Professional Documents
Culture Documents
entitled
by
Suman Maroju
Graduate School
August 2007
An Abstract of
By
Suman Maroju
Civil Engineering
August 2007
The main objective of this thesis is to predict the geometric mean of radon
concentrations for unmeasured zip codes in the State of Ohio using the best
this study spans from 1989-2005 (with some data sets obtained prior to 1989) and has
testing services, university researchers, and county health departments. This objective
was achieved by first dividing the data into a 80% training data set and a 20% test
iii
data set and then applying five interpolation techniques on the training data set to
evaluate the predictions for test data points. Several statistical indicators (root mean
square error (RMSE), normalized mean square error (NMSE), fractional bias (FB),
mean error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), mean square error (MSE) and
concentrations for evaluating the ability of predicting missing radon values using all
using the bootstrap resampling technique. The analysis of statistical indicators and
confidence limits on the indicators clearly showed that none of the techniques is
superior over the other. The spatial pattern of radon concentration generated using the
measured values for all techniques were then compared with the uranium maps for
the area. This exercise led to the exclusion of global and local polynomial
interpolation technique.
concentrations map showed that ordinary kriging interpolation technique can be used
for predicting the radon concentrations for unmeasured zip codes. Radon
concentration values for unmeasured zip codes were obtained and upon their
examination, it was found that the number of zip codes having geometric mean of
radon concentrations exceeding 4 pCi/l, 8 pCi/l and 20pCi/l were 688, 85 and 9
respectively.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor Dr. Ashok Kumar for his
continued support, guidance and encouragement, without which it would not have
been possible to complete this project. I would like to thank Dr. Brain Randolph and
Dr. Andrew Heydinger for their time, suggestions and comments during the course of
Special thanks to all my friends for their enthusiastic and generous support
who with their love and encouragement have made all his possible.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT..iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.............................................................v
TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................vi
1. Introduction ................................................................................1
1.1 Overview....................................................................................................... 1
2. Literature Review.......................................................................4
4.1.1 Histogram............................................................................................ 11
vi
4.2.2 Radial Basis Functions........................................................................ 22
5.2.1 Comparison of the behavior of the prediction maps with the soil
vii
5.3.8 Confidence Limits...................................................................................... 60
6. Results........................................................................................62
7. Conclusions .............................................................................100
8. References ...............................................................................101
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Plot Showing the Frequency Distribution for Radon Data Set..................... 12
Figure 2 Plot Showing the Frequency Distribution of Radon Data Set after Log
Transformation............................................................................................................ 13
Figure 4 Normal QQ Plot for Radon Data Set after Log Transformation .................. 15
Figure 7 Radial Basis Function Surface Fitting Through a Series of Elevation Values
..................................................................................................................................... 23
Polynomial .................................................................................................................. 25
ix
Figure 15 Ordinary Kriging Standardized Error Plot (Standardized Error Vs Measured
Values) ........................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 17 Ordinary Kriging Radon Concentration Prediction Map for the Training
Data Set....................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 20 IDW Radon Concentration Prediction Map for the Training Data set....... 45
Figure 23 RBF Radon Concentration Prediction Map for the Training Data Set....... 48
x
Figure 31 Ordinary Kriging (Measured Vs Predicted Values) ................................... 62
Figure 36 Ordinary Kriging Radon Concentration Prediction Map Using the Whole
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2 ME, MAE, MSE and RMSE Values for Different Interpolation Techniques
Table 3 NMSE, FB and Coefficient of Correlation (r) Values From Bootstrap Method
..................................................................................................................................... 65
Table 4 Robust and Seductive 95% Confidence Limits for Each Interpolation
Technique.................................................................................................................... 67
Table 5 Robust and Seductive 95% Confidence Limits Among the Techniques ....... 68
Table 6 Summary of Robust and Seductive 95% Confidence Limits Analyses on Each
Technique.................................................................................................................... 69
Table 7 Summary of Robust and Seductive 95% Confidence Limits Analyses Among
Each Technique........................................................................................................... 70
xii
Table 9 Zip Codes with Geometric Mean of Radon Concentration greater than 4 pCi/l
Table 10 Zip Codes with Geometric Mean of Radon Concentration greater than 4
Table 11 Zip Codes having Geometric Mean of Radon Concentrations greater than
8pCi/l........................................................................................................................... 98
Table 12 Zip Codes having Geometric Mean of Radon Concentrations greater than
20pCi/l......................................................................................................................... 99
xiii
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview
for the management, visualization and analysis of spatial data. In this thesis; the ArcGIS
geostatistical analyst tool has been employed, which provides a powerful suite of tools
for spatial data exploration and surface generation using sophisticated statistical methods
and which allows creating a surface from data measurements. In addition, the
geostatistical analyst tool gives the user the power to fully understand the qualitative and
quantitative aspects of the data. By providing the freedom to predict and model spatial
geostatistical analyst effectively bridges the gap between geostatistics and GIS analysis.
identifying soil contamination, have been done using the geostatistical analyst
(Krivoruchko). The radon concentrations data set used for this thesis has been created
from the results submitted to the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) obtained from
researchers performing radon tests for different houses. The data has been collected for
1
each zip code mostly for the years 1989 to 2005 and some, collected prior to 1989. As the
data is heavily skewed, the geometric mean of radon concentrations is used to input as a
uranium in soil, rock and water. The concentration of radon is most commonly expressed
in terms of the number of alpha particles it generates. The units of concentration are
pico-curies per liter of air (pCi/l). Radon is the second most common cause of lung
cancer after cigarette smoking, accounting for 15,000 to 22,000 cancer deaths per year in
the US alone according to the National Cancer Institute (USA). Radon gas is believed to
cause about 14% of lung cancer deaths (1000+ deaths) in Ohio annually
There are a variety of devices (alpha track, charcoal canisters, scintillation counters,
ionization chambers, positive barrier, two filter method, continuous radon monitor, sun
nuclear, e-perm) available for measuring the radon concentrations. Most of the radon
concentration tests are performed using either charcoal canisters or alpha-track detectors.
Using the geostatistical analyst, all five interpolation techniques (ordinary kriging,
inverse distance weighting (IDW), radial basis function (RBF), global polynomial
interpolation, and local polynomial interpolation techniques) are compared and the ideal
technique is used to predict the radon concentrations for unmeasured zip codes in the
State of Ohio.
2
1.2 Problem Statement
(1951) for the purpose of ore reserve estimation but are increasingly being implemented
in a variety of environmental fields. The purpose of this thesis is to estimate the radon
how the radon data is distributed. This is done by splitting the radon data points into a
80% training data set and a 20 % test data set, and the interpolation techniques are
performed using the training data set to evaluate the predictions for test data points. The
seven statistical parameters RMSE, NMSE, FB, ME, MAE, MSE and coefficient of
The second objective is to perform the interpolation with the whole radon data set
using the best interpolation technique, and the geometric means of radon concentration
The third objective is to present the impact of the results obtained from this
study. The earlier studies reported that the number of zip codes having geometric mean
of radon concentrations in three cases (over 4 pCi/l, 8 pCi/l and 20 pCi/l) is found to be
390, 85 and 9 respectively for each case. This study will attempt to calculate the number
of zip codes for the three cases mentioned above, taking into account the projected values
3
2. Literature Review
surface either from the measured sample points stored in a point feature layer or by using
the polygon centroids; and then predict the values at unmeasured locations from the
surface created. Many studies have been done using the geostatistical analyst and some of
the fields that benefit by virtue of these interpolation techniques include agricultural
production, temperature data, soil contamination, mining, health care and meteorology.
Some of these studies that used the geostatistical analyst interpolation techniques are
summarized below.
assessed in the groundwater of the city of Temecula, California using the geostatistical
to be the leading groundwater contaminant that causes threat to public health and the
living environment. With the MTBE concentration data collected from the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, a spatial surface for the study area was generated
and the MTBE concentration values were predicted using the simple kriging interpolation
4
technique and the probability maps of MTBE concentrations exceeding the critical
the monitoring stations throughout the state of California. The concentration levels of
ozone were known for all the stations, but to know the same for every location in
California is not quite possible as monitoring stations cannot be present everywhere for
reasons of cost and practicality. The geostatistical analyst interpolation techniques were
used to measure the level of ozone concentration for the location of interest. In this study,
ordinary kriging interpolation technique was used to create a surface from the measured
the county of Cochise, Arizona and its relationship with cancer risk was examined.
Exposure to arsenic may be a prime cause of bladder, lung, kidney and skin cancer.
People living in this county use ground water for intake, which led to the study of arsenic
concentrations in this county. Arsenic concentrations were interpolated using the ordinary
kriging, inverse distance weighting, local and global polynomial interpolation techniques.
Mathematically, of all the four ordinary kriging performed the best with lowest the
RMSE.
5
As per the study by Saby et al. (2005), an estimation of the anthropogenic stock of
Pb in the topsoil of an area around Paris was performed using the soil samplings of a grid
soil monitoring network. Topsoil enhancement technique was used to separate Pb content
due to diffused pollution from geochemical background. The lognormal ordinary kriging
was then performed to produce a smoothed kriged map of anthropogenic stock of Pb. The
total anthropogenic stock of Pb in topsoil was estimated to be 143,000 metric tons. This
In the study by Liu et al. (2005), the soil heavy metal concentrations (Cu, Zn, Pb,
Cr and Cd) in paddy fields were estimated at unsampled sites from the four hundred and
fifty soil samples collected in topsoil in Hangzhoue Jiaxinge Huzhou (HJH) plain
(China). The risk assessment is also quantified, since the soil heavy metal concentration
is directly related to the crop quality and ultimately, the health of people. Ordinary
kriging and lognormal kriging were carried out to produce the spatial patterns of heavy
metals and disjunctive kriging was used to quantify the probability of heavy metal
concentrations higher than their guide values. Cokriging method was also used to
minimize the sampling density for Cu, Zn and Cr. The results showed that among the five
metals; Cu, Zn and Cd had high potential to cause environmental and human health
hazards and also, overall estimation quality of Cu, Zn and Cr using the cokriging
climatological rainfall mean in Guadalhorce river basin in southern Spain was performed
6
using the Thiessen, ordinary kriging, cokriging and kriging techniques with an external
drift; using the climatological mean and altitude known for 51 rainguage stations within
and around the river basin. Mean error, mean squared error and mean standardized square
error were calculated to compare the methods and cross-validation results showed that the
kriging technique with external drift produced the most coherent results.
smoothing splines (TPSS) with and without co-variable (TPSS-CO), weighted moving
average (WMA), and kriging (ordinary, cokriging and logkriging) were used to estimate
the monthly and annual rainfall data using the data from 167 climatic stations in
southwest Iran. The performance of the interpolation method was evaluated by mean bias
error and mean absolute error. Results showed that TPSS is the most precise method to
estimate annual rainfall and TPSS with a power of two was the most precise method to
In the study by Mardikis et al. (2004), the prediction of long-term mean daily
reference evapotranspiration for each month in Greece was performed using four
interpolation methods namely ordinary kriging, inverse distance squared, residual kriging
these methods was assessed by examining ME, MAE and RMSE. The results showed that
RK and GIDS produced better accuracy of prediction when compared to the other two
methods.
7
3. Data Collection
Data for radon concentrations and other related statistics for homes have been
collected from various county health departments, commercial testing services and
university researchers. The original database for about 50,000 observations was created
by Kumar et al. (1990) and formed the basis of the Ohio Radon Information System
(Heydinger et al. (1990)). The database was extended in 1996 and 1997 to about 82,000
observations. The work continued and Sud (1998) reported total observations of 80,436
in her thesis while analyzing radon data. New data are being constantly added to the
database. Kumar and Varadarajan presented the analysis of 12,959 data points. This
The database has been compiled over the last 18 years. Copies of databases were
database consisting of 130,826 measurements for 1590 zip code areas in Ohio. Though
this appears to be a large number, there are possibly still thousands of readings that must
have been taken but not yet reported. The majority of data received were from radon
testing organizations and have been reported in a series of technical papers, conference
8
The data sets used were diverse and had to be arranged accordingly. All included
the zip code area for the tested buildings and most provided the information on the type
of room tested, type of radon detection device used and the season of the year the test was
conducted. Only a few sources provided information on the building characteristics and
this is unfortunate, because some of these parameters may have a significant influence on
A zip code-county listing was prepared and the following statistics have been
calculated for radon measurements in all zip code areas and counties: arithmetic mean,
geometric mean, standard deviation and variance using the Ohio Radon Information
System (ORIS). In computing these statistics, every radon measurement in a zip code was
used without regard for building, room, detection type or season. As the radon data is
heavily skewed towards the higher concentrations, the geometric mean of radon data is
Of the 1589 zip codes represented in the data, 253 zip codes are provided with
unknown county names and so these zip codes are not considered. Of the remaining 1336
zip codes, 270 zip codes were not shown in the Ohio zip codes shape file collected from
the ESRI website. From the radon data set of 1589 zip codes, 1066 zip codes are used for
9
4. Geostatistical analyst
The geostatistical analyst uses sample points taken at different locations and
phenomena such as radiation leaking from a nuclear power plant, an oil spill or elevation
heights. It derives a surface using the values from the measured locations to predict
values for locations where no data is collected. This tool provides two groups of
interpolation techniques:
All methods rely on the similarity of nearby sample points to create the surface.
techniques rely on both statistical and mathematical methods that can be used to create
also provides many supporting tools. For example, prior to mapping, exploratory spatial
data analysis (ESDA) tools can be used to assess the statistical properties of data. After
exploring the data, one can create a variety of output map types (prediction, error of
10
prediction, probability and quantile maps) using many variants of kriging and cokriging
Exploratory spatial data analysis (ESDA) allows one to examine the data in
different ways. The ESDA environment is composed of a series of tools, each allowing a
view into the data. Each view can be manipulated and explored allowing different
insights into the data. Each view is interconnected with all other views as well as with
ArcMap i.e., if a bar is selected in the histogram, the points comprising the bar are
selected on any other open ESDA view and also on the ArcMap map. Certain tasks are
useful in most explorations, for defining the data distribution, looking for global and local
outliers and trends, and examining spatial autocorrelation and covariation among multiple
Histogram
Normal QQ plot
Trend analysis
Semivariogram/covariance cloud
4.1.1 Histogram
The interpolation methods that are used to generate a surface give the best results
if the data is normally distributed. The histogram tool in ESDA provides a univariate
11
(one-variable) description of the data. The tool displays the frequency distribution for the
data set of interest and calculates summary statistics. The frequency distribution is a bar
graph that displays how often observed values fall within certain intervals or classes. The
relative proportion of data that falls in each class is represented by the height of each bar.
