the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 12 Nov 2025
Review of the Radon Tracer Method for GHG emission estimates: development, application guidelines, improvements, and caveats
Abstract. The Radon Tracer Method (RTM) is an established, independent top-down method that can be used to cross-check bottom-up greenhouse gas (GHG) emission estimates. Furthermore, as uncertainties of Atmospheric Transport Models are reduced, the RTM can provide a convenient means of quantifying continual improvement of inversion-based top-down GHG emission estimates. While the accessibility and perceived simplicity of the RTM drive its popularity, the technique is better suited to assessing long-term relative changes in GHG emissions than absolute changes, due to short-term soil moisture influences on simulated radon flux uncertainty. Considerations for applying the RTM, based on fundamental assumptions of the technique's development, are application and season specific, making the development of a "standard protocol" for its use challenging. After proposing a novel alternative means of applying the nocturnal accumulation RTM, which improves interpretation of findings, we use measurements from a range of contrasting sites to discuss the significance of the technique's eight key considerations: (i) nocturnal window definition, (ii) radon and target gas accumulation thresholds, (iii) radon-to-target gas regression linearity thresholds, (iv) measurement height, (v) the contributing fetch, (vi) spatial and temporal radon flux variability, (vii) RTM temporal resolution, and (viii) application specific selection of a suitable radon monitor. The insight provided by these examples to the flexibility (or otherwise) of the technique's considerations will clarify the implications if users choose to relax or ignore them, potentially making future RTM studies more directly comparable.
Competing interests: Some of the atmospheric radon monitors compared in Section 8 of this manuscript are separately available for commercial sale. SC and AG work for ANSTO, the organisation that develops and distributes two-filter dual flow-loop radon monitors, but every effort has been made to make the comparisons presented as objective and transparent as possible, focussing on suitability for purpose based on demonstrated performance. Aside from this, the authors declare no further conflict of interest.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1724 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
- AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5042', Scott Chambers, 17 Jun 2026
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5042', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Jul 2026
Top-down estimates of greenhouse gas emissions by radon mass balance approach are obtained since the 1980s. One implementation of this approach relies on a stable nocturnal inversion layer in which concentrations of radon and greenhouse gases rise simultaneously over the course of several hours. This Radon Tracer Method (RTM) is a powerful tool to estimate emissions on a local-to-regional scale with monthly or seasonal resolution. Its potential is growing since greenhouse gas monitoring stations are increasingly equipped with high-precision radon detectors. In this context, the manuscript is a timely contribution to Atmospheric Measurement Techniques.
The manuscript presents the first in-depth evaluation of the RTM with all relevant issues illustrated by real-world examples from a range of locations. Particularly, the new idea to combine the RTM with stability classification extends possibilities, including to derive estimates for different fetch regions.
The manuscript's wide scope necessarily makes it lengthy (41 pages main text). Yet, the writing is easy to follow and there are no superfluous parts in text or illustrations. All is worth reading for those new to the RTM as well as to those, who have applied it before, but perhaps without thinking much about how the specific criteria they defined were affecting the informative value of the greenhouse gas emission estimate they derived. In this sense, the manuscript not only offers guidance to future studies, but also invites re-analyses of earlier ones.
Overall, the manuscript is well-balanced in its discussion of earlier work, scope for improvements, and caveats.
I found no major issue to flag. Nevertheless, I would like to encourage the authors to express in the Conclusions section their view on which insights might be transferable to the other three implementations of the radon mass balance approach they mentioned in the Introduction.
Technical issues
lines 141/142, assumption iii, "the target gas has no significant sinks over timescales associated with the measurement...": To avoid the possible misunderstanding that a deposition flux might not be estimated by the RTM, expand to "no significant sinks in the atmosphere..."
line 373: Should the upper case 'delta' not be a lower case 'lambda'?
line 427: Not sure whether the acronym 'PTI' has been introduced in the text before?
lines 548-552: Three ways of estimating CH4 flux are introduced, labelled as i, ii, iii. In the Table, the labelling changes to 1, 2, 3, and in the text below the Table a 'method #2' is mentioned. Please stick with one kind of label throughout.
line 767: Delete 'from'.
line 807: Replace 'Those' with 'The'.
