972 Chiang Mai J. Sci.

2014; 41(4)

Chiang Mai J. Sci. 2015; 42(4) : 972-979

http://epg.science.cmu.ac.th/ejournal/
Contributed Paper

Soil-gas Thoron Concentration Associated with

Seismic Activity
Hari Prasad Jaishi [a], Sanjay Singh [a], Raghavendra Prasad Tiwari [b] and
Ramesh Chandra Tiwari* [a]
[a] Department of Physics, Mizoram University, Aizawl-796004, Mizoram, India.
[b] Department of Geology, Mizoram University, Aizawl-796004, Mizoram, India.
*Author for correspondence; e-mail: ramesh_mzu@rediffmail.com

Received: 11 March 2014

Accepted: 14 May 2014

ABSTRACT
Radon is the by-product of the natural decay of radium that is derived from the
decay series of uranium. Radon-220 (or thoron) is one of the three naturally occurring radio
isotopes of radium. The half-life of thoron is 55 seconds. Continuous soil gas thoron monitoring
was done using SSNTD (LR-115 type II film), manufactured by Kodak Pathe, France.
The study was carried out from March 2012 to February 2013 at Mat Bridge (23°18′N,
92°48′E) along Mat Fault in Serchhip District, Mizoram (India), which lies in seismic zone V
of the seismic zonation map of India. The exposed SSNTDs were processed in a constant
temperature bath. The average value of thoron concentration was recorded to be 203.08
tracks/cm2 with a standard deviation of 130.84 tracks/cm2. An attempt has been made to
correlate thoron data to earthquakes that occurred during the observation period. The effect
of meteorological parameters (viz. relative humidity, rainfall and air temperature) on thoron
data was also taken into consideration. The study showed a positive correlation with
earthquake for one event. Positive correlation was found between thoron data and all the
meteorological parameters.

Keywords: soil-gas thoron, LR-115 films, analysis, meteorological parameters, seismic activity

1. INTRODUCTION
Radon and thoron monitoring in ground
and surface water can give an early evidence
to forecast earthquakes and volcanic eruptions
[1-7]. There is a wealth of literature on soil
radon measurement as a tool to forecast
seismic activity. However, only few studies
[8, 9] have reported thoron measurement
for the same application. Radon which is
produced from the decay series of U-238 has
a half-life of 3.8 days whereas thoron
(produced from the decay series of Th-232)
has a half-life of 55 seconds. Owing to
different half-lives of radon and thoron,
they can provide information on soil gas
sources-deep soil layers for radon and
shallow soil layers for thoron [1]. Different
criteria has been used several authors in
the past to access the soil radon gas
anomaly [10-13] which include the mean
plus ‘n’ standard deviation (σ).Here, we
Chiang Mai J. Sci. 2014; 41(4)
present the probability plot method [14] to
evaluate the soil thoron threshold value
(anomaly). The effect of meteorological
parameters on soil thoron gas has also been
studied. The selection of the earthquakes that
can possibly correlate with the measured
thoron concentration has been done using
the empirical relation [15] given below.
D = (10 exp 0.48 M)/1.66 km (1)
where M is the magnitude and D is the
epicenter distance of the registered earthquake.
The study was carried out in the
southernmost part (Mizoram) of North-east
India which lies in zone V according to
seismic zonation hazard of India [16].
Northeast India is seismically one of the six
most active regions of the world. It lies at the
junction of Himalayan arc to the north and
Burmese arc to the east [17]. High seismicity
in this region is attributed to collision tectonics
between the Indian plate and the Eurasian
plate in the north and subduction tectonics
Figure 1. Location map of study area showing major lineaments/faults in Tripura-Mizoram
fold belt. Spatial distribution of earthquakes that occurred during the observation period is
also shown.
973
along the Indo-Myanmar range (IMR) in the
east [18-20]. Geologically, Mizoram is a part
of Surma basin. This is an area of folded
sediments and is characterized by westerly
convex, sinuous structural ridges and valleys.
This basin is wider to the north and narrower
to the south. The NE-SW and NW-SE
lineaments/faults are many in this basin
(Figure 1). The NW-SE lineaments/faults are
Mat fault and Tuipui fault (both in Mizoram).
Mat fault is the most prominent fault in
Mizoram state. It obliquely cuts across the
general north-south trend of the Indo-
Burmese arc. Most pronounced part of the
fault is in Serchhip district along Serchhip-
Thenzawl road [21]. Hence this part has been
selected for the survey. Analysis of soil
radon and thoron data along the same fault
region has been done in the past in the past
[22]. Here we report statistical approach for
determining the threshold value of soil thoron
data and its possible correlation with seismic
events taking into account the environmental
parameters.
974
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Continuous soil-thoron measurements
were carried out at Matbridge (23°18′N,
92°48′E), Mizoram (India) using LR-115
Type II films (manufactured by Kodak
Pathe, France). The cellulose nitrate film of
area 3 cm × 3 cm was embedded in the
dosimeter. For measurements of soil-thoron
concentration a twin cup radon/thoron
discriminating dosimeters were employed
20 cm above the soil surface [22]. These
dosimeters were designed and fabricated
by Mayya and his group [23] at Bhabha
Atomic Research Centre (BARC), India.
The dosimeter has three compartments:
membrane/pinhole compartment, filter
mode compartment, and bare mode
compartment. The pinhole compartment
measures radon only and allow more than
95% of radon gas to diffuse and suppress
thoron gas to less than 1% [24]. The filter
mode compartment allows both radon and
thoron gas to diffuse into it and the entry of
progeny is blocked by placing a filter paper.
The bare mode allows the entry of both
radon and thoron gas and their progenies.
In the present investigation only two modes
have been used: pinhole compartment to
detect radon and filter mode compartment
to detect radon and thoron concentrations.
After the exposure period (15 days) the
LR-115 films were etched and read by a spark
Figure 2. Schematic sketch of thoron monitoring in soil.
Chiang Mai J. Sci. 2014; 41(4)
counter to provide track densities T1 (pin hole
compartment) and T2 (Filter compartment)
in tracks/cm2. Thoron concentrations have
been calculated by using the following
relation.
CT(tr./cm2) = T2 - T1 (2)
The study was performed during March
2012 to February 2013 at a depth of 80 cm
below the soil surface (Figure 2) at five
different holes 2 m apart from each other.
The plotted value is the average of all five
holes. The detector films were exposed for a
period of 15 days, after that the exposed
films were removed and reinstalled with
the new ones. The SSNTDs are etched
with 10% sodium hydroxide solution in an
etching bath at a temperature of 60°C for
developing the registered tracks. The etching
time was set for 1 hour. As soon as the
etching process is complete the tracks
registered in the films were counted using a
spark counter. The details of the registered
earthquake that occurred around the study
area (Table 1) has been obtained from the
Indian Meteorological Department (www.
imd.gov.in) and the meteorological parameters
were obtained from observatory No. 2302,
Project Pushpak, Mizoram under the
observation of Regional Meteorological
Centre, Guwahati, Assam.
Chiang Mai J. Sci. 2014; 41(4) 975

Table 1. Details of the location of earthquakes from the measuring site (www.imd.gov.in).
Date Lat(°N) & Epicentre Depth Magnitude Region
Long(°E) Distance(km) (km)
from the
measuring site
01.07.2012 25.7°N, 224 50 5.8 Phek,
94.6°E Nagaland(India)
29.07.2012 23.0°N, 132 70 6.0 Myanmar
94.2°E
11.11.2012 23.0°N, 304 10 6.7 Myanmar
95.9°E
09.01.2013 25.4°N, 313 89 5.9 Myanmar-India
94.9°E Border Region
02.03.2013 24.8°N, 187 10 5.2 India(Karimganj)-
92.2°E Bangladesh Border
Region

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The descriptive statistics of the measured
thoron data and the meteorological
parameters is shown in Table 2. We want to
check whether the thoron data is normally
distributed, which is inevitable because the
soil radon and thoron data obeying the
fundamental laws geochemistry are usually
log-normally distributed [25]. Therefore,
we transformed the raw thoron data into
log 10 form and construct a Q-Q plot for
raw thoron data (Figure 3) and log thoron
data (Figure 4) using the SPSS statistical
package. SPSS uses a Q-Q plot to check the
normality of a sample, where the expected
normal value (y) is plotted against the
respective sample value (x). From Figure 3
it is clear that the points on the plots deviates
from the reference line (y=x) which is an
indication that the distribution is not normal.
This is also supported by the fact that the raw
thoron data set show divergence between the
mean and median value and a positive value
of skew was obtained [26] (see Table 2).
Figure 4 depicts that the log thoron data points
straggle about the reference line (x=y) which
is an indication of a normal distribution of
log thoron data (or, log Normally distributed).
Also supported by a small divergence between
mean and median value and a small negative
value of skewness obtained (Table 2). In order
to evaluate the threshold value of the
measured soil thoron data logarithmic-
probability plot was used [27] and 95%
confidence limits of the sample was
determined graphically (Figure 5). None of
the plotted points for the log thoron data lie
outside the 95% confidence limit suggesting
the presence of single population [14]. In this
case a wise procedure is however to assume
that an arbitrary threshold value lies at mean
plus 2 standard deviation level [28].
976 Chiang Mai J. Sci. 2014; 41(4)

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of thoron and the meteorological parameters.

Variables Mean Median Std. Min. Max. Skewness
Deviation
Thoron (tr./cm2) 203.08 168.50 130.84 47 524 0.88
Log thoron (tr./cm2) 2.217 2.224 0.294 1.67 2.72 -0.11
Relative Humidity (%) 81.84 86.03 10.65 61.43 93.40 -0.55
Rainfall (mm) 99.27 102.85 94.13 0.00 265.50 0.34
Temperature (°C) 21.80 22.28 2.38 15.39 24.83 -1.06

Figure 3. Normal Q-Q plot of thoron data.

Figure 5. Probability plot of log thoron data
showing 95% confidence limit.

Figure 6 demonstrates the integrated

measurement of thoron along with the
meteorological parameters (RH, RF and T).
The measured thoron data shows moderate
positive correlation with relative humidity
(correlation coefficient, r=0.41) and rainfall
(r=0.36) indicating that the soil gas thoron
tends to increase with increase in these
parameters and vice versa where as a very low
correlation (r=0.06) or no correlation was
Figure 4. Normal Q-Q plot of log thoron found between the thoron data and the air
data. temperature suggesting a non-significant
influence of air temperature on the measured
thoron data. Anomalous high thoron peak
(~ +2σ) was observed on 13/06/12 of the
observation period followed by an earthquake
of M5.8 which occurred on 01/07/12 (after
16-33 days of the LR-115 exposure period)
Chiang Mai J. Sci. 2014; 41(4) 977

at a distance of 223 km from the measuring
site. The second peak (>+2σ) was observed
on 12/08/12. An earthquake of magnitude
M6.0 occurred on 29/07/12 at a distance of
147 km from the measuring site. So, the
second high anomalous thoron peak may be
treated as a post-cursor peak after the M6.0
quake which may have caused due to
aftershock pertaining after main shock [29].
Unfortunately, both of the events occur during
heavy rainfall period which makes it difficult
to interpret. However, the second thoron peak
observed exceeds the μ+2σ level, which is
generally accepted as anomaly caused by
seismic events and not by meteorological
parameters [30].

Figure 6. Variation of (a) Thoron (b) Relative Humidity (c) Rainfall (d) Temperature during
the observation period. The solid vertical arrows pointing downwards represents the earthquakes,
solid grey vertical bands is drawn to represent the thoron anomalies and other smaller thoron
peaks. The solid horizontal line represents the mean (μ) of thoron concentration and the dotted
lines indicates the deviation from mean i.e., mean plus one standard deviation (μ+1σ) and
mean plus two (μ+2σ).
978
Other smaller thoron peaks (occurred
on 25/11/12 and 09/10/13) were quite
difficult to explain whether they have been
caused by variation in meteorological
parameters or by geophysical process. In both
the cases we observed unusual variation in
meteorological parameters (Figure 6), giving
an indication that these peaks might have
caused due to geophysical process, but the
peaks observed were not about the threshold
value (+2σ). The reason may be due to the
short half-life of thoron which makes it
sometimes difficult to detect. However the
result would have been much interesting with
shorter sampling period of time. Owing to
the short half-life of thoron anomalous high
thoron anomaly observed (before and after
the M5.8 and M6.0 quakes) might give an
indication that the area is undergoing a shallow
rock fracturing [1,5].
4. CONCLUSION
The result obtained shows that statistical
analysis of soil thoron data is useful to find
out the distribution trend and hence to find
the corresponding threshold value.
Anomalous high thoron concentrations
observed in some cases (before and after
the M5.8 and M6.0 quakes respectively)
might gives an indication that the area is
undergoing a shallow rock fracturing
in connection with the seismic events.
However, the result obtained would have
been much promising and interesting with
shorter sampling period of time and
simultaneous measurements of radon and
thoron along with the carrier gases like C02
and CH 4 which play a dominant role in
controlling the transport of radon gas towards
the earth surface. Long term and continuous
data recording is necessary for a definite
conclusion.
Chiang Mai J. Sci. 2014; 41(4)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Authors are grateful to the Ministry of
Earth Sciences, Govt. of India, New Delhi
for their financial support to this work in the
form of Major project vide Sanction Order
No. MoES/ P.O.(Seismo) /1(67)/2009,
Dated 16-06-2010.
REFERENCES
[1] Giammanco S., Sims K.W.W. and
Neri M., Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 2007;
8: 1-14.
[2] Igarashi G. and Wakita H., Tectonophysics,
1990; 180: 237-254.
[3] King C.Y., J. Geophys., 1986; 91: 12269-
12281.
[4] Neri M., Behncke B., Burton M.,
Giammanco S., Pecora E., Privitera E.
and Reitano D., Geophys. Res. Lett., 2006;
33: 1-5.
[5] Padilla G.D., Hernandez P.A., Padron E.,
Barrancos J., Perez N.M., Melian G.,
Nolasco D., Dionis S., Rodriguez F.,
Calvo D. and Hernandez I., Geochem.
Geophys. Geosyst., 2013; 14: 432-447.
[6] Toutain J.C. and Baubron J.C.,
Tectonophysics, 1999; 304: 1-27.
[7] Virk H.S., Proceedings of International
Symposium Earthquake Prediction-Present
Status, University of Poona, Pune, India,
1986; 157-162.
[8] Yang T.F., Walia V., Chyi L.L., Fu C.C.,
Chen C.H., Liu T.K., Song S.R., Lee C.Y.
and Lee M., Radiat. Meas., 2005; 40:
496-502.
[9] Neri M., Giammanco S., Ferrera E.,
Patane G. and Zanon V., J. Environ.
Radioact., 2011; 102: 863-870.
[10] Fu C.C., Yang T.F., Walia V. and Cheng
C.H., Geochem. J., 2005; 39: 427-439.
Chiang Mai J. Sci. 2014; 41(4)
[11] King C.Y., King B.S., Evans W.C. and
Zhang W., Appl. Geochem., 1996; 11:
497-510.
[12] Price J.G., Rigby J.G., Christensen L.,
Hess R., LaPointe D.D., Rameli A.R.,
Desilets M., Hopper R.D., Kluesner T.
and Marshall S., Health Phys., 1994; 66:
433-438.
[13] Rannou A., Proceedings of the International
Workshop on Radon monitoring in
Radioprotection, Environmental Radioactivity
and Earth Sciences, ICTP, Trieste, Italy, 3-
14 April 1989; 145-222.
[14] Sinclair A.J., J. Geochem. Explor., 1974; 3:
129-149.
[15] Fleischer R.L., Geophys. Res. Lett., 1981;
8: 477-480.
[16] BIS., IS1893-2002 (Part 1): Indian Standard
Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structure Part 1- Resistant Provisions and
Buildings; Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi, 2002.
[17] Tiwari R.P., ENVIS Bulletin, 2002; 10:
15-25.
[18] Dewey J.F. and Bird J.M., J. Geophys. Res.,
1970; 75: 2625-2647.
[19] Kayal J.R., Him. Geol., 1996; 17: 53-69.
[20] Sarmah S.K., J. Geophys., 1999; 20:
129-135.
979
[21] Tiwari R.P., Gahalaut V.K., Kundu B. and
Clalsawta., Proceedings of Indo-Norwegian
Workshop on Geohazards, New Delhi,
12-14 September 2011; 34-35.
[22] Jaishi H.P., Singh S., Tiwari R.P. and
Tiwari R.C., J. Earth Syst. Sci., 2013; 122:
1507-1513.
[23] Mayya Y.S., Eappen K.P. and Nambi
K.S.V., Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 1998; 77:
177-184.
[24] Ramachandran T.V., Lalit B.Y. and
Mishra U.C., Int. J. Radiat. Appl. Instrum.,
Part D, Nucl. Tracks Radiat. Meas., 1987;
13: 81-84.
[25] Ahrens L.H., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta,
1954; 5: 49-73.
[26] Davis J.C., Statistics and Data Analysis in
Geology, John Wiley and Sons, New York,
1986.
[27] Neri M., Giammanco S., Ferrera E.,
Patane G. and Zanon V., J. Environ.
Radioact., 2011; 102: 863-870.
[28] Hawkes H.E. and Webb J.S., Geochemistry
in Mineral Exploration, Harper and Row,
New York, 1962.
[29] Ghosh D., Deb A., Haldar S., Sahoo S.R.
and Sengupta R., Earth Sci. India, 2009;
2: 76-82.
[30] Choubey V.M., Kumar N. and Arora
B.R., Sci. Total Environ., 2009; 407:
5877-5883.