present study is incompatible to the comprehensive TGRD data survey by Ramli et al.

4.0 Conclusion

Lines 268-270: this concept should be emphasized in Discussion.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that concept in Lines 268-270 has been emphasized in the Discussion section.

Figures

Figure 1: add the location of sampling points, the prevailing tectonic lines, names of the district cited in the text

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that the sampling points have been added

Figure 2: delete “and box plot” in the figure caption

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that “and box plot” has been deleted

Figures 3 and 7: add the corresponding semivariograms.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that corresponding semivariogram has been added

Figure 4: what represent the blue dashed lines? How many samples for each geological type?

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that the blue lines are value range of 222Rn activity ranges 0 – 1, 1 – 10, 10 – 100 and 100 and above.

Figure 5: add box plots classified according to geological formations and/or soil types.

Authors reply

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that a box blot of soil gas permeability according to geological types have been added as figure 6.

Figure 7: add a layer of urbanized areas, in order to evaluate if the areas of high RI are already urbanized or not yet; in the first case, the map could indicate the areas where it could be necessary monitoring the indoor radon concentration, in the second case the map could be a tool for future urbanistic plans.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that for urbanised areas the indoor radon measurements are recommended.

Attachment

Submitted filename: 10Jan2021_Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Elisabeth Bui

3 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-31278R1

Soil gas radon and soil permeability assessment: Mapping radon risk areas in Perak State, Malaysia.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nuhu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

ACADEMIC EDITOR comments:

While the authors have addressed minor issues with the original submission, there are still problems with this paper. Mapping Rn is the main objective of the paper so the mapping method must be explained and justified but Reviewer #1 points to lingering issues with this. The problem with the geostatistical method may need the authors to enlist help from a specialist in this field.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 17 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Elisabeth Bui

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thanks to the authors for addressing all comments. Many of the minor issues related to grammar, style and figures have been mostly solved. However, the two fundamental issues of 1) Rn soil value range and the 2) the EBK predictive map are still unsolved from my point of view.

1. Soil Radon value range: I am still not convinced on the accuracy such low values (depth) which seem for most samples 1-2 orders of magnitude too low. You give median values (Fig. 4) between 0.1 and 1.0 kBq/m³ for the four different geological units. I have great doubts on the correctness of these data and rather suspect issues with your sampling procedure. I consider values below 10 kBq/m³ for soils with granitic parent material as rare and below 1 kBq/m³ as highly unlikely. In your study most of the values are below 1 kBq/m³. Based on my experience and the values reported in the literature these soils with granitic parent material are often reported to lie in the range 10 – 1000 kBq/m³. You correctly mention the various factors influencing soil Rn concentration such as soil physical properties, soil moisture, permeability etc. But, I cannot imagine that the interplay of these factors result in such a large number of very low values. Further, in contrast to your statement that low values may be associated with low permeability, I would rather expect the reverse pattern: low permeability decreases Rn transport (diffusion, advection) and, consequently, decreases Rn exhalation. This means at the same time increase of Rn accumulation in soils which is associated with higher Rn concentration.

I suggest participation in soil gas intercomparison measurements for quality assurance and to be able to exclude issues with your sampling procedure.

2. Your reasoning for selection of your mapping method EBK does not convince me. It seems that the selection of EBK was motivated by the ease of its implementation in the sense of an automatic data processing and map production. While this may be convenient, it is dangerous because the method seems to be rather treated as a black box.

You correctly emphasize the high importance of geology for spatial variability of Rn in soil. Giving this knowledge and the availability of the required data (geological map of your study region), why do you not implement this knowledge in your mapping procedure? At the current state, your interpolation completely ignores geological boundaries – you simply interpolate across those borders. Such a procedure cannot be assumed to provide accurate estimates since measurements in one geological unit cannot be used to produce predictions in another geological unit without consideration of geology as co-variable. From a geostatistical point of view, the range of spatial- autocorrelation varies throughout your study area. This issue manifests in the fact that your top hotspot region mainly results from a single very high value. This single high value spreads from the granitic area over a very large region into other geological units and just stops at the nearest observations. This is not plausible at all to me. I highly recommend implementing geology as co-variable for mapping soil Rn. This is feasible with EBK, but also with simpler geostatistical approaches (such co-kriging based on ordinary kriging).

