Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 129 (2014) 57e62

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Radioactivity

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvrad

Radon dispersion modeling and dose assessment for uranium mine

ventilation shaft exhausts under neutral atmospheric stability
Dong Xie a, b, *, Hanqing Wang c, Kimberlee J. Kearfott d, Zehua Liu b, Shunquan Mo b
a
School of Energy Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
b
School of Urban Construction, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China
c
School of Civil Engineering, University of Hunan Technology, Zhuzhou 412007, China
d
Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2104, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the present study, the roles of atmospheric wind profiles in the neutral atmosphere and surface
Received 25 August 2013 roughness parameters in a complex terrain were examined to determine their impacts on radon (222Rn)
Received in revised form dispersion from an actual uranium mine ventilation shaft. Simulations were completed on 222Rn
3 December 2013
dispersion extending from the shaft to a vulnerable distance, near the location of an occupied farmhouse.
Accepted 4 December 2013
Available online 28 December 2013
The eight dispersion scenarios for the ventilation shaft source included four downwind velocities (0.5,
1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 m s
1) and two underlying surface roughness characteristics (0.1 m and 1.0 m). 222Rn
distributions and elevated pollution regions were identified. Effective dose estimation methods involving
Keywords:
222
Rn release
a historical weighting of wind speeds in the direction of interest coupled to the complex dispersion
Atmospheric dispersion model were proposed. Using this approach, the radiation effects on the residents assumed to be outside
Numerical modeling at the location of the farm house 250 m downwind from the ventilation shaft outlet were computed.
Radiation dose evaluation The maximum effective dose rate calculated for the residents at the outside of the farm house was
2.2 mSv y
1, which is less than the low limit action level of 3e10 mSv y
1 recommended by the Inter-
national Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) occupational exposure action level for radon.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Full-scale field measurements, wind tunnel experiments, and

Radon (222Rn) emitted from uranium mine ventilation shaft
exhausts could constitute a major source of environment contam-
ination and consequently a potential health hazard to the nearby
population. Due to their alpha-emitting short lived progeny 218Po
and 214Po, 222Rn have long been recognized as main causative agent
for lung cancer when presented in high radon inhalation, such as
those encountered in uranium mining areas (Evans et al., 1981). The
geographical features of the dispersion region and the meteoro-
logical conditions are important for evaluating the dispersion of
222
Rn from uranium mine shaft exhausts. Essential parameters to
be considered include the 222Rn emission concentration as it leaves
the shaft, gas emission velocity, shaft location and height, trees and
topography, wind speed and direction, atmospheric stability (Bruce
and Werner, 1990) and precipitation.
* Corresponding author. School of Urban Construction, University of South China,
Hengyang 421001, China. Tel.: þ86 734 828 2512; fax: þ86 734 828 2312.
E-mail address: nhxiedong@126.com (D. Xie).
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models have been used to
study pollutant dispersion for complex underlying surface condi-
tions. For some field measurement situations, it is hard to simul-
taneously control operative and intertwined parameters effects
(Ana Pilar et al., 2002) such as atmospheric conditions (wind speed,
wind direction), topography and geography (underlying surface
roughness, mountain height and shaft height, width, shape). The
need to utilize hazardous radioactive sources and also the diffi-
culties in creating appropriate boundary conditions similarity may
limit the efficiency of wind tunnel experiments (Sharma et al.,
2005). However, CFD works well for this situation. CFD has been
proved to be a very powerful and efficient tool for the studies of
radionuclides dispersion with the factors considered individually or
in combination with the wind field effect (de Sampaio et al., 2008).
Several previous studies have involved simulations of the atmo-
spheric dispersion of nuclear power plant (NPP) emissions (Srinivas
and Venkatesan, 2005; Basit et al., 2008), including from the
Chernobyl (Hiroaki and Masamichi, 2008) and Fukushima accidents
(Leelössy et al., 2011). 222Rn concentration dispersion and the
effective dose evaluation obtained in this study differ from the NPP
work not only due to the different radionuclide, but because the