The following plots show the frequency distribution for the radon data set. The first plot
(Figure1) shows that the data is not normally distributed and so it has to be transformed
to a normal distribution to produce good results. This can be done by log transformation
and the second plot (Figure 2) shows the normally distributed data after the log
transformation.
Figure 1 Plot Showing the Frequency Distribution for Radon Data Set
12
Figure 2 Plot Showing the Frequency Distribution of Radon Data Set after
Log Transformation
graph on which the quantiles from two distributions are plotted versus each other. For
two identical distributions, the QQ plot will be a straight line. Therefore, it is possible to
check the normality of the radon data by plotting the quantiles of that data versus the
quantiles of a standard normal distribution. The closer the points are to creating a straight
line, the closer the distribution is to being normally distributed. The first plot (Figure 3)
shows the data is not normally distributed, the main departure from standard normal
13
distribution line occurring at low and high radon concentration values. The second plot
(Figure 4) shows the data is close to a normal distribution after the log transformation.
14
Figure 4 Normal QQ Plot for Radon Data Set after Log Transformation
The Trend Analysis tool helps to identify global trends in the input data set. This
15
Figure 5 Trend Analysis Dialog Box for Radon Data set
The radon concentration values are given by the height of each stick in the Z
dimension with the input data points on the top of the stick. The values are projected
onto the perpendicular planes, an East-West and a North-South plane. The X-axis is the
East- West axis and the Y axis is the North-South axis. A best-fit line (a polynomial) is
16
drawn through the projected points, which shows model trends in specific directions. The
green line is an east-west trend line and the blue line is a north-south trend line.
If the lines were flat, this would indicate that there is no trend. However, the blue
line in the image above starts out with low values and increases as it moves north and
then decreases. This demonstrates that the data seems to exhibit a strong trend in the
north south direction and a weaker one in the east west direction. The trend observed is
that the radon concentration values are higher in central Ohio than the values obtained as
you move away from center to north and south directions. By removing the trend, the
semivariogram will model the spatial autocorrelation among data points without having
to consider the trend in the data. The trend will automatically be added back to the
assumed that things close to one another are more alike. The semivariogram/covariance
cloud lets you examine this relationship. To do so, a semivariogram value (the square of
the difference between the values of each pair of locations) is plotted on the y-axis
relative to the distance separating each pair on the x-axis (Figure 6).
17
Figure 6 Semivariogram/Covariance Cloud Dialog Box
of locations. Since closer locations should be more alike, the semivariogram will show
close locations (far left on the x-axis) having small semivariogram values (low on the y-
axis). As the distance between the pairs of locations increases (move right on the x-axis),
the semivariogram values should also increase (move up on the y-axis). However; a
certain distance is reached where the cloud flattens out, indicating that the relationship
between the pairs of locations beyond this distance is no longer correlated. In addition,
the values in the semivariogram cloud are put into bins based on the direction and
18
distance between pair of locations. These bin values are then averaged and smoothed to
As you can see in Figure 6, the points that are close together have a high
semivariogram value. By selecting these points, the linked pairs can be seen on the arc
map. The north east data point (seen on the arc map, Figure 6) which is linked to the
surrounding points has a radon concentration of 39 pCi/L which is much higher than the
surrounding points and the south west data point which is linked to the surrounding data
points has a radon concentration of 35.4 pCi/L. So, this pair of locations shows the high
semivariogram values at low distances. These high radon concentration data points are
the possible global data outliers. Spatial autocorrelation for radon data displayed in
based on either the extent of similarity (IDW) or the degree of smoothing (RBF). There
19
inverse distance weighted
global polynomial
local polynomial
Deterministic interpolation techniques can be divided into two groups: global and
local. Global techniques calculate predictions using the entire data set. Local techniques
calculate predictions from the measured points within neighborhoods, which are smaller
spatial areas within the larger study area. geostatistical analyst provides the global
polynomial as a global interpolator and the IDW, local polynomial and RBF as local
interpolators.
A deterministic interpolation can either force the resulting surface to pass through
the data values or not. An interpolation technique that predicts a value identical to the
interpolator predicts a value that is different from the measured value. The latter can be
used to avoid sharp peaks or troughs in the output surface. IDW and RBF are exact
IDW interpolation explicitly implements the assumption that things close to one
another are more alike than those farther apart. To predict a value for any unmeasured
20
location, IDW will use the measured values surrounding the prediction location. Those
measured values closest to the prediction location will have more influence on the
predicted value than those farther away. Thus, IDW assumes that each measured point
has a local influence that diminishes with distance. It weighs the points closer to the
prediction location greater than those farther away, hence the name inverse distance
weighted.
(1)
where w (d) is the weighting factor applied to a known value, d is the distance
from the known value to the unknown value, and p is a positive real number, called the
power parameter. Here weight decreases as distance increases from the interpolated
points. Greater values of p assign greater influence to values closest to the interpolated
point. The most common value of p is 2. A general form of interpolating a value using
IDW is:
(2)
21
4.2.2 Radial Basis Functions
RBF methods are a series of exact interpolation techniques i.e., the surface must
go through each measured sample value. There are five different basis functions:
thin-plate spline
multiquadric function
Each basis function has a different shape and results in a slightly different
interpolation surface. RBF methods are a form of artificial neural networks. RBF are
conceptually similar to fitting a rubber membrane through the measured sample values
while minimizing the total curvature of the surface. The selected basis function
determines how the rubber membrane will fit between the values. Figure 7 below
demonstrates conceptually how a RBF surface fits through a series of elevation sample
values.
22
Figure 7 Radial Basis Function Surface Fitting Through a Series of Elevation
Values
Notice in the cross section that the surface passes through the data values. Being
exact interpolators, the RBF methods differ from the global and local polynomial
interpolators, which are both inexact interpolators that do not require the surface to pass
through the measured points. When comparing the RBF to the IDW method (another
exact interpolator), IDW will never predict values above the maximum measured value or
below the minimum measured, however, the RBF can predict values above the maximum
and below the minimum measured values. The optimal parameters are determined using
cross validation in a similar manner as shown for IDW and local polynomial
interpolation.
23
4.2.3 Global Polynomial Interpolation
mathematical function (a polynomial) to the input sample points. The global polynomial
surface changes gradually and captures coarse-scale patterns in the data. Conceptually,
global polynomial interpolation is like taking a piece of paper and fitting it between the
raised points (raised to the height of value). This is demonstrated in Figure 8 below for a
set of sample points of elevation taken on a gently sloping hill (the piece of paper is
magenta).
But a flat piece of paper will not accurately capture a landscape containing a valley.
However, if one is allowed to bend the piece of paper once you will get a much better fit.
Adding a term to the mathematical formula produces a similar result, a bend in the plane.
24
A flat plane (no bend in the piece of paper) is a first-order polynomial (linear). Allowing
for one bend is a second-order polynomial (quadratic), two bends a third-order (cubic),
Rarely will the piece of paper pass through the actual measured points, thus
above the piece of paper and others will be below. However, if the net differences (sum
of deviations from mean) of heights for points above and below the piece of paper are
calculated separately, the two sums should be similar. The surface in magenta is obtained
by using least-squares regression fit. The resulting surface minimizes the squared
differences among the raised values and the sheet of paper. Global polynomial
25
interpolators determine a single function which is mapped across the whole region.
local polynomial interpolation fits many polynomials, each within specified overlapping
neighborhoods. The search neighborhood can be defined using the search neighborhood
dialog box. The shape, maximum and minimum number of points to use, and the sector
configuration can be specified. Alternatively, a slider can be used to define the width of
the neighborhood in conjunction with a power parameter that will decrease the weights of
the sample points within the neighborhood based on distance. Thus, local polynomial
interpolation produces surfaces that account for more local variation. Local interpolators
apply algorithms repeatedly to a small portion of total set of points. Change in an input
more advanced surface modeling that also includes errors or uncertainty of predictions.
26
4.3.1 Kriging
the measured data. Because geostatistics is based on statistics, these methods produce not
only prediction surfaces but also error or uncertainty surfaces, giving the user an
Kriging is divided into two distinct tasks: quantifying the spatial structure of the
data and producing a prediction. Quantifying the spatial data structure, known as
variography, is fitting a spatial dependence model to the data. To make a prediction for
an unknown value for a specific location, Kriging will use the fitted model from the
variography, the spatial data configuration and the values of the measured sample points
around the prediction location. Geostatistical analyst provides many tools to help
determine the parameters to be used and the defaults are also provided so that a surface
can be created quickly. Kriging is a moderately quick interpolator that can be exact or
smoothed depending on the measurement error model. It is very flexible and allows the
user to investigate graphs of spatial autocorrelation. Kriging uses statistical models that
allow a variety of map outputs including predictions, prediction standard error, standard
error of indicators, and probability. The flexibility of Kriging can require a lot of decision
making. Kriging assumes that the data comes from a stationary stochastic process. A
stochastic process is a collection of random variables that are ordered in space and/or
27
The selection of a kriging method is based on the autocorrelation of radon
Z(s) consists of two parts: a deterministic trend (s) (i.e. flow direction) and a
random auto correlated error (s). The symbol s simply indicates the location of a point.
kriging method should be selected. Ordinary kriging was selected to map the radon
concentration distributions.
n (u )
n(u)
n (u) is the number of the data used at the known locations given a neighborhood,
m= mean of distribution
(u)= weights for location u computed from the spatial covariance matrix based on the
28
1 n
(h)=
2 n i 1
( z (u i ) z (u i h)) 2 (5)
z(ui) and z(ui+h) are the data values at locations separated by distance h.
Ordinary kriging assumes a constant but unknown mean and estimates the mean
29
5. Approach and Procedure
The goal of geostatistical analysis is to predict the values where no data has been
collected. The State of Ohio consists of 1862 zip codes, but the data set obtained by the
University of Toledo from the radon testing organizations only consists of radon
concentration data for 1066 zip codes for the years 1989 to 2005 and some other data
collected prior to 1989. The geostatistical analyst is used to evaluate the radon
concentration data for the unmeasured 796 zip codes by different interpolation methods
(ordinary kriging, IDW, RBF, local and global polynomial interpolation method). The
bootstrap application is also used for validation purposes i.e., to determine the best
In the Ohio zip codes shape file, the geometric mean of radon concentration values
is inputted in the attribute table for each zip code and zero values are assigned to the zip
codes that are not measured. Then, the polygon features of the Ohio zip codes shape file
are converted into point features which are inputted as point data sources in the
interpolation techniques. The point featured shape file is then divided into two shape
files; one having 1066 zip codes with radon concentration data and the other contains 796
30
The first approach is to evaluate the best interpolation technique. For that, the
point featured shape file with 1066 zip codes is divided into 80% training data points
which is used for modeling i.e., to create the output surface; and the remaining 20% is
divided into test data points to validate the output surface by comparing the measured and
predicted values. The division of data set into relative percentages is based on the number
The above table shows sensitivity analysis for possible divisions of the data into training -
testing data sets. 80-20 division is chosen since the RMSE values (calculated from
measured and predicted values) for the test data points are the lowest when compared to
A sufficient number of data points are required to create a surface and to make the
validation of that surface significant. Then the different interpolation techniques are
31
executed to evaluate the best interpolation technique from the surface created and
The second approach follows the step of evaluating the best interpolation
technique. Modeling is done for the whole radon data set, which creates a surface of
spatial variation of radon concentrations and the predictions for unmeasured zip codes
The different interpolation techniques which are performed for training data set
ordinary kriging
global polynomial
local polynomial
32
5.1.1 Ordinary kriging
As the radon concentration data is skewed which is shown in the ESDA tool, the
log transformation is applied and as it was showing trend in the north south direction,
The spatial autocorrelation of the transformed data was then modeled using
correlation of nearby data points. As the distance increases, the likelihood of these data
33
points being related becomes smaller. An empirical variogram is created by calculating
the squared difference between all pairs of points and grouping the vectors into similar
distance and direction classes (called binning) and then the average of the squared
differences for each bin is plotted as the red dot (displayed in Figure 11).
After calculating the empirical variogram for the measured data points, a model is
fitted to fit through the points. The spherical model is fitted (which is the best fit model)
34
Ideally, the value of the semivariogram should be zero when the separation vector
h is zero. In practice, this is usually not true because of measurement errors. In this case,
a so-called nugget effect (nugget variance) exists having a value of 0.20487. As the
distance called range parameter which is 46.55. The maximum semivariogram value is
the sill parameter (structured variance) which is 0.2869. The lag size is the size of a
distance class into which pairs of locations are grouped. The automated lag size and the
value. It provides a direct link between the semivariogram values on the graph and those
on the semivariogram surface. The value of each cell in the semivariogram surface is
color coded. The lower values are in blue and green. The higher values are in orange and
red.
The next step in kriging is searching neighborhood. As the data locations become
farther away from a location where the value is unknown, they may not be useful when
predicting the value at an unmeasured location. At some distance, the points will have no
correlation with the prediction location. Therefore, in predicting the radon concentration
of a specific point; the number of adjacent points, the searching radius and the number of
sectors of the circle (or ellipse) should be specified. As shown in Figure 12, five
neighboring points are considered and a circle with four sectors is considered. The points
highlighted in the data view give an indicator of the weights associated with each point.