Further, artefacts are still visible in the map in the north-east where no observations were conducted (I suggest to clip these areas because predictions are not supported by observations. This issue can also be seen in Fig. 11 (dark red region in the north-east). Moreover, the resolution (i.e., grid cell size, e.g. 1km * 1km) of the map is still unclear.

Reviewer #2: Dear Editor

The authors tried to respond the questions arose from the first review. However, some questions are still unresolved, therefore I propose a minor revision for further improving the manuscript. In detail:

L 86-87: Please, add a short description of the results of the cited references (references numbers 26 – 33) in the text of your manuscript.

L 169: Please, I would like to know the resolution of the data, i.e., the dimension of each pixel/cell of your raster (e.g., 10 x 10 km or 30" x 30")

L 203-205: you did not describe how the class breaks were determined. So, what classification method did you use (manual interval, equal interval, quantile, natural breaks, geometrical interval, standard deviation)?

L 302 and Fig. 9: You wrote “A three-color code was used in categorizing the RI.” So I imagine that you have used the classification described between the lines 286-290 (i.e., low RI (GRP < 10), medium RI (10 <grp>

Fig.1 Legend of geology: the lithology is still confused with the age of geological formations. The text (L 107-113) has the same problem.

Fig 2. I suggest to increase the number of bins (not only increase the number of classes in the X axis)

Fig 9: add a layer of urbanized areas or the location of the main cities. I agree that indoor radon measurements are recommended for the urbanized areas, I simply would know if there are important cities in the regions characterized by medium to high RI.</grp>

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 28;16(7):e0254099. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254099.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


10 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-31278R1

Soil gas radon and soil permeability assessment: Mapping radon risk areas in Perak State, Malaysia.

PLOS ONE

ACADEMIC EDITOR comments:

While the authors have addressed minor issues with the original submission, there are still problems with this paper. Mapping Rn is the main objective of the paper so the mapping method must be explained and justified but Reviewer #1 points to lingering issues with this. The problem with the geostatistical method may need the authors to enlist help from a specialist in this field.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation/suggestion, please note that the geostatistical method of mapping Radon has been changed to Cokriging based on ordinary kriging. An appropriate semivariogram general equation of the model has been included.

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Thanks to the authors for addressing all comments. Many of the minor issues related to grammar, style and figures have been mostly solved. However, the two fundamental issues of 1) Rn soil value range and the 2) the EBK predictive map are still unsolved from my point of view.

1. Soil Radon value range: I am still not convinced on the accuracy such low values (depth) which seem for most samples 1-2 orders of magnitude too low. You give median values (Fig. 4) between 0.1 and 1.0 kBq/m³ for the four different geological units. I have great doubts on the correctness of these data and rather suspect issues with your sampling procedure. I consider values below 10 kBq/m³ for soils with granitic parent material as rare and below 1 kBq/m³ as highly unlikely. In your study most of the values are below 1 kBq/m³. Based on my experience and the values reported in the literature these soils with granitic parent material are often reported to lie in the range 10 – 1000 kBq/m³. You correctly mention the various factors influencing soil Rn concentration such as soil physical properties, soil moisture, permeability etc. But, I cannot imagine that the interplay of these factors result in such a large number of very low values. Further, in contrast to your statement that low values may be associated with low permeability, I would rather expect the reverse pattern: low permeability decreases Rn transport (diffusion, advection) and, consequently, decreases Rn exhalation. This means at the same time increase of Rn accumulation in soils which is associated with higher Rn concentration.