0265-931X/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2013.12.003
58 D. Xie et al. / Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 129 (2014) 57e62

release was continuously from a low height and the topographical

and geographical features and surrounding the release are very
different, namely in mountainous rural terrain.
Little information was available in the literature about the nu-
merical analysis of 222Rn dispersion and dose evaluation of 222Rn
from uranium mine ventilation shafts. Some CFD modeling of the
situation has been finished, but it was limited to a single location.
This work did, however, included field measurements that pro-
vided solid validation for CFD modeling of this problem (Dong et al.,
2012). In current study, 222Rn dispersion under neutral atmospheric
stability conditions was analyzed using three-dimensional CFD
simulation for a specific area above a uranium mine in one province
of China. This particular location included an occupied home and
farmed area around it. CFD modeling was accomplished using
Fluent (Ansys Fluent, 2010), a commercially available and widely
used tool incorporating several turbulence models (ANSYS Fluent
13.0.0, ANSYS Inc., Southpointe, 275 Technology Drive, Canonsburg,
PA 15317 USA). 222Rn distributions and elevated pollution regions
in the surrounding area of uranium mine ventilation shaft were
calculated. For this case, public effective dose rate calculation
methods were developed and radiation dose rate to the farmers
living and working in the vicinity of a house 250 m downwind from
the shaft was evaluated.

2. Models and computational methods

2.1. Geometric model

The geometric model considered in this study was based upon

an actual ventilation shaft located in uranium-bearing mountains
in China. Discrete data points for the model were extracted from an
elevation contour map and processed with specialized Fluent pre-
processing software, Gambit (Ansys Fluent, 2010). The overall
computational dimensions of mountain were 400.0 m
(L)  400.0 m (W)  150.0 m (H) in the X, Y and Z directions,
respectively. The ventilation shaft outlet was modeled to match its
actual dimensions of 2.7 m  2.7 m, extending 2.0 m above the
ground’s surface. In the present study, Temperature of the exhaust
is set to be the same as the atmosphere because of neutral atmo-
spheric stability and large amount of exhaust air rate. 222Rn was
emitted from uranium mine ventilation shaft at a certain flow rate
of 3.0 m s
1, then mixed with air and dispersed in three directions
into atmosphere as shown in Fig. 1a.
2.2. Mathematical models
Considering that the atmospheric temperature could be regar-
ded as homogeneous with heights in the computation region under
the neutral atmospheric stability, CFD simulation was based on the
governing equations of continuity, momentum, pollutant transport,
turbulent energy and turbulent dissipation rate, as shown in
Table 1. Xiaomin et al. (2005) investigated the influence of complex
geometry on pollutant dispersion comparing different keε models
with wind tunnel measured data for optimization of turbulence
models. Their comparison results show that the standard keε
model provides the best simulation results (Brian and Dudley,
1974), while Renormalization Group （RNG） keε turbulence
models based on RNG theory (Victor and Steven, 1986) and modi-
fied keε turbulence models (Chen and Kim, 1987) over-predict the
pollutant concentrations. Standard keε closure was thus chosen as
the turbulence model in this study. The parameters of equations
(1)e(6) depicted in Table 1 are defined as: X is the coordinate axis in
the direction i (i ¼ 0, 1, 2), ui corresponds to the mean velocity in i
direction, r is the air density, t is time, P is pressure, mt is the tur-
bulent viscosity, m is the molecular viscosity, and g is the
Fig. 1. Fig. 1a. Map of surface above uranium mine showing actually topographic de-
tails, including the location of the shaft and the house (250 m downwind), along with
the computational slice X ¼ 0 and the southerly wind direction perpendicular to the
Y ¼ 0 plane. Fig. 1b. Unstructured computational grid used for finite volume analysis
for the CFD model of the actual topographic surface.
gravitational acceleration. K is the turbulence kinetic energy, and ε
is the dissipation rate of turbulence kinetic energy. Cm, C1ε, C2ε, sk,
and sε are empirical and experimental constants fixed as 0.09, 1.44,
1.92, 1.0, and 1.3, respectively (Brian and Dudley, 1972). C is the
222
Rn average concentration in the air, u is the velocity vector of the
222
Rn, D is the effective diffusion coefficient of 222Rn in air assigned
a value of 5  10
3 m2 s
1, which is from the work of Guo (Qiuju
et al., 1995), l is the radon decay constant equal to 2.1  10
6 s
1.
2.3. Numerical codes and solution methods
CFD modeling was conducted with the code Fluent in this paper.
The simulation involved the finite volume discretization of the
equations of motion, a geometrical model consisting of an un-
structured grid volume made of tetrahedral cells, various matrix-
inversions routines, and the keε turbulence model (Jie et al.,
2009). The coupling between velocity and pressure was accom-
plished through the SIMPLE algorithm (Patankar, 1980). The central
differencing scheme was used in diffusion term and advection
term, while an upwind differencing scheme was used in source
term.
In such a complex terrain area, the unstructured grid system is
the most efficient for CFD simulations (Hong et al., 2005), so this
approach was selected. The computational domain was built using
tetrahedral cells with a finer resolution nearest the ventilation shaft
outlet and the mountain ground surface. In the CFD model, a non-
uniform tetrahedral grid of approximately 370,000 cells was
 D. Xie et al. / Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 129 (2014) 57e62 59

Table 1
Governing equations.