35
The weights are used to estimate the value at the unknown location, which is at the center
of the crosshair.
Before the final surface is produced for practical use, the cross-validation tool
from the ArcGIS Geostatistical analyst should be employed to examine how well the
tool compares measured radon values with predicted ones derived from the surface
model, and uses statistical measures to assess the surface models performance. The
statistical measures serve as guidelines for the accuracy of the surface model and its
36
prediction map. Figure 13 provides a graphical comparison between measured and
predicted values (predicted plot). The cross validation tool sequentially omits a point,
predicts the associated value using the rest of the radon concentration data, and then
Ideally, the predicted values should be the same as the measured ones, and all data
points would form a 1:1 ratio line (the gray line in Figure 13). In reality, data points
would scatter along this line due to natural variations and uncertainties. The term
37
prediction error is used to describe the difference between the prediction and the actual
measured value. For a surface model that provides accurate predictions, the mean error
and mean standardized error should be close to zero, the root mean square error and the
average standard error should be as small as possible, and the root mean square
For the radon concentration training data set, the prediction errors for ordinary
kriging are:
mean: -0.05196
Figure 14 shows the graphical comparison between errors and the measured
values. In general the error was small enough, since most of the points are around the
zero scale.
38
Figure 14 Ordinary Kriging Error Plot (Errors Vs Measured Values)
measured values. The standardized error is the measured value subtracted from the
39
Figure 15 Ordinary Kriging Standardized Error Plot (Standardized Error Vs
Measured Values)
The QQ plot shown in Figure 16 illustrates the quantiles of the difference between
the standardized errors and the corresponding quantiles from a standard normal
distribution. The points should roughly lie along the dashed line if the errors of
predictions from their true values are normally distributed. The plot shows that errors of
40
Figure 16 Ordinary Kriging QQ Plot
All of these plots show how well the ordinary kriging is predicting.
With the surface map determined from the cross validation process, the radon
concentration prediction map that shows the radon concentration distribution can be
generated. Figure 17 shows a radon concentration prediction map in which the dark color
represents high concentrations and the light color represents low concentrations.
41
Figure 17 Ordinary Kriging Radon Concentration Prediction Map for the
Training Data Set
42
5.1.2 Inverse Distance Weighting
As stated earlier, IDW interpolation follows the assumption that things close to
The first step in IDW is the searching neighborhood method which is conducted
on the radon concentration training data set, as shown in Figure 18. The maximum
included. The shape selected is shown in the figure below with four sectors and the
maximum and minimum number of constraints available to each sector. The most
43
The final step is the cross validation tool (Figure 19) which shows a predicted plot
(measured values vs predicted values) and an error plot (errors vs measured values). For
IDW technique, radon concentration training data set the prediction errors are:
Unlike ordinary kriging, in the IDW, radial basis function, global polynomial and
local polynomial interpolation techniques, only two plots are generated: predicted plot
44
Figure 20 shows the prediction map created by the IDW technique for radon
Figure 20 IDW Radon Concentration Prediction Map for the Training Data
set
45
5.1.3 Radial Basis Function
Radial basis function is similar to IDW (which assumes that things close to one
another are more alike than those farther apart) except that it predicts values above the
Similar to IDW, the first step in RBF is the searching neighborhood method
which is conducted on radon concentration training data sets using the completely
regularized spline function with the parameter value of 0.0040628. Maximum and
minimum number of data points included is 15 and 10, respectively and the shape type is
46
Figure 22 shows the final step, the cross validation tool, which illustrates the
predicted plot and the error plot. The prediction errors for RBF are:
Figure 23 shows the prediction map created by the RBF technique for radon
47
Figure 23 RBF Radon Concentration Prediction Map for the Training Data
Set
Global polynomial interpolation technique fits a plane through the measured data
global polynomial interpolation is the only method in geostatistical analyst that does not
use a search neighborhood. The order of polynomial ranges from 1-10. The second order
48
polynomial is used for the radon concentration training data set shown in Figure 24,
because higher order polynomials showed greater root mean square error values.
The prediction errors for the radon concentration training data set which is shown
49
Figure 25 Global Polynomial Interpolation Cross validation Tool (Measured
Vs Predicted Values)
50
Figure 26 Global Polynomial Interpolation Radon Concentration Prediction
Map for Training Data Set
51
5.1.5 Local Polynomial Interpolation
While global polynomial interpolation fits a polynomial to the entire surface, local
neighborhoods. The conceptual basis for local polynomial interpolation is to fit many
smaller overlapping planes, and then use the center of each plane as the prediction for
each location in the study area. The resulting surface will be more flexible and perhaps
more accurate. This interpolation fits many polynomials, each within specified
neighborhood distance.
The maximum and minimum number of data points included within the search
neighborhood is 852 and 10, respectively. The power parameter selected is 2, shown in
Figure 27.
52
Figure 27 Local Polynomial Interpolation Searching Neighborhood Dialog
Box
The prediction errors for the radon concentration training data set which is shown
53
Figure 28 Local Polynomial Interpolation Cross Validation Tool (Measured
Vs Predicted Values)
Figure 29 shows the prediction map created by the local polynomial interpolation
54
Figure 29 Local Polynomial Interpolation Radon Concentration Prediction
Map for the Training Data Set
55
5.2 Qualitative Analysis
5.2.1 Comparison of the behavior of the prediction maps with the soil
uranium concentrations map
The prediction maps created by the interpolations techniques are compared with
the distribution of uranium in soils map. Uranium in soils is considered as the primary
source of radon gas. The gas is derived from the radioactive decay of uranium which
occurs in some rocks, sediments and soils. The map (Figure 30) shows that the uranium
concentrations are above 3 ppm in central and western Ohio. The prediction maps
(Figures 17, 20, 23, 29) from ordinary kriging, inverse distance weighting and radial
basis function interpolations also show higher level of radon concentrations in central and
western Ohio. Moreover, central- eastern Ohio shows the elevated radon levels that result
from geologic factors not well understood presently. Many of these areas are probably
associated with relatively permeable and dry sediments (sands and gravels) or soil types
commonly found on hillsides and valley floors. Although such materials may not be
enriched in uranium, they can still cause high indoor radon levels by making it easier for
radon to get to the surface by virtue of their permeability and dryness. This same effect
may also contribute to some of the high radon levels in the central and western parts of
the state.
56
Figure 30 Aerial Radiometric Map of Ohio Showing the Concentration of
Uranium in Surficial Sediments and Soils
57
5.3 Evaluation Criteria
Certain statistical measures are built in the GIS software. These statistics are used during
the analysis while implanting interpolation techniques. Once all the interpolation
techniques are chosen, additional statistics are used based on the literature on air quality
model evaluations [23]. Confidence limits on the statistics are calculated using bootstrap
to evaluate the superiority of one technique over another. The final choice of the better
technique was based on the accuracy of the predictions, degree of confidence that could
be placed in the predictions, and the matching of overall spatial distribution of predictions
with the physical parameters that are the primary cause of indoor radon in Ohio.
This performance measure emphasizes the scatter in the entire data set. The equation for
the mean square error was modified by Hanna and Heinold (1985) to obtain this
value) assure that the NMSE will not be baised towards the techniques that over predict
or under predict. Smaller values of NMSE denote better model performance. The
NMSE
C 0 Cp
2
(6)
C0C p
58
5.3.2 The Coefficient of Correlation (r)
Correlation analysis involves parameters calculated from linear least squares and
associated graphical analysis. A value of r close to 1.0 implies a good correlation between
the observed and predicted values, i.e. good model performance. The numerical results
results measured for the same. The correlation is estimated by the parameter r which is
given by:
r
C 0
C0 Cp C p (7)
C C
p 0
The bias is normalized to make it dimensionless. This FB varies between +2 and -2 and
C0 C p
Fractional Bias (8)
0.5 C 0 C p
RMSE =
Co Cp 2 (9)
N
59
Mean error is an indicator of bias. It is expressed as:
Co Cp
ME = (10)
N
Co Cp
MAE = (11)
N
MSE =
Co Cp 2 (12)
N
The various statistics are calculated using the above parameters containing a finite
infinite distribution of samples, we must ascertain the confidence in our estimates of the
sampling with replacement from the original sample set. Thus, any number of new
sample sets of the same size as the original data can be generated. The values of the
observed and predicted data points are picked independently of each other and not in
60
pairs. From these new n sample sets, n values of the statistic can be calculated. These
then can be used to form a cumulative distribution function of the statistic. Confidence
limits based on any required degree of certainty can be calculated from this distribution
function. The confidence limits help compare a statistic between two models.
values were attempted at a chosen value of 95 % confidence interval which should give
good agreement for any statistic measured (Kumar et al. 1993; Hanna et al. 1991). The
confidence limits are estimated on NMSE, FB, coefficient of correlation (r) for each and
among techniques in this study, using seductive and robust bootstrap resampling
techniques. The Seductive 95% Confidence Limits are based on the 2.5% and 97.5%
points on the Cumulative Distribution Function. The Robust 95% Confidence Limits are
based on the Usual Student t Approach Using Calculated Mean and Standard Deviation.
61
6. Results
After creating the surfaces from each interpolation technique using the training
data set, predictions for the test data set are evaluated from the surface created using the
validation tool. This tool also shows the graphical comparison between predicted and
measured values.
The plots given in Figures 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 show the measured versus
predicted radon concentration values for the test data set for different interpolation
techniques.
62
Figure 32 IDW (Measured Vs Predicted Values)
63
Figure 35 Local Polynomial Interpolation (Measured Vs Predicted Values)
In the above plots blue line is the fitted line drawn through the scattered points, and the
dotted line is the 1:1 ratio line. Ideally, the predicted values should be the same as the
measured ones, and the blue line should be close to the 1:1 line. The above plots illustrate
that the regression (blue) line for the ordinary kriging is close to 1:1 line, when compared
to the other interpolation techniques. Table 2 shows ME, MAE, MSE, and RMSE values,
Table 2 ME, MAE, MSE and RMSE Values for Different Interpolation
Techniques for Geometric Mean of Radon Concentrations Test Predictions
64
From Table 2, it can be inferred that there is no significant difference among the error
values for all interpolation techniques. This implies that any of the interpolation
The evaluation parameters compared for this study in order to choose the ideal
interpolation technique were also tested using additional statistical indicators. Absolute
and predicted values for the test data points were taken as the input and various error
values were generated, of which only NMSE, FB and coefficient of correlation (r) are
discussed in detail, based on air quality model evaluation studies. Table 3 below shows
correlation (r) are significantly different from zero for each technique and whether the
differences in their measures between pairs of techniques are significantly different from
65
zero (to generate 95% confidence limits). The confidence limits evaluated are shown in
Tables 4 and 5. The summaries of these results are tabulated in Tables 6 and 7.
The results indicate that when each technique is considered individually, NMSE and
coefficient of correlation (r) values are significantly different from zero while FB values
are not. This implies that the FB values could not be relied on for further evaluation.
When all five interpolation techniques are compared in their ability to produce acceptable
predictions, NMSE and correlation values are not significantly different while FB differs
significantly for ordinary kriging and radial basis function techniques. Thus, the use of
the confidence limits further strengthens the argument that any of the interpolation
techniques may be employed for the purpose of radon concentration estimation for
unmeasured zip codes because the results from a technique are not significantly different
66
Table 4 Robust and Seductive 95% Confidence Limits for Each Interpolation Technique
Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High
ordinary kriging 0.245 0.592 -0.121 0.048 0.385 0.594 0.256 0.600 -0.119 0.046 0.374 0.587
IDW 0.303 0.650 -0.152 0.037 0.274 0.545 0.314 0.650 -0.149 0.036 0.270 0.534
RBF 0.284 0.632 -0.158 0.026 0.288 0.588 0.294 0.634 -0.157 0.026 0.287 0.562
Global Polynomial 0.260 0.601 -0.123 0.055 0.393 0.547 0.272 0.608 -0.123 0.057 0.389 0.545
Local Polynomial 0.271 0.588 -0.138 0.034 0.354 0.575 0.281 0.590 -0.132 0.035 0.350 0.561
Note:
(1) The Seductive 95% Confidence Limits are based on the 2.5% and 97.5% points on the Cumulative Distribution Function.
(2) The Robust 95% Confidence Limits are based on the Usual Student t Approach Using Calculated Mean and Standard Deviation.
67
Table 5 Robust and Seductive 95% Confidence Limits Among the Techniques
Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High
68
Table 6 Summary of Robust and Seductive 95% Confidence Limits
Analyses on Each Technique
FB
Corr. (r) X X X X X
Note:
69
Table 7 Summary of Robust and Seductive 95% Confidence Limits
Analyses Among Each Technique
Among Techniques
Interpolation Technique
NMSE FB Corr.(r)
Yes No Yes No Yes No
ordinary kriging- IDW
IDW- RBF
IDW- GPI
IDW- LPI
RBF- GPI
RBF- LPI
GPI LPI
Note:
70
The prediction maps generated (Figures 17, 20, 23, and 29) from ordinary
kriging, IDW and RBF interpolations show more or less similar spatial patterns for
(Duval et al., 1985), but the global and local polynomial interpolation prediction
maps varies drastically. Hence, the global and local polynomial interpolation
techniques are unsuitable for the purpose of the study and thereby; any of the three
unmeasured zip codes. However, more work is needed to find a technique that could
produce results that are statistically different from these four techniques.
chosen for this study because, the prediction map generated from ordinary kriging
show much similar spatial patterns for radon distribution in central western Ohio
when compared to the soil uranium concentration map (Figure 30), than to the other
The decision protocol, like the choice of semivariogram model and the
searching neighborhood selected, is the same as the interpolation done with ordinary
kriging for the radon training data set. Figure 36 shows the prediction map created by
71
Figure 36 Ordinary Kriging Radon Concentration Prediction Map Using
the Whole Radon Data Set
72
Table 8 shows the predictions for geometric mean of radon concentration zip
73
PREDICTED PREDICTED
ZIP COUNTY GM RADON ZIP COUNTY GM RADON
CODE NAME CONC. CODE NAME CONC.