I suggest participation in soil gas intercomparison measurements for quality assurance and to be able to exclude issues with your sampling procedure.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that, the low Rn in soil values occurred as a result of an error in computing the average values from the raw data.

According to the RAD7 user manual, when radon is introduced into the chamber, at first there is no count. After a few minutes the counts begin in window A, which is polonium-218, a result of the decay of Rn-222. For the first five minutes or so the count rate increases, then begins to approach a steady level. After about 10 minutes, the polonium -218 daughter reaches close to equilibrium with the parent radon-222. The first two 5-minutes cycles should be ignored, while the next one or two cycles should be averaged to arrive at the radon concentration of the soil gas (Durridge RAD7 User manual, 2015): pp39 &67

In the earlier manuscript, the average was taken over six readings instead of four readings, as the first two readings are supposed to be excluded according to the RAD7 user manual. Find below a sample of the raw data printout in which the first two readings are 69.8 and 140 Bq m-3. respectively. An average of the six readings is 8710 Bq m-3 while excluding the first two readings and taking average of the four gives 13,013 Bq m-3 resulting to an underestimation of over 4,000Bq m-3. Thus, all the results have been recalculated accordingly.

2. Your reasoning for selection of your mapping method EBK does not convince me. It seems that the selection of EBK was motivated by the ease of its implementation in the sense of an automatic data processing and map production. While this may be convenient, it is dangerous because the method seems to be rather treated as a black box.

You correctly emphasize the high importance of geology for spatial variability of Rn in soil. Giving this knowledge and the availability of the required data (geological map of your study region), why do you not implement this knowledge in your mapping procedure? At the current state, your interpolation completely ignores geological boundaries – you simply interpolate across those borders. Such a procedure cannot be assumed to provide accurate estimates since measurements in one geological unit cannot be used to produce predictions in another geological unit without consideration of geology as co-variable. From a geostatistical point of view, the range of spatial- autocorrelation varies throughout your study area. This issue manifests in the fact that your top hotspot region mainly results from a single very high value. This single high value spreads from the granitic area over a very large region into other geological units and just stops at the nearest observations. This is not plausible at all to me. I highly recommend implementing geology as co-variable for mapping soil Rn. This is feasible with EBK, but also with simpler geostatistical approaches (such co-kriging based on ordinary kriging).

Further, artefacts are still visible in the map in the north-east where no observations were conducted (I suggest to clip these areas because predictions are not supported by observations. This issue can also be seen in Fig. 11 (dark red region in the north-east). Moreover, the resolution (i.e., grid cell size, e.g. 1km * 1km) of the map is still unclear.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observations/suggestion, please note that the geostatistical method has been changed to Cokriging based on ordinary kriging, and that geology has been implemented as co-variable for the mapping soil gas radon. The grid cell size of the map is 5km ×5km

Reviewer #2: Dear Editor

The authors tried to respond the questions arose from the first review. However, some questions are still unresolved, therefore I propose a minor revision for further improving the manuscript. In detail:

L 86-87: Please, add a short description of the results of the cited references (references numbers 26 – 33) in the text of your manuscript.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that a short description of the results of references 26 -33 have been added in the revised manuscript.

L 169: Please, I would like to know the resolution of the data, i.e., the dimension of each pixel/cell of your raster (e.g., 10 x 10 km or 30" x 30")

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that we have added the dimensions of the pixel in the revised manuscript. 5km ×5km

L 203-205: you did not describe how the class breaks were determined. So, what classification method did you use (manual interval, equal interval, quantile, natural breaks, geometrical interval, standard deviation)?

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that the class breaks were determined using the geometrical intervals and has been added to the revised manuscript.

L 302 and Fig. 9: You wrote “A three-color code was used in categorizing the RI.” So I imagine that you have used the classification described between the lines 286-290 (i.e., low RI (GRP < 10), medium RI (10

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that Figure 9 has been re-labelled to reflect low RI (GRP < 10), medium RI (10 >GRP) and high RI (35<GRP)

Fig.1 Legend of geology: the lithology is still confused with the age of geological formations. The text (L 107-113) has the same problem.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your observation, please note that, addition details of the geological formations have been added in lines 107-113.