Figure 18: Most data points in (b) with values > 10 Bq m-3 are missing from (c). Please indicate the reason for that in the figure legend.
Figure 19, legend, second line: replace 'based on (a)...' with 'for (a) ...'?
Line 976: Add an 'of' between 'variability' and 'radon'.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5042-RC1 - AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Scott Chambers, 17 Jul 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5042', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Aug 2026
This manuscript presents a comprehensive review of the nocturnal accumulation Radon Tracer Method (RTM) and the considerations involved in applying it under local conditions. The manuscript is well written and structured. It is particularly timely given the expansion of atmospheric observation networks aimed at quantifying greenhouse gas emissions and establishing robust emission baselines. In this context, the RTM provides an alternative top-down approach that can offer an independent constraint on emission estimates.
A particular strength of the manuscript is the detailed discussion of how choices regarding the accumulation window, atmospheric stability, measurement height, contributing fetch, radon flux and instrument performance can vary from site to site. The examples from different locations clearly illustrate how these factors affect the application and interpretation of the method. These examples and clarifications may encourage revisiting previous estimates and help improve the consistency and reproducibility of future applications.
Overall, I found no major scientific or technical issues with the manuscript. It provides a well-balanced discussion of previous work, methodological developments and limitations, with sufficient detail to support implementation of the method at new sites. I agree with the other reviewer that it would be useful to briefly consider how some of the insights presented here may apply to RTM implementations at different spatial and temporal scales. I recommend publication following minor revisions/clarifications.
Comments
Lines 70–80 and Conclusions
The Introduction briefly mentions the other three implementations of the radon mass balance approach. It would be useful for the Conclusions to briefly mention whether any of the considerations discussed here may also be transferable to those other approaches.
Lines 943–950
Given that these eight considerations form the main practical guidance of the manuscript, I wonder whether a short summary table could be useful here. The table could briefly list each factor discussed in Sections 3.1–3.8, the main consideration or recommended criterion, and which aspects should be adapted to local or site-specific conditions. I think this would make the manuscript particularly useful as a reference for researchers implementing the RTM at a new site, without implying a universal method.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5042-RC2 - AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Scott Chambers, 14 Sep 2026
Peer review completion
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
- AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5042', Scott Chambers, 17 Jun 2026
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5042', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Jul 2026
Top-down estimates of greenhouse gas emissions by radon mass balance approach are obtained since the 1980s. One implementation of this approach relies on a stable nocturnal inversion layer in which concentrations of radon and greenhouse gases rise simultaneously over the course of several hours. This Radon Tracer Method (RTM) is a powerful tool to estimate emissions on a local-to-regional scale with monthly or seasonal resolution. Its potential is growing since greenhouse gas monitoring stations are increasingly equipped with high-precision radon detectors. In this context, the manuscript is a timely contribution to Atmospheric Measurement Techniques.
The manuscript presents the first in-depth evaluation of the RTM with all relevant issues illustrated by real-world examples from a range of locations. Particularly, the new idea to combine the RTM with stability classification extends possibilities, including to derive estimates for different fetch regions.
The manuscript's wide scope necessarily makes it lengthy (41 pages main text). Yet, the writing is easy to follow and there are no superfluous parts in text or illustrations. All is worth reading for those new to the RTM as well as to those, who have applied it before, but perhaps without thinking much about how the specific criteria they defined were affecting the informative value of the greenhouse gas emission estimate they derived. In this sense, the manuscript not only offers guidance to future studies, but also invites re-analyses of earlier ones.
Overall, the manuscript is well-balanced in its discussion of earlier work, scope for improvements, and caveats.