45240 BUTLER 2.45 43078 CLARK 5.03
45251 BUTLER 2.43 43153 CLARK 3.80
45252 BUTLER 2.53 45314 CLARK 3.79
45311 BUTLER 3.98 45324 CLARK 5.38
45327 BUTLER 3.93 45387 CLARK 4.07
43903 CARROLL 3.85 45424 CLARK 5.39
43945 CARROLL 4.52 45107 CLERMONT 2.22
43986 CARROLL 3.74 45111 CLERMONT 2.95
43988 CARROLL 4.23 45118 CLERMONT 1.97
44423 CARROLL 4.21 45130 CLERMONT 1.41
44621 CARROLL 4.19 45154 CLERMONT 1.88
44625 CARROLL 4.35 45162 CLERMONT 2.29
44656 CARROLL 5.02 45174 CLERMONT 2.89
44688 CARROLL 5.02 45242 CLERMONT 2.93
44695 CARROLL 4.25 45243 CLERMONT 2.88
44730 CARROLL 4.98 45244 CLERMONT 2.57
43029 CHAMPAIGN 4.42 45255 CLERMONT 2.39
43040 CHAMPAIGN 4.03 43160 CLINTON 3.60
43045 CHAMPAIGN 4.00 45054 CLINTON 3.02
43140 CHAMPAIGN 4.54 45068 CLINTON 3.20
43311 CHAMPAIGN 5.59 45122 CLINTON 2.25
43318 CHAMPAIGN 5.68 45135 CLINTON 3.22
43319 CHAMPAIGN 4.35 45142 CLINTON 2.50
43343 CHAMPAIGN 5.38 45152 CLINTON 2.65
43360 CHAMPAIGN 4.58 45162 CLINTON 2.32
45317 CHAMPAIGN 5.27 45335 CLINTON 3.48
45365 CHAMPAIGN 5.30 45385 CLINTON 3.88
43930 COLUMBIANA 5.65 43314 CRAWFORD 3.93
43932 COLUMBIANA 6.61 43335 CRAWFORD 4.10
44657 COLUMBIANA 3.66 44807 CRAWFORD 3.13
43006 COSHOCTON 6.59 44818 CRAWFORD 2.90
43014 COSHOCTON 6.90 44849 CRAWFORD 3.14
43749 COSHOCTON 4.47 44865 CRAWFORD 3.60
43762 COSHOCTON 4.87 44875 CRAWFORD 3.47
43802 COSHOCTON 5.04 44882 CRAWFORD 2.91
43804 COSHOCTON 5.92 44011 CUYAHOGA 2.53
43822 COSHOCTON 6.06 44012 CUYAHOGA 2.46
43832 COSHOCTON 5.27 44023 CUYAHOGA 2.04
43840 COSHOCTON 5.70 44028 CUYAHOGA 2.13
74
PREDICTED PREDICTED
ZIP COUNTY GM RADON ZIP COUNTY GM RADON
CODE NAME CONC. CODE NAME CONC.
44637 COSHOCTON 6.55 44039 CUYAHOGA 2.44
44654 COSHOCTON 6.02 44056 CUYAHOGA 2.15
44067 CUYAHOGA 1.98 43502 DEFIANCE 2.82
44087 CUYAHOGA 2.52 43506 DEFIANCE 2.88
44212 CUYAHOGA 2.32 43517 DEFIANCE 2.88
44233 CUYAHOGA 2.09 43527 DEFIANCE 2.69
44286 CUYAHOGA 2.06 43536 DEFIANCE 2.69
45318 DARKE 5.85 43545 DEFIANCE 2.57
45321 DARKE 5.31 43548 DEFIANCE 2.75
45337 DARKE 5.85 43557 DEFIANCE 2.95
45338 DARKE 5.35 43013 DELAWARE 4.56
45347 DARKE 5.31 43031 DELAWARE 5.03
45363 DARKE 5.74 43040 DELAWARE 4.20
45382 DARKE 5.39 43054 DELAWARE 5.11
45845 DARKE 5.21 43235 DELAWARE 5.27
45846 DARKE 4.40 43334 DELAWARE 4.05
45860 DARKE 5.02 43344 DELAWARE 4.66
45883 DARKE 4.47 43356 DELAWARE 4.54
43464 ERIE 2.74 45123 FAYETTE 4.19
44811 ERIE 4.23 45135 FAYETTE 3.60
44826 ERIE 4.08 45169 FAYETTE 3.44
44857 ERIE 4.80 45335 FAYETTE 3.40
44889 ERIE 3.19 45628 FAYETTE 4.50
43025 FAIRFIELD 5.41 43031 FRANKLIN 5.14
43062 FAIRFIELD 5.39 43064 FRANKLIN 5.94
43068 FAIRFIELD 6.63 43082 FRANKLIN 4.87
43103 FAIRFIELD 6.76 43103 FRANKLIN 7.51
43113 FAIRFIELD 6.00 43146 FRANKLIN 6.28
43135 FAIRFIELD 5.30 43162 FRANKLIN 5.90
43138 FAIRFIELD 4.60 43240 FRANKLIN 5.28
43149 FAIRFIELD 5.30 43504 FULTON 2.06
43115 FAYETTE 4.80 43522 FULTON 1.78
43143 FAYETTE 4.88 43532 FULTON 1.87
43145 FAYETTE 4.84 43545 FULTON 2.22
43570 FULTON 2.87 43153 GREENE 3.57
45656 GALLIA 1.68 43160 GREENE 3.39
45659 GALLIA 1.07 45068 GREENE 3.95
45678 GALLIA 0.99 45169 GREENE 3.41
45688 GALLIA 1.32 45177 GREENE 3.54
75
PREDICTED PREDICTED
COUNTY GM RADON COUNTY GM RADON
ZIP CODE NAME CONC. ZIP CODE NAME CONC.
45695 GALLIA 1.95 45323 GREENE 5.26
45741 GALLIA 1.98 45341 GREENE 5.32
45760 GALLIA 1.79 45368 GREENE 3.96
44040 GEAUGA 1.65 45420 GREENE 4.34
44060 GEAUGA 1.86 45424 GREENE 4.56
44077 GEAUGA 1.82 45440 GREENE 4.38
44094 GEAUGA 1.92 45458 GREENE 3.80
44099 GEAUGA 1.51 45502 GREENE 4.18
44139 GEAUGA 2.40 43713 GUERNSEY 2.27
44202 GEAUGA 2.32 43724 GUERNSEY 1.85
44231 GEAUGA 1.66 43762 GUERNSEY 2.80
44234 GEAUGA 1.80 43832 GUERNSEY 3.54
44255 GEAUGA 1.82 43837 GUERNSEY 2.84
44491 GEAUGA 1.54 43983 GUERNSEY 2.18
44699 GUERNSEY 2.74 43908 HARRISON 3.60
45013 HAMILTON 2.70 43910 HARRISON 3.95
45014 HAMILTON 2.40 43917 HARRISON 4.11
45040 HAMILTON 2.86 43950 HARRISON 4.01
45053 HAMILTON 2.86 43973 HARRISON 2.64
45069 HAMILTON 2.60 43977 HARRISON 3.00
45150 HAMILTON 2.83 44621 HARRISON 4.26
45210 HAMILTON 1.35 44683 HARRISON 4.22
43316 HANCOCK 3.90 43502 HENRY 2.81
43359 HANCOCK 3.81 43511 HENRY 2.10
43516 HANCOCK 2.51 43515 HENRY 2.02
44802 HANCOCK 3.51 43522 HENRY 1.89
44817 HANCOCK 2.73 43557 HENRY 2.95
44830 HANCOCK 2.95 43567 HENRY 2.58
45817 HANCOCK 4.90 43569 HENRY 1.91
45843 HANCOCK 3.90 45856 HENRY 2.79
45872 HANCOCK 2.39 45118 HIGHLAND 2.12
43310 HARDIN 3.67 45146 HIGHLAND 2.65
43332 HARDIN 3.94 45154 HIGHLAND 2.06
43345 HARDIN 3.58 45159 HIGHLAND 3.03
43346 HARDIN 3.83 45169 HIGHLAND 3.32
43347 HARDIN 3.54 45171 HIGHLAND 2.34
45814 HARDIN 4.65 45612 HIGHLAND 3.40
45817 HARDIN 4.99 45646 HIGHLAND 2.92
45841 HARDIN 4.95 45660 HIGHLAND 2.81
76
PREDICTED PREDICTED
COUNTY GM RADON COUNTY GM RADON
ZIP CODE NAME CONC. ZIP CODE NAME CONC.
45850 HARDIN 3.90 45679 HIGHLAND 2.41
45697 HIGHLAND 2.42 43844 HOLMES 6.29
43102 HOCKING 5.34 44608 HOLMES 3.99
43107 HOCKING 4.05 44624 HOLMES 4.23
43130 HOCKING 5.31 44627 HOLMES 3.85
43155 HOCKING 4.93 44662 HOLMES 3.74
43748 HOCKING 3.70 44676 HOLMES 3.96
43766 HOCKING 2.64 44689 HOLMES 3.88
45601 HOCKING 3.80 44842 HOLMES 5.18
45622 HOCKING 2.56 44090 HURON 3.21
45651 HOCKING 2.27 44807 HURON 3.41
45654 HOCKING 2.45 44859 HURON 3.96
45732 HOCKING 2.58 44865 HURON 4.37
45764 HOCKING 2.58 44875 HURON 3.86
43006 HOLMES 6.25 44878 HURON 4.45
43014 HOLMES 6.66 43013 KNOX 4.51
43804 HOLMES 5.78 43055 KNOX 6.37
43812 HOLMES 5.94 43071 KNOX 6.17
43824 HOLMES 6.22 43074 KNOX 4.37
43843 HOLMES 6.77 43080 KNOX 5.86
45601 JACKSON 2.30 43822 KNOX 6.35
45613 JACKSON 1.89 43843 KNOX 6.58
45634 JACKSON 1.83 44628 KNOX 6.13
45651 JACKSON 2.00 44813 KNOX 6.15
45653 JACKSON 1.77 44822 KNOX 6.93
45658 JACKSON 1.69 44842 KNOX 6.70
45672 JACKSON 2.28 44026 LAKE 1.87
45682 JACKSON 1.80 44040 LAKE 1.48
45685 JACKSON 1.88 44086 LAKE 1.82
45686 JACKSON 1.89 44132 LAKE 1.10
45695 JACKSON 1.88 44143 LAKE 1.21
43901 JEFFERSON 4.71 45623 LAWRENCE 0.97
43907 JEFFERSON 4.46 45629 LAWRENCE 1.49
43935 JEFFERSON 3.89 45656 LAWRENCE 1.65
43945 JEFFERSON 5.49 45658 LAWRENCE 1.14
43968 JEFFERSON 6.39 45659 LAWRENCE 1.28
43971 JEFFERSON 3.75 45675 LAWRENCE 1.21
43976 JEFFERSON 3.94 45688 LAWRENCE 1.31
43986 JEFFERSON 3.74 45694 LAWRENCE 1.42
77
PREDICTED PREDICTED
COUNTY GM RADON COUNTY GM RADON
ZIP CODE NAME CONC. ZIP CODE NAME CONC.
44615 JEFFERSON 4.01 43002 MADISON 6.24
43004 LICKING 6.09 43026 MADISON 6.22
43046 LICKING 5.26 43029 MADISON 4.46
43050 LICKING 5.71 43044 MADISON 4.57
43054 LICKING 5.47 43045 MADISON 4.46
43105 LICKING 5.11 43106 MADISON 4.20
43147 LICKING 6.13 43119 MADISON 6.00
43739 LICKING 5.27 43123 MADISON 5.68
43760 LICKING 4.85 43128 MADISON 3.73
43830 LICKING 5.76 45314 MADISON 3.71
43843 LICKING 6.46 45335 MADISON 3.56
43844 LICKING 6.40 45368 MADISON 4.15
43040 LOGAN 3.79 45369 MADISON 4.42
43067 LOGAN 3.63 44408 MAHONING 3.52
43326 LOGAN 4.02 44411 MAHONING 1.80
43340 LOGAN 3.51 44412 MAHONING 1.76
45340 LOGAN 4.64 44420 MAHONING 1.84
45365 LOGAN 5.15 44425 MAHONING 2.08
45895 LOGAN 3.54 44437 MAHONING 1.76
44089 LORAIN 2.75 44440 MAHONING 1.76
44256 LORAIN 2.75 44444 MAHONING 1.70
44275 LORAIN 2.63 44460 MAHONING 2.23
44280 LORAIN 2.61 44481 MAHONING 1.72
44851 LORAIN 3.22 44601 MAHONING 1.96
44859 LORAIN 3.48 43003 MARION 4.17
44880 LORAIN 2.81 43315 MARION 4.18
44889 LORAIN 2.93 43320 MARION 4.27
43402 LUCAS 1.88 43344 MARION 4.66
43445 LUCAS 2.96 43351 MARION 4.04
43449 LUCAS 2.89 44820 MARION 4.07
43460 LUCAS 2.35 44833 MARION 4.30
43522 LUCAS 1.79 45843 MARION 4.08
43551 LUCAS 2.28 45845 MERCER 5.15
43558 LUCAS 1.92 45865 MERCER 5.00
44028 MEDINA 2.44 45869 MERCER 4.69
44044 MEDINA 2.52 45874 MERCER 3.62
44090 MEDINA 2.53 45885 MERCER 4.52
44214 MEDINA 3.29 45887 MERCER 4.28
44217 MEDINA 3.57 45894 MERCER 4.16
78
PREDICTED
ZIP COUNTY PREDICTED GM COUNTY GM RADON
CODE NAME RADON CONC. ZIP CODE NAME CONC.
44233 MEDINA 2.32 45898 MERCER 3.38
44235 MEDINA 2.83 43072 MIAMI 5.25
44270 MEDINA 3.78 45304 MIAMI 5.83
44276 MEDINA 3.76 45333 MIAMI 6.00
44287 MEDINA 2.93 45344 MIAMI 5.51
44880 MEDINA 2.83 45363 MIAMI 5.87
45614 MEIGS 2.00 45365 MIAMI 5.38
45620 MEIGS 1.77 45377 MIAMI 5.33
45686 MEIGS 2.00 45380 MIAMI 5.91
45695 MEIGS 1.87 45424 MIAMI 5.33
45701 MEIGS 1.90 43724 MONROE 1.86
45710 MEIGS 1.92 43773 MONROE 2.02
45723 MEIGS 1.47 43788 MONROE 1.89
45735 MEIGS 1.54 43942 MONROE 3.15
45745 MONROE 1.89 43003 MORROW 3.96
45767 MONROE 1.85 43011 MORROW 4.12
45789 MONROE 1.96 43019 MORROW 4.74
45005 MONTGOMERY 3.60 43074 MORROW 3.89
45042 MONTGOMERY 4.08 43314 MORROW 4.12
45066 MONTGOMERY 3.36 43335 MORROW 4.25
45068 MONTGOMERY 3.48 44813 MORROW 5.15
45304 MONTGOMERY 5.24 44833 MORROW 4.19
45305 MONTGOMERY 3.98 44903 MORROW 4.34
45311 MONTGOMERY 4.18 44904 MORROW 4.39
45324 MONTGOMERY 5.17 43055 MUSKINGUM 5.92
45337 MONTGOMERY 5.06 43056 MUSKINGUM 4.97
45338 MONTGOMERY 5.04 43076 MUSKINGUM 5.11
45341 MONTGOMERY 5.26 43731 MUSKINGUM 2.95
45344 MONTGOMERY 5.44 43732 MUSKINGUM 2.34
45370 MONTGOMERY 3.48 43739 MUSKINGUM 5.04
45371 MONTGOMERY 4.82 43749 MUSKINGUM 4.21
45381 MONTGOMERY 4.65 43756 MUSKINGUM 2.99
45383 MONTGOMERY 4.87 43760 MUSKINGUM 3.99
45407 MONTGOMERY 3.69 43811 MUSKINGUM 5.26
43724 MORGAN 2.61 43812 MUSKINGUM 5.37
43730 MORGAN 2.59 43732 NOBLE 2.08
43731 MORGAN 2.91 43754 NOBLE 1.78
43732 MORGAN 2.51 43756 NOBLE 2.42
43777 MORGAN 3.01 43772 NOBLE 1.84
79
PREDICTED PREDICTED
COUNTY GM RADON COUNTY GM RADON
ZIP CODE NAME CONC. ZIP CODE NAME CONC.
45711 MORGAN 2.46 43773 NOBLE 2.08
45724 MORGAN 3.02 43778 NOBLE 1.98
45732 MORGAN 2.51 43780 NOBLE 1.89
45786 MORGAN 3.19 45715 NOBLE 2.69
45744 NOBLE 2.62 43102 PICKAWAY 5.34
45745 NOBLE 1.86 43110 PICKAWAY 7.25
45746 NOBLE 2.06 43115 PICKAWAY 5.19
43420 OTTAWA 2.53 43125 PICKAWAY 7.42
43442 OTTAWA 2.82 43135 PICKAWAY 5.00
43447 OTTAWA 3.02 43140 PICKAWAY 5.72
43469 OTTAWA 3.17 43143 PICKAWAY 5.67
43512 PAULDING 2.33 43154 PICKAWAY 6.10
43526 PAULDING 2.68 43160 PICKAWAY 5.33
43536 PAULDING 2.55 45601 PICKAWAY 5.27
43556 PAULDING 2.64 45644 PICKAWAY 4.88
45827 PAULDING 2.79 45133 PIKE 2.90
45831 PAULDING 2.39 45601 PIKE 2.49
45886 PAULDING 2.36 45612 PIKE 3.24
43025 PERRY 5.47 45648 PIKE 2.34
43046 PERRY 5.02 45657 PIKE 2.68
43107 PERRY 4.02 45660 PIKE 2.88
43138 PERRY 3.48 45671 PIKE 2.75
43148 PERRY 4.95 44023 PORTAGE 2.12
43150 PERRY 4.30 44087 PORTAGE 2.67
43758 PERRY 2.71 44224 PORTAGE 2.21
43777 PERRY 3.16 44312 PORTAGE 2.64
43782 PERRY 2.72 44444 PORTAGE 1.69
45732 PERRY 2.53 44491 PORTAGE 1.52
44632 PORTAGE 2.50 43019 RICHLAND 5.30
44685 PORTAGE 2.89 44805 RICHLAND 4.00
45042 PREBLE 4.01 44827 RICHLAND 3.65
45056 PREBLE 3.96 44833 RICHLAND 3.92
45064 PREBLE 3.99 44837 RICHLAND 4.08
45304 PREBLE 5.33 44859 RICHLAND 4.09
45309 PREBLE 5.26 44864 RICHLAND 6.38
45325 PREBLE 4.61 44887 RICHLAND 3.58
45327 PREBLE 4.33 43113 ROSS 5.19
45332 PREBLE 5.29 43135 ROSS 4.28
45345 PREBLE 4.56 43145 ROSS 4.67
80
PREDICTED PREDICTED
COUNTY GM RADON COUNTY GM RADON
ZIP CODE NAME CONC. ZIP CODE NAME CONC.
45346 PREBLE 5.32 43152 ROSS 3.69
43512 PUTNAM 2.63 43160 ROSS 4.62
43516 PUTNAM 2.68 43164 ROSS 5.13
43524 PUTNAM 2.82 45123 ROSS 4.43
43548 PUTNAM 2.96 45672 ROSS 3.05
45807 PUTNAM 4.41 45690 ROSS 3.43
45840 PUTNAM 4.10 43406 SANDUSKY 2.49
45858 PUTNAM 3.13 43416 SANDUSKY 2.81
45868 PUTNAM 4.78 44811 SANDUSKY 3.59
44824 SANDUSKY 3.39 43333 SHELBY 3.86
44830 SANDUSKY 2.60 43343 SHELBY 4.62
44836 SANDUSKY 3.10 45317 SHELBY 5.22
44841 SANDUSKY 2.68 45318 SHELBY 5.96
44870 SANDUSKY 2.87 45326 SHELBY 5.37
44883 SANDUSKY 2.79 45356 SHELBY 5.84
45613 SCIOTO 1.81 45380 SHELBY 5.55
45616 SCIOTO 4.29 45388 SHELBY 5.46
45638 SCIOTO 1.57 45860 SHELBY 5.20
45640 SCIOTO 1.81 45865 SHELBY 5.24
45656 SCIOTO 1.75 45869 SHELBY 5.09
45657 SCIOTO 3.15 45871 SHELBY 5.05
45659 SCIOTO 1.45 45895 SHELBY 3.99
45660 SCIOTO 2.91 44201 STARK 2.25
45661 SCIOTO 2.57 44411 STARK 1.89
45671 SCIOTO 2.78 44612 STARK 5.03
45682 SCIOTO 1.81 44618 STARK 3.84
43316 SENECA 3.46 44634 STARK 3.15
43407 SENECA 2.70 44645 STARK 4.08
43410 SENECA 3.17 44680 STARK 4.76
43420 SENECA 2.83 44689 STARK 3.89
43457 SENECA 2.61 44125 SUMMIT 1.71
44811 SENECA 3.83 44141 SUMMIT 2.21
44844 SENECA 2.96 44146 SUMMIT 1.90
44854 SENECA 3.11 44230 SUMMIT 3.69
44882 SENECA 2.91 44233 SUMMIT 2.27
44890 SENECA 3.83 44240 SUMMIT 2.21
44256 SUMMIT 2.66 43002 UNION 5.56
44325 SUMMIT 1.99 43015 UNION 4.72
44614 SUMMIT 4.02 43017 UNION 5.24
81
PREDICTED PREDICTED
GM RADON GM RADON
ZIP CODE COUNTY NAME CONC. ZIP CODE COUNTY NAME CONC.
44645 SUMMIT 4.09 43044 UNION 4.26
44720 SUMMIT 3.80 43060 UNION 3.87
44062 TRUMBULL 1.50 43061 UNION 4.38
44076 TRUMBULL 1.46 43065 UNION 5.09
44099 TRUMBULL 1.44 43066 UNION 4.29
44231 TRUMBULL 1.55 43302 UNION 4.48
44288 TRUMBULL 1.56 43319 UNION 3.98
43824 TUSCARAWAS 5.84 43332 UNION 4.00
44608 TUSCARAWAS 4.30 43340 UNION 3.69
44620 TUSCARAWAS 4.95 43342 UNION 4.60
44626 TUSCARAWAS 4.89 43358 UNION 3.53
44643 TUSCARAWAS 5.26 45042 WARREN 3.49
44654 TUSCARAWAS 4.87 45044 WARREN 3.12
44675 TUSCARAWAS 4.41 45050 WARREN 3.05
44699 TUSCARAWAS 3.23 45069 WARREN 2.90
45827 VAN WERT 2.85 45122 WARREN 2.27
45833 VAN WERT 3.80 45177 WARREN 3.58
45844 VAN WERT 3.47 45241 WARREN 2.84
45849 VAN WERT 2.38 45249 WARREN 2.91
45851 VAN WERT 2.46 45327 WARREN 3.69
45880 VAN WERT 2.53 45342 WARREN 3.41
45887 VAN WERT 4.38 45370 WARREN 3.71
43135 VINTON 3.59 45458 WARREN 3.30
43138 VINTON 2.63 43724 WASHINGTON 2.39
43152 VINTON 3.02 43728 WASHINGTON 2.79
45601 VINTON 2.89 43787 WASHINGTON 3.21
45647 VINTON 3.12 45711 WASHINGTON 2.49
45686 VINTON 1.90 45723 WASHINGTON 1.84
45692 VINTON 1.93 45727 WASHINGTON 2.06
45710 VINTON 1.87 45734 WASHINGTON 1.74
45741 VINTON 2.03 45778 WASHINGTON 2.15
45764 VINTON 2.30 43412 WOOD 2.88
45766 VINTON 2.01 43430 WOOD 3.00
44611 WAYNE 4.15 43431 WOOD 2.49
44614 WAYNE 4.17 43469 WOOD 2.79
44624 WAYNE 3.69 43516 WOOD 2.35
44633 WAYNE 3.80 43537 WOOD 2.31
44662 WAYNE 3.63 43566 WOOD 1.85
44666 WAYNE 4.10 43605 WOOD 2.35
82
PREDICTED PREDICTED
COUNTY GM RADON COUNTY GM RADON
ZIP CODE NAME CONC. ZIP CODE NAME CONC.
44840 WAYNE 4.08 43609 WOOD 2.40
44842 WAYNE 4.24 44830 WOOD 2.69
44866 WAYNE 3.08 45889 WOOD 2.43
43502 WILLIAMS 3.06 43302 WYANDOT 3.88
43521 WILLIAMS 2.57 43326 WYANDOT 3.97
43332 WYANDOT 4.07
43337 WYANDOT 3.80
44802 WYANDOT 3.88
44820 WYANDOT 3.74
45843 WYANDOT 3.95
45867 WYANDOT 3.72
From the data sets available prior to this study, the number of zip codes having
geometric mean of radon concentration over 4.0 pCi/l is 390; of which 94 zip codes
are not shown in the Ohio zip codes shape file. After using the ordinary kriging
interpolation technique to calculate the predictions for unmeasured zip codes, the
number of zip codes having radon concentration over 4.0 pCi/l is 688, inclusive of the
ones not shown in the shape file. The predicted geometric mean of radon
Therefore, for the cases where the geometric mean of radon concentration exceeds 8
pCi/l and 20 pCi/l, the number of zip codes from existing data is found to be equal to
that obtained by using the above mentioned interpolation technique for unmeasured
And using the IDW and RBF interpolation techniques, the number of zip codes
having radon concentration over 4, 8, 20 pCi/l are found to be equal to that obtained
83
Table 9 Zip Codes with Geometric Mean of Radon Concentration greater
than 4 pCi/l (without Predicted Zip Codes)
ZIP GM RADON ZIP GM RADON
CODE COUNTY CONC. CODE COUNTY CONC.