Fig 2. I suggest to increase the number of bins (not only increase the number of classes in the X axis)

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that we have increased the number of bins in the Figure as suggested.

Fig 9: add a layer of urbanized areas or the location of the main cities. I agree that indoor radon measurements are recommended for the urbanized areas, I simply would know if there are important cities in the regions characterized by medium to high RI.

Authors reply:

Thanks for your suggestion, please note that the location of main cities have been added to the figure.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Elisabeth Bui

21 Jun 2021

Soil gas radon and soil permeability assessment: Mapping radon risk areas in Perak State, Malaysia.

PONE-D-20-31278R2

Dear Dr. Nuhu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Elisabeth Bui

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

A third independent reviewer has found this revision acceptable for publication. He has made some important comments regarding the difference in environmental conditions in Europe and Malaysia as they could affect the Rn gas transport process that I think would be worth mentioning in the discussion in your final version.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: Review of the paper PONE-D-20-31278R2 Soil gas radon and soil permeability assessment: Mapping radon risk areas in Perak State, Malaysia.

This publication is devoted to the important issue of ensuring the radiation safety of the population during exposure to radon in dwellings. One of the widely used tools for assessing the radon hazard of territories is the assessment of the geogenic radon potential. This approach has worked well in a number of European countries. For them, a good correlation was observed between the geogenic radon potential and radon concentration on the first floors of buildings and in detached houses. In this regard, it can be noted that the data on the mapping of such a state as Malaysia, for which data on the geogenic radon potential were obtained for the first time, are of undoubted scientific interest.

The work under review has been performed at a good technical level. The processing of the obtained experimental material was carried out in accordance with the approaches accepted in this field. The comments made by previous reviewers are answered in detail.

At the same time, the reviewer had one question. As you know, the geogenic radon potential takes into account two factors - the concentration of radon in the soil air and the permeability of the soil. With the same concentration of soil radon, but different soil permeability, the values of the geogenic radon potential may differ significantly. However, different values of soil permeability affect the radon flux from its surface only when there is a pressure gradient between the soil air and the air inside the building. In this case, the dominant mechanism of radon entry into the building is advective transport.Typically, this pressure gradient occurs when there is a temperature gradient between the indoor air inside the building and the outdoor air. In this case, the indoor air temperature should be higher than outdoor. The situation when the temperature of the air inside the building is higher than the temperature of the outside air is typical for most countries in Europe and North America. Therefore, the advective influx of radon from the soil into the building is considered dominant for low-rise and detached buildings. For Malaysia, the situation is somewhat different. It will be characterized either by the absence of a temperature gradient between the building and the outside atmosphere, or (when using air conditioners) by the presence of an inverse gradient when the temperature inside is less than in the outside atmosphere. Under these conditions, advective radon transfer will not be observed. The dominant mechanism of radon entry in this situation will be the diffusion mechanism. The rate of entry of radon will depend on the concentration of radium in the soil, the diffusion coefficient of radon, and the thickness of the soil layer to the groundwater level. Measuring these three parameters over a large area is unrealistic. According to the reviewer, the integral characteristic describing the diffusion entry is the radon concentration in the soil air, measured at the same depth. In this regard, it would be interesting to compare maps of soil radon concentrations and geogenic radon potential to assess the potential radon hazard of territories, taking into account various mechanisms of radon entry into buildings. This comment is a wish that does not affect the overall positive assessment of the work. I suppose that this work can be accepted for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

Acceptance letter

Elisabeth Bui

19 Jul 2021

PONE-D-20-31278R2

Soil gas radon and soil permeability assessment: Mapping radon risk areas in Perak State, Malaysia.

Dear Dr. Nuhu:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Elisabeth Bui

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Minimal data set.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 10Jan2021_Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES