Thoron Gas Measurement Using Airflow-Through Scintillation Cell with Consideration of Progeny Deposition
Bijaya Kumar Sahoo
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for manuscript: Thoron gas measurement using an airflow-through scintillation cell with consideration for progeny deposition
The authors established thoron gas measurement technique using an airflow-through scintillation cell with a correction for the progeny accumulation effect.
The manuscript is well conceptualized and structured.
On the beginning, authors explain necessity of correction for the progeny accumulation effect in thoron measuring methods relate to an overestimation of thoron. Accordingly, they define the goals for developing a new method of measuring thoron, including correction by a correction algorithm called the compartment model.
The procedure is clearly described, starting with the method for developing a mathematical model for correction (compartment model), then calibration and running the tests to validate the measurement methods. The measurements were performed under controlled conditions in the thoron chamber of the Shanghai Institute of Measurement and Testing Technology (SIMT).
By applying the compartment model, a decreasing the limit of detection and an increase in the accuracy of thoron measurements results was confirmed die to comparison to other methods tested in the study. This methodology, also might be helpful for spectrometers to avoid the overlaps of the energy peak of 220Rn and 212Bi.
The manuscript will be useful for the radon/thoron scientific community. So I recommend accepting the manuscript for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for providing positive feedback. We are grateful to hear that you found our research well-conceptualized, structured, and clearly described. We deeply appreciate your recommendation for accepting our manuscript for publication, and we are honored to know that you believe it will be useful for the radon/thoron scientific community. Your recognition of the importance of our work is a tremendous source of motivation for us, and we are grateful for your support.
We also appreciate your suggestion about exploring the use of the compartment model to address the overlap between the energy peak of 220Rn and 212Bi in spectrometers. We will definitely consider this in our future studies and aim to further develop this research.
Once again, we thank you for your valuable feedback and for considering our manuscript for publication.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This work represents a significant contribution to the field, and I appreciate the effort and dedication you have put into it. I would like to offer some comments and suggestions to "improve" its quality.
1) There is no plural like "progenies". So, correct this through the whole manuscript.
2) Page 2 Line 59. Change the word "potential" to "potentially".
3)Page 5 Line 142-144. Change the sentence "Prior to the calibration experiments, the scintillation cell was left unoccupied for a minimum of three days to avoid any contamination from progenies of thoron or radon." to
"... from either radon or thoron progeny."
4)Figure 4. Why do you present a figure of counting rate of 212Po and in its caption, you describe it as results for 212Bi counting?
5)Page 13 Line 389. Change the word "appiled" to "applied".
6)Page 13-14 Line 412-415. "Our previous study estimated the relative standard uncertainty of the grab-sample scintillation cell to be around 24% when the concentration of 220Rn was 1,000 Bq m-3 and the concentration of 222Rn was 50 Bq m-3[20], which was in accordance with the findings presented in Table 3."
In Table 3, I am not able to identify, or assume, this findings (24%), when concentration of thoron is 1,000 Bq m-3 and the concentration of 222Rn was 50 Bq m-3.
I encourage the authors to address these points and resubmit your manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for providing constructive and professional comments. There is no doubt that the quality of our manuscript will be improved following your comments.
Please find the point-by-point response in the attachment.
All textual modifications have been denoted by a conspicuous yellow highlight in the revised manuscript, intended to facilitate easy identification of the revisions made.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors attempted to address the issue of progeny accumulation in a flow-through scintillation cell used for thoron monitoring. Overall, the manuscript is organised well, and the written language looks good. The present study established a reliable and practice method for thoron gas measurement using an airflow-through scintillation cell, with a correction for the progeny accumulation effect. I have a few minor comments as follows
(i) The technical detection principle of the PIPS devices used for inter-comparison may be elaborated. Its calibration date, manufacture company etc, may be provided
(ii) Why is the uncertainty in flow-through scintillation low compared to grab sampling and PIPS devices ( T=10 min) despite carrying out compensation due to progeny accumulation in the former one? I thought - it should be reversed. Kindly clarify.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for providing constructive and professional comments. There is no doubt that the quality of our manuscript will be improved following your comments.
Please find the point-by-point response in the attachment.
All textual modifications have been denoted by a conspicuous yellow highlight in the revised manuscript, intended to facilitate easy identification of the revisions made.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