45616 ADAMS 5.55 43357 CHAMPAIGN 7.8
45650 ADAMS 35.4 45344 CHAMPAIGN 6.22
45806 ALLEN 4.21 45389 CHAMPAIGN 9.72
45817 ALLEN 4.21 45502 CHAMPAIGN 4.92
45833 ALLEN 4.79 45323 CLARK 5.69
45850 ALLEN 10.42 45341 CLARK 12.43
44840 ASHLAND 6.78 45344 CLARK 6.4
44843 ASHLAND 4.3 45372 CLARK 5.18
44848 ASHLAND 8.61 45501 CLARK 8.4
44859 ASHLAND 4.34 45503 CLARK 4.7
44864 ASHLAND 8.59 45505 CLARK 4.53
44068 ASHTABULA 4.14 45506 CLARK 4.17
44088 ASHTABULA 20.87 45138 CLINTON 24.82
45806 AUGLAIZE 4.86 45164 CLINTON 4.8
45819 AUGLAIZE 21.5 43920 COLUMBIANA 5.56
45865 AUGLAIZE 5.15 43945 COLUMBIANA 4.97
45871 AUGLAIZE 6.32 44432 COLUMBIANA 4.1
45884 AUGLAIZE 6 44441 COLUMBIANA 8.24
43719 BELMONT 7.64 44443 COLUMBIANA 11.2
43906 BELMONT 4.45 44455 COLUMBIANA 11.04
43933 BELMONT 7.24 43811 COSHOCTON 9.24
43937 BELMONT 4.62 43812 COSHOCTON 4.26
43940 BELMONT 6.2 43824 COSHOCTON 17.49
43977 BELMONT 5.5 43828 COSHOCTON 8.8
45171 BROWN 5.42 43843 COSHOCTON 6.47
45018 BUTLER 12.24 43844 COSHOCTON 6.52
45043 BUTLER 5.39 43845 COSHOCTON 7.77
45062 BUTLER 6.29 44833 CRAWFORD 4.6
45067 BUTLER 4.62 44860 CRAWFORD 7.3
45241 BUTLER 4.05 44887 CRAWFORD 4.22
44427 CARROLL 9.33 44195 CUYAHOGA 5
44639 CARROLL 7.95 45303 DARKE 7.58
44643 CARROLL 6.63 45304 DARKE 5.61
44644 CARROLL 4.54 45308 DARKE 5.34
44657 CARROLL 6.4 45331 DARKE 4.93
43009 CHAMPAIGN 5.6 45346 DARKE 4.68
43047 CHAMPAIGN 15.3 45351 DARKE 5.05
43060 CHAMPAIGN 4.58 45352 DARKE 10.8
43078 CHAMPAIGN 4.9 45380 DARKE 4.35
84
ZIP GM RADON ZIP GM RADON
CODE COUNTY CONC. CODE COUNTY CONC.
45388 DARKE 4.3 43125 FRANKLIN 8
45390 DARKE 5.06 43126 FRANKLIN 9.61
43011 DELAWARE 5.34 43137 FRANKLIN 11.37
43016 DELAWARE 8.6 43140 FRANKLIN 5.87
43017 DELAWARE 6.32 43147 FRANKLIN 6.1
43021 DELAWARE 4.01 43202 FRANKLIN 4.34
43064 DELAWARE 5.43 43204 FRANKLIN 4.24
43065 DELAWARE 4.24 43205 FRANKLIN 4.74
43081 DELAWARE 11.07 43206 FRANKLIN 4.67
43342 DELAWARE 17.3 43207 FRANKLIN 6.87
44814 ERIE 4.87 43209 FRANKLIN 4.02
44824 ERIE 7.9 43213 FRANKLIN 6.15
44847 ERIE 8.03 43214 FRANKLIN 5.52
43102 FAIRFIELD 4.4 43216 FRANKLIN 17.9
43107 FAIRFIELD 4.47 43218 FRANKLIN 5.1
43110 FAIRFIELD 9.71 43219 FRANKLIN 6.46
43112 FAIRFIELD 6.63 43220 FRANKLIN 5.14
43130 FAIRFIELD 6.06 43221 FRANKLIN 6
43136 FAIRFIELD 10.19 43222 FRANKLIN 5.01
43147 FAIRFIELD 4.8 43224 FRANKLIN 5.15
43148 FAIRFIELD 4.39 43226 FRANKLIN 4.86
43150 FAIRFIELD 5.9 43227 FRANKLIN 7.48
43154 FAIRFIELD 4.04 43228 FRANKLIN 4.3
43155 FAIRFIELD 4.4 43229 FRANKLIN 5.29
43106 FAYETTE 4.61 43230 FRANKLIN 5.94
43142 FAYETTE 9.6 43231 FRANKLIN 4.44
43002 FRANKLIN 9.9 43232 FRANKLIN 9.89
43004 FRANKLIN 5.95 43234 FRANKLIN 7.4
43016 FRANKLIN 5.5 43235 FRANKLIN 5.61
43017 FRANKLIN 6.01 43279 FRANKLIN 10.4
43026 FRANKLIN 5.64 43553 FULTON 4.77
43054 FRANKLIN 4.21 45301 GREENE 10.69
43068 FRANKLIN 4.96 45305 GREENE 4.21
43080 FRANKLIN 9.81 45370 GREENE 4.07
43081 FRANKLIN 4.75 45385 GREENE 4.73
43085 FRANKLIN 7.68 45387 GREENE 4.21
43109 FRANKLIN 7.48 45430 GREENE 10.97
43110 FRANKLIN 7.01 45434 GREENE 4.66
43119 FRANKLIN 5.18 45435 GREENE 5.76
85
ZIP GM RADON ZIP GM RADON
CODE COUNTY CONC. CODE COUNTY CONC.
43123 FRANKLIN 5.12 43750 GUERNSEY 5.88
43778 GUERNSEY 4.54 43917 JEFFERSON 8.36
44230 HAMILTON 4.1 43925 JEFFERSON 10.5
45111 HAMILTON 4.36 43930 JEFFERSON 39
45140 HAMILTON 4.1 43932 JEFFERSON 15.99
45174 HAMILTON 4.27 43943 JEFFERSON 6.06
45228 HAMILTON 4.2 43005 KNOX 7.83
45263 HAMILTON 20.5 43006 KNOX 12.49
45280 HAMILTON 4.99 43011 KNOX 4.99
45841 HANCOCK 5.9 43014 KNOX 6
45868 HANCOCK 5.32 43019 KNOX 6.42
45881 HANCOCK 7.31 43022 KNOX 7.01
45890 HANCOCK 9.97 43028 KNOX 12.05
45810 HARDIN 4.47 43050 KNOX 5.26
45835 HARDIN 14 43001 LICKING 6.23
45843 HARDIN 4.37 43011 LICKING 4.69
43901 HARRISON 6.69 43023 LICKING 8.85
43907 HARRISON 5.02 43025 LICKING 5.9
43988 HARRISON 16.99 43027 LICKING 4.9
44695 HARRISON 4.53 43030 LICKING 10.19
43548 HENRY 5.86 43031 LICKING 4.16
45123 HIGHLAND 4.54 43033 LICKING 9.72
45132 HIGHLAND 4.55 43055 LICKING 10.46
45155 HIGHLAND 6.5 43056 LICKING 9.15
43111 HOCKING 21.2 43058 LICKING 8.17
43127 HOCKING 4.93 43062 LICKING 5.09
43135 HOCKING 7.06 43068 LICKING 9.9
43138 HOCKING 4.44 43071 LICKING 8.06
43144 HOCKING 23.3 43076 LICKING 4.26
43149 HOCKING 8.24 43080 LICKING 6.52
43158 HOCKING 7.5 43740 LICKING 12.25
44611 HOLMES 5.22 43822 LICKING 8.39
44637 HOLMES 7.58 43310 LOGAN 6.98
44681 HOLMES 15.9 43311 LOGAN 6.09
44811 HURON 6.5 43318 LOGAN 4.97
44826 HURON 4.08 43333 LOGAN 5.62
44837 HURON 6.8 43343 LOGAN 6.68
44846 HURON 6.17 43357 LOGAN 6.36
44847 HURON 9.59 43360 LOGAN 5.17
86
ZIP GM RADON ZIP GM RADON
CODE COUNTY CONC. CODE COUNTY CONC.
44851 HURON 5.27 43412 LUCAS 4.21
44855 HURON 6.02 43504 LUCAS 4.79
43601 LUCAS 11.2 43716 MONROE 4.64
43603 LUCAS 5.3 43915 MONROE 5.31
43618 LUCAS 4.86 45242 MONTGOMERY 4.3
43697 LUCAS 6.28 45325 MONTGOMERY 5.01
43064 MADISON 4.74 45327 MONTGOMERY 5.26
43064 MADISON 8 45401 MONTGOMERY 5.06
43140 MADISON 4.43 45404 MONTGOMERY 6.61
43151 MADISON 5.43 45409 MONTGOMERY 4.36
43153 MADISON 5.44 45413 MONTGOMERY 5.62
43162 MADISON 6.68 45415 MONTGOMERY 4.34
44443 MAHONING 10.1 45422 MONTGOMERY 7.67
44503 MAHONING 7.02 45430 MONTGOMERY 4.22
44619 MAHONING 6.59 45431 MONTGOMERY 4.31
43301 MARION 4.74 45433 MONTGOMERY 11.91
43322 MARION 4.42 45434 MONTGOMERY 4.22
43332 MARION 8.1 45439 MONTGOMERY 4.99
43335 MARION 6.1 45454 MONTGOMERY 4.46
43341 MARION 4.82 45463 MONTGOMERY 5.1
43342 MARION 5.69 45475 MONTGOMERY 7.07
44230 MEDINA 9.3 45715 MORGAN 6.66
44258 MEDINA 6.05 43317 MORROW 7.35
44280 MEDINA 6.61 43325 MORROW 5.36
45310 MERCER 6.07 43350 MORROW 6.23
45822 MERCER 4.08 43735 MUSKINGUM 7.47
45826 MERCER 4.63 43746 MUSKINGUM 5.21
45860 MERCER 5.95 43802 MUSKINGUM 4.15
45862 MERCER 5.24 43822 MUSKINGUM 5.54
45308 MIAMI 6.36 43830 MUSKINGUM 4.4
45312 Miami 6.81 43412 OTTAWA 4.01
45317 MIAMI 5.65 43439 OTTAWA 4.5
45318 Miami 5.2 45851 PAULDING 5.16
45337 MIAMI 4.98 43076 PERRY 5.04
45339 MIAMI 6.42 43739 PERRY 6.3
45356 Miami 5.24 43103 PICKAWAY 7.96
45359 Miami 8.25 43113 PICKAWAY 7.3
45361 MIAMI 6.3 43117 PICKAWAY 5.14
45371 MIAMI 4.41 43137 PICKAWAY 12.9
87
ZIP GM RADON ZIP GM RADON
CODE COUNTY CONC. CODE COUNTY CONC.
45373 MIAMI 5.46 43145 PICKAWAY 5.9
45374 MIAMI 9.2 43146 PICKAWAY 6.21
45383 MIAMI 5.04 43164 PICKAWAY 5.41
45003 PREBLE 5.68 44707 STARK 8.34
45321 PREBLE 5.93 44708 STARK 4.16
45338 PREBLE 5.24 44709 STARK 4.51
45347 PREBLE 5.25 44710 STARK 5.03
45378 PREBLE 4.2 44711 STARK 6.19
45381 PREBLE 4.89 44718 STARK 4.12
45827 PUTNAM 4.83 44721 STARK 4.71
45844 PUTNAM 4.2 44735 STARK 13.6
45853 PUTNAM 6.1 44087 SUMMIT 5.18
45877 PUTNAM 5.76 44202 SUMMIT 17.4
45893 PUTNAM 7.8 44232 SUMMIT 4.9
44813 RICHLAND 7.8 44317 SUMMIT 21.9
44822 RICHLAND 8.76 44333 SUMMIT 4.17
44843 RICHLAND 11.25 43832 TUSCARAWAS 5.45
44865 RICHLAND 4.03 43837 TUSCARAWAS 15.78
44875 RICHLAND 4.42 44612 TUSCARAWAS 4.21
44903 RICHLAND 4.1 44656 TUSCARAWAS 5.78
44904 RICHLAND 5.05 44663 TUSCARAWAS 6.06
45601 ROSS 5.06 44671 TUSCARAWAS 6.9
45633 ROSS 15.9 44680 TUSCARAWAS 18.68
45647 ROSS 5.85 44681 TUSCARAWAS 4.13
45681 ROSS 15.43 44683 TUSCARAWAS 4.85
43469 SANDUSKY 4.24 43007 UNION 8.3
45684 SCIOTO 8.27 43045 UNION 4.32
44802 SENECA 4.47 43077 UNION 4.6
44809 SENECA 10.21 45894 VANWERT 5.9
44815 SENECA 4.85 44217 WAYNE 4.22
44853 SENECA 4.76 44667 WAYNE 4.49
44883 SENECA 4.73 44677 WAYNE 8.69
45302 SHELBY 5.16 44691 WAYNE 5.28
45306 SHELBY 5.18 43080 WOOD 7.2
45333 SHELBY 5.17 43565 WOOD 4.69
45363 SHELBY 4.5
45365 SHELBY 5
45845 SHELBY 6.03
44216 STARK 12.6
44626 STARK 7.86
44657 STARK 8.65
44662 STARK 5.94
44669 STARK 5.09
88
Table 10 Zip Codes with Geometric Mean of Radon Concentration greater
than 4 pCi/l (with Predicted Zip Codes)
COUNTY GM RADON COUNTY GM RADON
ZIPCODE NAME CONC. ZIPCODE NAME CONC.
45616 ADAMS 5.55 43901 BELMONT 4.04
45650 ADAMS 35.40 43906 BELMONT 4.45
45684 ADAMS 5.35 43917 BELMONT 4.14
45806 ALLEN 4.21 43933 BELMONT 7.24
45810 ALLEN 4.78 43937 BELMONT 4.62
45812 ALLEN 4.44 43940 BELMONT 6.2
45817 ALLEN 4.21 43977 BELMONT 5.50
45830 ALLEN 4.66 45171 BROWN 5.42
45833 ALLEN 4.79 45003 BUTLER 4.12
45844 ALLEN 4.12 45018 BUTLER 12.24
45850 ALLEN 10.42 45043 BUTLER 5.39
45868 ALLEN 4.96 45062 BUTLER 6.29
45877 ALLEN 4.77 45067 BUTLER 4.62
45887 ALLEN 4.46 45241 BUTLER 4.05
43014 ASHLAND 7.10 43945 CARROLL 4.52
44628 ASHLAND 6.14 43988 CARROLL 4.23
44638 ASHLAND 4.45 44423 CARROLL 4.21
44676 ASHLAND 4.21 44427 CARROLL 9.33
44822 ASHLAND 7.05 44621 CARROLL 4.19
44837 ASHLAND 4.21 44625 CARROLL 4.35
44840 ASHLAND 6.78 44639 CARROLL 7.95
44840 ASHLAND 6.78 44643 CARROLL 6.63
44843 ASHLAND 4.30 44644 CARROLL 4.54
44848 ASHLAND 8.61 44656 CARROLL 5.02
44859 ASHLAND 4.34 44657 CARROLL 6.40
44864 ASHLAND 8.59 44688 CARROLL 5.02
44878 ASHLAND 4.07 44695 CARROLL 4.25
44903 ASHLAND 4.38 44730 CARROLL 4.98
44068 ASHTABULA 4.14 43009 CHAMPAIGN 5.60
44088 ASHTABULA 20.87 43029 CHAMPAIGN 4.42
45306 AUGLAIZE 4.41 43040 CHAMPAIGN 4.03
45805 AUGLAIZE 4.44 43047 CHAMPAIGN 15.3
45806 AUGLAIZE 4.86 43060 CHAMPAIGN 4.58
45819 AUGLAIZE 21.5 43078 CHAMPAIGN 4.90
45845 AUGLAIZE 5.20 43140 CHAMPAIGN 4.54
45865 AUGLAIZE 5.15 43311 CHAMPAIGN 5.59
45871 AUGLAIZE 6.32 43318 CHAMPAIGN 5.68
45884 AUGLAIZE 6 43319 CHAMPAIGN 4.35
43719 BELMONT 7.64 43343 CHAMPAIGN 5.38
89
COUNTY GM RADON COUNTY GM RADON
ZIPCODE NAME CONC. ZIPCODE NAME CONC.