I found no major issue to flag. Nevertheless, I would like to encourage the authors to express in the Conclusions section their view on which insights might be transferable to the other three implementations of the radon mass balance approach they mentioned in the Introduction.
Technical issues
lines 141/142, assumption iii, "the target gas has no significant sinks over timescales associated with the measurement...": To avoid the possible misunderstanding that a deposition flux might not be estimated by the RTM, expand to "no significant sinks in the atmosphere..."
line 373: Should the upper case 'delta' not be a lower case 'lambda'?
line 427: Not sure whether the acronym 'PTI' has been introduced in the text before?
lines 548-552: Three ways of estimating CH4 flux are introduced, labelled as i, ii, iii. In the Table, the labelling changes to 1, 2, 3, and in the text below the Table a 'method #2' is mentioned. Please stick with one kind of label throughout.
line 767: Delete 'from'.
line 807: Replace 'Those' with 'The'.
Figure 18: Most data points in (b) with values > 10 Bq m-3 are missing from (c). Please indicate the reason for that in the figure legend.
Figure 19, legend, second line: replace 'based on (a)...' with 'for (a) ...'?
Line 976: Add an 'of' between 'variability' and 'radon'.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5042-RC1 - AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Scott Chambers, 17 Jul 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5042', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Aug 2026
This manuscript presents a comprehensive review of the nocturnal accumulation Radon Tracer Method (RTM) and the considerations involved in applying it under local conditions. The manuscript is well written and structured. It is particularly timely given the expansion of atmospheric observation networks aimed at quantifying greenhouse gas emissions and establishing robust emission baselines. In this context, the RTM provides an alternative top-down approach that can offer an independent constraint on emission estimates.
A particular strength of the manuscript is the detailed discussion of how choices regarding the accumulation window, atmospheric stability, measurement height, contributing fetch, radon flux and instrument performance can vary from site to site. The examples from different locations clearly illustrate how these factors affect the application and interpretation of the method. These examples and clarifications may encourage revisiting previous estimates and help improve the consistency and reproducibility of future applications.
Overall, I found no major scientific or technical issues with the manuscript. It provides a well-balanced discussion of previous work, methodological developments and limitations, with sufficient detail to support implementation of the method at new sites. I agree with the other reviewer that it would be useful to briefly consider how some of the insights presented here may apply to RTM implementations at different spatial and temporal scales. I recommend publication following minor revisions/clarifications.
Comments
Lines 70–80 and Conclusions
The Introduction briefly mentions the other three implementations of the radon mass balance approach. It would be useful for the Conclusions to briefly mention whether any of the considerations discussed here may also be transferable to those other approaches.
Lines 943–950
Given that these eight considerations form the main practical guidance of the manuscript, I wonder whether a short summary table could be useful here. The table could briefly list each factor discussed in Sections 3.1–3.8, the main consideration or recommended criterion, and which aspects should be adapted to local or site-specific conditions. I think this would make the manuscript particularly useful as a reference for researchers implementing the RTM at a new site, without implying a universal method.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5042-RC2 - AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Scott Chambers, 14 Sep 2026
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Figure data for "Review of the Radon Tracer Method for GHG emission estimates: development, application guidelines, improvements, and caveats" by Chambers et al. Scott D. Chambers et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17309770
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2,595 | 1,379 | 186 | 4,160 | 246 | 237 |
- HTML: 2,595
- PDF: 1,379
- XML: 186
- Total: 4,160
- BibTeX: 246
- EndNote: 237
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Ute Karstens
Alan D. Griffiths
Stefan Röttger
Arnoud Frumau
Christopher T. Roulston
Peter Sperlich
Felix Vogel
Agnieszka Podstawczyńska
Dafina Kikaj
Maksym Gachkivskyi
Michel Ramonet
Blagoj Mitrevski
Janja Vaupotič
Xuemeng Chen
Annette Röttger
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1724 KB) - Metadata XML
Please see attached PDF