43357 CHAMPAIGN 7.80 43824 COSHOCTON 17.49
43360 CHAMPAIGN 4.58 43828 COSHOCTON 8.8
45317 CHAMPAIGN 5.27 43832 COSHOCTON 5.27
45344 CHAMPAIGN 6.22 43840 COSHOCTON 5.70
45365 CHAMPAIGN 5.30 43843 COSHOCTON 6.47
45389 CHAMPAIGN 9.72 43844 COSHOCTON 6.52
45502 CHAMPAIGN 4.92 43845 COSHOCTON 7.77
43044 CLARK 4.33 44637 COSHOCTON 6.55
43072 CLARK 5.73 44654 COSHOCTON 6.02
43078 CLARK 5.03 43335 CRAWFORD 4.10
45323 CLARK 5.69 44833 CRAWFORD 4.60
45324 CLARK 5.38 44860 CRAWFORD 7.3
45341 CLARK 12.43 44887 CRAWFORD 4.22
45344 CLARK 6.40 44195 CUYAHOGA 5
45372 CLARK 5.18 45303 DARKE 7.58
45387 CLARK 4.07 45304 DARKE 5.61
45424 CLARK 5.39 45308 DARKE 5.34
45501 CLARK 8.4 45318 DARKE 5.85
45503 CLARK 4.70 45321 DARKE 5.31
45505 CLARK 4.53 45331 DARKE 4.93
45506 CLARK 4.17 45337 DARKE 5.85
45138 CLINTON 24.82 45338 DARKE 5.35
45164 CLINTON 4.8 45346 DARKE 4.68
43920 COLUMBIANA 5.56 45347 DARKE 5.31
43930 COLUMBIANA 5.65 45351 DARKE 5.05
43932 COLUMBIANA 6.61 45352 DARKE 10.8
43945 COLUMBIANA 4.97 45363 DARKE 5.74
44432 COLUMBIANA 4.10 45380 DARKE 4.35
44441 COLUMBIANA 8.24 45382 DARKE 5.39
44443 COLUMBIANA 11.20 45388 DARKE 4.30
44455 COLUMBIANA 11.04 45390 DARKE 5.06
43006 COSHOCTON 6.59 45845 DARKE 5.21
43014 COSHOCTON 6.90 45846 DARKE 4.40
43749 COSHOCTON 4.47 45860 DARKE 5.02
43762 COSHOCTON 4.87 45883 DARKE 4.47
43802 COSHOCTON 5.04 43011 DELAWARE 5.34
43804 COSHOCTON 5.92 43013 DELAWARE 4.56
43811 COSHOCTON 9.24 43016 DELAWARE 8.60
43812 COSHOCTON 4.26 43017 DELAWARE 6.32
90
COUNTY GM RADON COUNTY GM RADON
ZIPCODE NAME CONC. ZIPCODE NAME CONC.
43822 COSHOCTON 6.06 43021 DELAWARE 4.01
43031 DELAWARE 5.03 43145 FAYETTE 4.84
43040 DELAWARE 4.20 45123 FAYETTE 4.19
43054 DELAWARE 5.11 45628 FAYETTE 4.50
43064 DELAWARE 5.43 43002 FRANKLIN 9.90
43065 DELAWARE 4.24 43004 FRANKLIN 5.95
43081 DELAWARE 11.07 43016 FRANKLIN 5.50
43235 DELAWARE 5.27 43017 FRANKLIN 6.01
43334 DELAWARE 4.05 43026 FRANKLIN 5.64
43342 DELAWARE 17.30 43031 FRANKLIN 5.14
43344 DELAWARE 4.66 43054 FRANKLIN 4.21
43356 DELAWARE 4.54 43064 FRANKLIN 5.94
44811 ERIE 4.23 43068 FRANKLIN 4.96
44814 ERIE 4.87 43080 FRANKLIN 9.81
44824 ERIE 7.90 43081 FRANKLIN 4.75
44826 ERIE 4.08 43082 FRANKLIN 4.87
44847 ERIE 8.03 43085 FRANKLIN 7.68
44857 ERIE 4.80 43103 FRANKLIN 7.51
43025 FAIRFIELD 5.41 43109 FRANKLIN 7.48
43062 FAIRFIELD 5.39 43110 FRANKLIN 7.01
43068 FAIRFIELD 6.63 43119 FRANKLIN 5.18
43102 FAIRFIELD 4.40 43123 FRANKLIN 5.12
43103 FAIRFIELD 6.76 43125 FRANKLIN 8.00
43107 FAIRFIELD 4.47 43126 FRANKLIN 9.61
43110 FAIRFIELD 9.71 43137 FRANKLIN 11.37
43112 FAIRFIELD 6.63 43140 FRANKLIN 5.87
43113 FAIRFIELD 6.00 43146 FRANKLIN 6.28
43130 FAIRFIELD 6.06 43147 FRANKLIN 6.10
43135 FAIRFIELD 5.30 43162 FRANKLIN 5.90
43136 FAIRFIELD 10.19 43202 FRANKLIN 4.34
43138 FAIRFIELD 4.60 43204 FRANKLIN 4.24
43147 FAIRFIELD 4.80 43205 FRANKLIN 4.74
43148 FAIRFIELD 4.39 43206 FRANKLIN 4.67
43149 FAIRFIELD 5.30 43207 FRANKLIN 6.87
43150 FAIRFIELD 5.90 43209 FRANKLIN 4.02
43154 FAIRFIELD 4.04 43213 FRANKLIN 6.15
43155 FAIRFIELD 4.40 43214 FRANKLIN 5.52
43106 FAYETTE 4.61 43216 FRANKLIN 17.9
43115 FAYETTE 4.80 43218 FRANKLIN 5.1
91
COUNTY GM RADON COUNTY GM RADON
ZIPCODE NAME CONC. ZIPCODE NAME CONC.
43142 FAYETTE 9.6 43219 FRANKLIN 6.46
43143 FAYETTE 4.88 43220 FRANKLIN 5.14
43221 FRANKLIN 6.00 45868 HANCOCK 5.32
43222 FRANKLIN 5.01 45881 HANCOCK 7.31
43224 FRANKLIN 5.15 45890 HANCOCK 9.97
43226 FRANKLIN 4.86 45810 HARDIN 4.47
43227 FRANKLIN 7.48 45814 HARDIN 4.65
43228 FRANKLIN 4.30 45817 HARDIN 4.99
43229 FRANKLIN 5.29 45835 HARDIN 14.00
43230 FRANKLIN 5.94 45841 HARDIN 4.95
43231 FRANKLIN 4.44 45843 HARDIN 4.37
43232 FRANKLIN 9.89 43901 HARRISON 6.69
43234 FRANKLIN 7.4 43907 HARRISON 5.02
43235 FRANKLIN 5.61 43917 HARRISON 4.11
43240 FRANKLIN 5.28 43950 HARRISON 4.01
43279 FRANKLIN 10.4 43988 HARRISON 16.99
43553 FULTON 4.77 44621 HARRISON 4.26
45301 GREENE 10.69 44683 HARRISON 4.22
45305 GREENE 4.21 44695 HARRISON 4.53
45323 GREENE 5.26 43548 HENRY 5.86
45341 GREENE 5.32 45123 HIGHLAND 4.54
45370 GREENE 4.07 45132 HIGHLAND 4.55
45385 GREENE 4.73 45155 HIGHLAND 6.5
45387 GREENE 4.21 43102 HOCKING 5.34
45420 GREENE 4.34 43107 HOCKING 4.05
45424 GREENE 4.56 43111 HOCKING 21.2
45430 GREENE 10.97 43127 HOCKING 4.93
45434 GREENE 4.66 43130 HOCKING 5.31
45435 GREENE 5.76 43135 HOCKING 7.06
45440 GREENE 4.38 43138 HOCKING 4.44
45502 GREENE 4.18 43144 HOCKING 23.3
43750 GUERNSEY 5.88 43149 HOCKING 8.24
43778 GUERNSEY 4.54 43155 HOCKING 4.93
44230 HAMILTON 4.1 43158 HOCKING 7.5
45111 HAMILTON 4.36 43006 HOLMES 6.25
45140 HAMILTON 4.10 43014 HOLMES 6.66
45174 HAMILTON 4.27 43804 HOLMES 5.78
45228 HAMILTON 4.20 43812 HOLMES 5.94
45263 HAMILTON 20.5 43824 HOLMES 6.22
92
COUNTY GM RADON COUNTY GM RADON
ZIPCODE NAME CONC. ZIPCODE NAME CONC.
45280 HAMILTON 4.99 43843 HOLMES 6.77
45817 HANCOCK 4.90 43844 HOLMES 6.29
45841 HANCOCK 5.90 44611 HOLMES 5.22
44624 HOLMES 4.23 44822 KNOX 6.93
44637 HOLMES 7.58 44842 KNOX 6.70
44681 HOLMES 15.90 43001 LICKING 6.23
44842 HOLMES 5.18 43004 LICKING 6.09
44811 HURON 6.50 43011 LICKING 4.69
44826 HURON 4.08 43023 LICKING 8.85
44837 HURON 6.80 43025 LICKING 5.90
44846 HURON 6.17 43027 LICKING 4.9
44847 HURON 9.59 43030 LICKING 10.19
44851 HURON 5.27 43031 LICKING 4.16
44855 HURON 6.02 43033 LICKING 9.72
44865 HURON 4.37 43046 LICKING 5.26
44878 HURON 4.45 43050 LICKING 5.71
43901 JEFFERSON 4.71 43054 LICKING 5.47
43907 JEFFERSON 4.46 43055 LICKING 10.46
43917 JEFFERSON 8.36 43056 LICKING 9.15
43925 JEFFERSON 10.5 43058 LICKING 8.17
43930 JEFFERSON 39.00 43062 LICKING 5.09
43932 JEFFERSON 15.99 43068 LICKING 9.90
43943 JEFFERSON 6.06 43071 LICKING 8.06
43945 JEFFERSON 5.49 43076 LICKING 4.26
43968 JEFFERSON 6.39 43080 LICKING 6.52
44615 JEFFERSON 4.01 43105 LICKING 5.11
43005 KNOX 7.83 43147 LICKING 6.13
43006 KNOX 12.49 43739 LICKING 5.27
43011 KNOX 4.99 43740 LICKING 12.25
43013 KNOX 4.51 43760 LICKING 4.85
43014 KNOX 6.00 43822 LICKING 8.39
43019 KNOX 6.42 43830 LICKING 5.76
43022 KNOX 7.01 43843 LICKING 6.46
43028 KNOX 12.05 43844 LICKING 6.40
43050 KNOX 5.26 43310 LOGAN 6.98
43055 KNOX 6.37 43311 LOGAN 6.09
43071 KNOX 6.17 43318 LOGAN 4.97
43074 KNOX 4.37 43326 LOGAN 4.02
43080 KNOX 5.86 43333 LOGAN 5.62
93
COUNTY GM RADON COUNTY GM RADON
ZIPCODE NAME CONC. ZIPCODE NAME CONC.
43822 KNOX 6.35 43343 LOGAN 6.68
43843 KNOX 6.58 43357 LOGAN 6.36
44628 KNOX 6.13 43360 LOGAN 5.17
44813 KNOX 6.15 45340 LOGAN 4.64
45365 LOGAN 5.15 44230 MEDINA 9.30
43412 LUCAS 4.21 44258 MEDINA 6.05
43504 LUCAS 4.79 44280 MEDINA 6.61
43601 LUCAS 11.2 45310 MERCER 6.07
43603 LUCAS 5.3 45822 MERCER 4.08
43618 LUCAS 4.86 45826 MERCER 4.63
43697 LUCAS 6.28 45845 MERCER 5.15
43002 MADISON 6.24 45860 MERCER 5.95
43026 MADISON 6.22 45862 MERCER 5.24
43029 MADISON 4.46 45865 MERCER 5.00
43044 MADISON 4.57 45869 MERCER 4.69
43045 MADISON 4.46 45885 MERCER 4.52
43064 MADISON 8.00 45887 MERCER 4.28
43064 MADISON 4.74 45894 MERCER 4.16
43106 MADISON 4.20 43072 MIAMI 5.25
43119 MADISON 6.00 45304 MIAMI 5.83
43123 MADISON 5.68 45308 MIAMI 6.36
43140 MADISON 4.43 45312 MIAMI 6.81
43151 MADISON 5.43 45317 MIAMI 5.65
43153 MADISON 5.44 45318 MIAMI 5.20
43162 MADISON 6.68 45333 MIAMI 6.00
45368 MADISON 4.15 45337 MIAMI 4.98
45369 MADISON 4.42 45339 MIAMI 6.42
44443 MAHONING 10.10 45344 MIAMI 5.51
44503 MAHONING 7.02 45356 MIAMI 5.24
44619 MAHONING 6.59 45359 MIAMI 8.25
43003 MARION 4.17 45361 MIAMI 6.3
43301 MARION 4.74 45363 MIAMI 5.87
43315 MARION 4.18 45365 MIAMI 5.38
43320 MARION 4.27 45371 MIAMI 4.41
43322 MARION 4.42 45373 MIAMI 5.46
43332 MARION 8.10 45374 MIAMI 9.2
43335 MARION 6.10 45377 MIAMI 5.33
43341 MARION 4.82 45380 MIAMI 5.91
43342 MARION 5.69 45383 MIAMI 5.04
94
COUNTY GM RADON COUNTY GM RADON
ZIPCODE NAME CONC. ZIPCODE NAME CONC.
43344 MARION 4.66 45424 MIAMI 5.33
43351 MARION 4.04 43716 MONROE 4.64
44820 MARION 4.07 43915 MONROE 5.31
44833 MARION 4.30 45042 MONTGOMERY 4.08
45843 MARION 4.08 45242 MONTGOMERY 4.3
45304 MONTGOMERY 5.24 43076 MUSKINGUM 5.11
45311 MONTGOMERY 4.18 43735 MUSKINGUM 7.47
45324 MONTGOMERY 5.17 43739 MUSKINGUM 5.04
45325 MONTGOMERY 5.01 43746 MUSKINGUM 5.21
45327 MONTGOMERY 5.26 43749 MUSKINGUM 4.21
45337 MONTGOMERY 5.06 43802 MUSKINGUM 4.15
45338 MONTGOMERY 5.04 43811 MUSKINGUM 5.26
45341 MONTGOMERY 5.26 43812 MUSKINGUM 5.37
45344 MONTGOMERY 5.44 43822 MUSKINGUM 5.54
45371 MONTGOMERY 4.82 43830 MUSKINGUM 4.40
45381 MONTGOMERY 4.65 43412 OTTAWA 4.01
45383 MONTGOMERY 4.87 43439 OTTAWA 4.5
45401 MONTGOMERY 5.06 45851 PAULDING 5.16
45404 MONTGOMERY 6.61 43025 PERRY 5.47
45409 MONTGOMERY 4.36 43046 PERRY 5.02
45413 MONTGOMERY 5.62 43076 PERRY 5.04
45415 MONTGOMERY 4.34 43107 PERRY 4.02
45422 MONTGOMERY 7.67 43148 PERRY 4.95
45430 MONTGOMERY 4.22 43150 PERRY 4.30
45431 MONTGOMERY 4.31 43739 PERRY 6.30
45433 MONTGOMERY 11.91 43102 PICKAWAY 5.34
45434 MONTGOMERY 4.22 43103 PICKAWAY 7.96
45439 MONTGOMERY 4.99 43110 PICKAWAY 7.25
45454 MONTGOMERY 4.46 43113 PICKAWAY 7.30
45463 MONTGOMERY 5.1 43115 PICKAWAY 5.19
45475 MONTGOMERY 7.07 43117 PICKAWAY 5.14
45715 MORGAN 6.66 43125 PICKAWAY 7.42
43011 MORROW 4.12 43135 PICKAWAY 5.00
43019 MORROW 4.74 43137 PICKAWAY 12.90
43314 MORROW 4.12 43140 PICKAWAY 5.72
43317 MORROW 7.35 43143 PICKAWAY 5.67
43325 MORROW 5.36 43145 PICKAWAY 5.90
43335 MORROW 4.25 43146 PICKAWAY 6.21
43350 MORROW 6.23 43154 PICKAWAY 6.10
95
COUNTY GM RADON COUNTY GM RADON
ZIPCODE NAME CONC. ZIPCODE NAME CONC.
44813 MORROW 5.15 43160 PICKAWAY 5.33
44833 MORROW 4.19 43164 PICKAWAY 5.41
44903 MORROW 4.34 45601 PICKAWAY 5.27
44904 MORROW 4.39 45644 PICKAWAY 4.88
43055 MUSKINGUM 5.92 45003 PREBLE 5.68
43056 MUSKINGUM 4.97 45042 PREBLE 4.01
45304 PREBLE 5.33 45681 ROSS 15.43
45309 PREBLE 5.26 43469 SANDUSKY 4.24
45321 PREBLE 5.93 45616 SCIOTO 4.29
45325 PREBLE 4.61 45684 SCIOTO 8.27
45327 PREBLE 4.33 44802 SENECA 4.47
45332 PREBLE 5.29 44809 SENECA 10.21
45338 PREBLE 5.24 44815 SENECA 4.85
45345 PREBLE 4.56 44853 SENECA 4.76
45346 PREBLE 5.32 44883 SENECA 4.73
45347 PREBLE 5.25 43343 SHELBY 4.62
45378 PREBLE 4.2 45302 SHELBY 5.16
45381 PREBLE 4.89 45306 SHELBY 5.18
45807 PUTNAM 4.41 45317 SHELBY 5.22
45827 PUTNAM 4.83 45318 SHELBY 5.96
45840 PUTNAM 4.10 45326 SHELBY 5.37
45844 PUTNAM 4.20 45333 SHELBY 5.17
45853 Putnam 6.1 45356 SHELBY 5.84
45868 PUTNAM 4.78 45363 SHELBY 4.50
45877 PUTNAM 5.76 45363 SHELBY 5.00
45893 PUTNAM 7.80 45365 SHELBY 5.00
43019 RICHLAND 5.30 45380 SHELBY 5.55
44813 RICHLAND 7.80 45388 SHELBY 5.46
44822 RICHLAND 8.76 45845 SHELBY 6.03
44837 RICHLAND 4.08 45860 SHELBY 5.20
44843 RICHLAND 11.25 45865 SHELBY 5.24
44859 RICHLAND 4.09 45869 SHELBY 5.09
44864 RICHLAND 6.38 45871 SHELBY 5.05
44865 RICHLAND 4.03 44216 STARK 12.60
44875 RICHLAND 4.42 44612 STARK 5.03
44903 RICHLAND 4.10 44626 STARK 7.86
44904 RICHLAND 5.05 44645 STARK 4.08
43113 ROSS 5.19 44657 STARK 8.65
43135 ROSS 4.28 44662 STARK 5.94
96
COUNTY GM RADON COUNTY GM RADON
ZIPCODE NAME CONC. ZIPCODE NAME CONC.
43145 ROSS 4.67 44669 STARK 5.09
43160 ROSS 4.62 44680 STARK 4.76
43164 ROSS 5.13 44707 STARK 8.34
45123 ROSS 4.43 44708 STARK 4.16
45601 ROSS 5.06 44709 STARK 4.51
45633 ROSS 15.9 44710 STARK 5.03
45647 ROSS 5.85 44711 STARK 6.19
44718 STARK 4.12 44611 WAYNE 4.15
44721 STARK 4.71 44614 WAYNE 4.17
44735 STARK 13.6 44666 WAYNE 4.10
44087 SUMMIT 5.18 44667 WAYNE 4.49
44202 SUMMIT 17.40 44677 WAYNE 8.69
44232 Summit 4.9 44691 WAYNE 5.28
44333 SUMMIT 4.17 44840 WAYNE 4.08
44614 SUMMIT 4.02 44842 WAYNE 4.24
44645 SUMMIT 4.09 43080 WOOD 7.2
43824 TUSCARAWAS 5.84 43565 WOOD 4.69
43832 TUSCARAWAS 5.45 43332 WYANDOT 4.07
43837 TUSCARAWAS 15.78
44608 TUSCARAWAS 4.30
44612 TUSCARAWAS 4.21
44620 TUSCARAWAS 4.95
44626 TUSCARAWAS 4.89
44643 TUSCARAWAS 5.26
44654 TUSCARAWAS 4.87
44656 TUSCARAWAS 5.78
44663 TUSCARAWAS 6.06
44671 TUSCARAWAS 6.9
44675 TUSCARAWAS 4.41
44680 TUSCARAWAS 18.68
44681 TUSCARAWAS 4.13
44683 TUSCARAWAS 4.85
43002 UNION 5.56
43007 UNION 8.3
43015 UNION 4.72
43017 UNION 5.24
43044 UNION 4.26
43045 UNION 4.32
43061 UNION 4.38
43065 UNION 5.09
43066 UNION 4.29
43077 UNION 4.6
43302 UNION 4.48
43342 UNION 4.60
45887 VAN WERT 4.38
45894 VAN WERT 5.90
44217 WAYNE 4.22
97
Table 11 Zip Codes having Geometric Mean of Radon Concentrations
greater than 8pCi/l
ZIP GM RADON ZIP GM RADON
CODE COUNTY CONC. CODE COUNTY CONC.
45650 ADAMS 35.4 44681 HOLMES 15.9
45850 ALLEN 10.42 44847 HURON 9.59
44864 ASHLAND 8.59 43917 JEFFERSON 8.36
44848 ASHLAND 8.61 43925 JEFFERSON 10.5
44088 ASHTABULA 20.87 43932 JEFFERSON 15.99
45819 AUGLAIZE 21.5 43930 JEFFERSON 39
45018 BUTLER 12.24 43028 KNOX 12.05
44427 CARROLL 9.33 43006 KNOX 12.49
45389 CHAMPAIGN 9.72 43071 LICKING 8.06
43047 CHAMPAIGN 15.3 43058 LICKING 8.17
45501 CLARK 8.4 43822 LICKING 8.39
45341 CLARK 12.43 43023 LICKING 8.85
45138 CLINTON 24.82 43056 LICKING 9.15
44441 COLUMBIANA 8.24 43033 LICKING 9.72
44455 COLUMBIANA 11.04 43068 LICKING 9.9
44443 COLUMBIANA 11.2 43030 LICKING 10.19
43828 COSHOCTON 8.8 43055 LICKING 10.46
43811 COSHOCTON 9.24 43740 LICKING 12.25
43824 COSHOCTON 17.49 43601 Lucas 11.2
45352 DARKE 10.8 44443 MAHONING 10.1
43016 DELAWARE 8.6 43332 MARION 8.1
43081 DELAWARE 11.07 44230 MEDINA 9.3
43342 DELAWARE 17.3 45359 MIAMI 8.25
44847 ERIE 8.03 45374 MIAMI 9.2
43110 FAIRFIELD 9.71 45433 MONTGOMERY 11.91
43136 FAIRFIELD 10.19 43137 PICKAWAY 12.9
43142 FAYETTE 9.6 44822 RICHLAND 8.76
43126 FRANKLIN 9.61 44843 RICHLAND 11.25
43080 FRANKLIN 9.81 45681 ROSS 15.43
43232 FRANKLIN 9.89 45633 ROSS 15.9
43002 FRANKLIN 9.9 45684 SCIOTO 8.27
43279 FRANKLIN 10.4 44809 SENECA 10.21
43137 FRANKLIN 11.37 44707 STARK 8.34
43216 FRANKLIN 17.9 44657 STARK 8.65
45301 GREENE 10.69 44216 STARK 12.6
45430 GREENE 10.97 44735 STARK 13.6
45263 HAMILTON 20.5 44202 SUMMIT 17.4
45890 HANCOCK 9.97 44317 SUMMIT 21.9
45835 HARDIN 14 43837 TUSCARAWAS 15.78
43988 HARRISON 16.99 44680 TUSCARAWAS 18.68
43149 HOCKING 8.24 43007 UNION 8.3
43111 HOCKING 21.2 44677 WAYNE 8.69
43144 HOCKING 23.3
98
Table 12 Zip Codes having Geometric Mean of Radon Concentrations
greater than 20pCi/l
ZIP GM RADON
CODE COUNTY CONC.
45650 ADAMS 35.4
44088 ASHTABULA 20.87
45819 AUGLAIZE 21.5
45138 CLINTON 24.82
45263 HAMILTON 20.5
43111 HOCKING 21.2
43144 HOCKING 23.3
43930 JEFFERSON 39
44317 SUMMIT 21.9
99
7. Conclusions
Prediction maps were created using the training data set for each of the five
interpolation techniques discussed in this thesis and projected values were estimated
for the test data set. Statistical parameters (error values) for all the interpolation
techniques were evaluated and the prediction maps generated from these techniques
were compared to the soil uranium concentration map. It was shown that the ordinary
kriging interpolation technique can be used tentatively for predicting the radon
The ordinary kriging technique was chosen for this study and the geometric
means of radon concentrations were evaluated for unmeasured zip codes and a new
data set was thus created, which may be appended to the existing radon concentration
data set. Use of this technique also led to the inference that inclusive of the zip codes
not shown in the Ohio zip codes shape file, a total of 688 zip codes had a radon
concentration higher than 4.0 pCi/l, 85 zip codes with radon concentrations higher
than 8 pCi/l and 9 zip codes with radon concentrations higher than 20pCi/l. These zip
100
8. References
Geostatistical analyst.
2. Johnston Kevin, Jay M. Ver Hoef, Krivoruchko Konstantin, and Lucas Neil,
101
8. M.G. Mardikis, D.P. Kalivas and V.J. Kollias,Comparison of Interpolation
Indoor Radon Data from Ohio, U.S.A.", Vol. 5, pp. 409-420, Journal of
the Ohio Shale", Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 17-26, Environmental Geology and Water
Sciences. 1991.
102
15. A. Kumar, J. Harrell, and A. Heydinger, Ohio Goes Online to Combat Indoor
2002.
O10, 2003.
Indoor Radon Information System for Ohio and Its Application in the Study of
20. Sud Anupam, Update and Analysis of a Residential Radon Database for the
103
23. Duval, J.S., 1985, Aerial Radiometric Contour Maps of Ohio: US Geological
104