Continuity equation

vðrui Þ=vXi ¼ 0 (1)

Turbulent momentum equation

 

v rui uj =vXi ¼
vP=vXj þ v ðmt þ mÞ vui =vXj þ vuj =vXi vXi þ rg (2)

Standard turbulence kinetic energy equation



vðrui kÞ=vXi ¼ v½ðm þ mt =sk Þðvk=vXi Þ=vXi þ mt vuj =vXi vui =vXj þ vuj =vXi
rε (3)

Standard dissipation rate of turbulence kinetic energy


  
vðrui εÞ=vXi ¼ v½ðm þ mt =sε Þðvk=vXi Þ=vXi þ C1ε mt ðε=kÞ vuj =vXi vui =vXj þ vuj =vXi
rC2ε ε2 =k (4)

 
mt ¼ Cm r k2 =ε (5)

Radon transport equation

 
vðCuÞ=vXi ¼ D v2 C=vXi2 þ Q
lC (6)

created. The triangular mesh of the computational domain of the
topographic surface was shown in Fig. 1b.
2.4. Boundary conditions and parameters
Inlet boundary condition was used for the atmospheric wind
with specified velocity and direction. Simulations were performed
for atmospheric wind velocities of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 m s
1 for class
D, or neutral, atmosphere stability condition. For the location of the
ventilation shaft, neutral atmosphere stability condition occurs
52.1% of the time according to local meteorological conditions. The
probabilities of atmospheric wind speeds of 0.5,1.0, 2.0, 4.0 m s
1 are
8%, 17%, 61%, 9% and 5%, respectively. The remaining 5% is the wind
speed above 4.0 m s
1 and its influence is neglected in this study. A
user-defined subroutine compiled by Cþþ was developed and used
in the analysis for boundary conditions, for example, power law
velocity profiles applied at atmospheric wind inlet and turbulence
kinetic energy and dissipation rate applied at shaft outlet with the
Fluent code. The turbulence kinematic energy k and dissipation rate
ε at the shaft outlet were defined in Table 2. The parameters of
equations (7)e(9) depicted in Table 2 are defined as: uY is the wind
speed at height Z, u0 is the average wind speed at the height of a
reference height Z0 (Z0 ¼ 10 m), and the exponent a is a function of
both the atmosphere stability in the layer and the underlying surface
characteristics. u is the average wind velocity, I is fractional turbulent
component, and L is turbulence integration scale.
Table 2
Boundary conditions and calculation parameters settings.
Wind inlet z ¼ 0.1 m, a ¼ 0.19
uY =u0 ¼ ðZ=Z0 Þa ; Z0 ¼ 10m (7) z ¼ 1.0 m, a ¼ 0.25 (Oliver, 1953)
Shaft outlet
k ¼ 1:5ðu  IÞ2
Another inlet boundary condition was the radon-bearing
exhaust jet plume from the shaft outlet. The shaft exhauss veloc-
ity was set to its average measured value of 3.0 m s
1. 222Rn con-
centration was measured at the side of the top of the ventilation
shaft to be 8000 Bq m
3 and the value was used as the source term.
For the outlets at the end, the top and the lateral sides of the
domain, outflow boundary conditions were assumed. The ground
surface and the lateral sides of the shaft outlet were treated as walls
with no-slip velocity boundary condition, and a non-equilibrium
wall function was applied for near wall treatment (Jie et al., 2009).
The wind blowed in the southerly direction towards the farmer’s
house occurs in 25% of the time. Based upon local topographical
and geomorphologic features across the mountain being modeled,
as well as the effects of seasons for spring-summer and autumn-
winter, two underlying surface roughness (0.1 m, 1.0 m) were
considered in the study. In this study, surface roughness of 1.0 m
represented the seasons effects of spring-summer as there were
many vegetations like leaves on trees or grass on the ground, which
would pose relative higher underlying surface frictional resistance.
The surface roughness of 0.1 m represented the less vegetation
effects of seasons for autumn-winter.
2.5. Radiological dose calculation methods
Using the radon concentration values obtained from CFD
calculation, the effective dose rate for the residents assumed to be
outside at the location of the farm house was calculated with
standardized methods (UNSCEAR, 2000). The corresponding dose
conversion factor value, i.e. the effective dose rate received by
adults per unit 222Rn activity per unit of air volume, used for the
computation, 9.0  10
6 mSv per Bq m
3 h, was remained constant
for several years (UNSCEAR, 2000a, 2009b). The effective dose rate
to the public from radon at different distances from ventilation
(8) shaft outlet was estimated using following equation:

ε ¼ Cm0:75 k1:5 =l; E=T ¼ C  F  D (10)

ðHong et al:; 2005Þ (9)
l ¼ 4ð0:09kÞ0:5 Z00:25 Z 0:75 =U0
where, E/T was public personal effective dose rate (mSv h
1), C was
Side and top Outflow radon concentration (Bq m
3), F was an equilibrium factor appli-
Wall Non-equilibrium wall function
cable to outdoors and it was 0.6 found from UNSCEAR report
Surface roughness z ¼ 0.1 m, 1.0 m
(UNSCEAR, 2000), T was the annual exposing hours obtained from
60 D. Xie et al. / Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 129 (2014) 57e62

the questionnaires finished by the occupants who lived and worked

in the environment of interest (h y
1), and D was the dose con-
version factor (9.0  10
6 mSv per Bq m
3 h).
Considering that atmospheric wind speeds probability distri-
bution, the average effective dose rate posed by 222Rn could be
depicted as:
X
ETotal =T ¼ fV  CV  F  D (11)
V

where, ETotal/T was the sum of the public personal effective dose
rate per hour (mSv h
1), CV was radon concentration under atmo-
spheric wind speeds V of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0 m s
1 (Bq m
3), fV was the
fractional probability of a given atmospheric wind speed.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Radon concentration distribution

For the present simulation, the exhaust emissions went down-

wind and the exhaust emissions would be trapped in the valley
which located at the distance of 120 m from shaft outlet exhausts.
The effect was caused by that the shaft height was relatively low at
a certain shaft exhausts outlet rate and the location of the shaft was
located on the hillsides of mountains. Due to the valley accumu-
lation effects, 222Rn concentration with the region of 150 m on the
downstream direction were high and the plume cannot transport
efficiently, as shown in Fig. 2.
When ambient wind speed was 0.5 m s
1, the diffusion ability
was not significant. 222Rn concentration from shaft outlet exhausts
was higher than 500 Bq m
3 within the region of 100 m. When
atmospheric wind speed increased from 0.5 m s
1 to 1.0 m s
1,
222
Rn concentration at surface roughness of 0.1 m dropped from
500e378 Bq m
3, while 222Rn concentration at surface roughness
of 1.0 m dropped from 556e390 Bq m
3 at the distance of 50 m. As
shown in Fig. 2, ambient wind profiles played the dominant effect
in radon dispersion process. Besides wind direction, wind speed
was another important factor as higher wind speeds leaded to more
effective pollutants dilution (Hong et al., 2000). Fig. 2 also indicates
Fig. 2. Contours of radon concentration (Bq.m
3) at the height of 1.7 m in the X ¼ 0
that the effect of surface roughness was negligible when the at-
plane for surface roughness, of a) 0.1 m, b) 1.0 m.
mospheric wind speeds exceeded 2.0 m s
1. The radioactive
pollution along downwind direction on local region over 200 m was
within the limits of 100 Bq m
3, as the dispersion ability of 222Rn
was strong and 222Rn could travel further at higher atmospheric
wind speeds.
Compared with predicted downstream radon concentrations for
an assumed surface roughness of 0.1 m, 222Rn concentrations for
simulated surface roughness of 1.0 m were larger, as shown in Fig. 3.
An increased number of plants and trees, associated with a high
surface roughness, were expected to cause the accumulation of
222
Rn. As shown at about 120 m from the exhaust outlet in the
downwind direction, radon concentrations at surface roughness of
1.0 m were remarkably higher than at surface roughness of 0.1 m,
which had the values of Cz¼1.0/Cz¼0.1 at the region of 1.08e1.48.
Fig. 3 also illustrates that there were significant radon concentra-
tion difference between surface roughness of 0.1 m and 1.0 m when
the wind speed were lower than 1.0 m s
1. At the atmospheric wind
speed of 1.0 m s
1, 222Rn concentration at surface roughness of
0.1 m dropped by a factor of 2.2 Bq m
3 per meter from 50 m to
200 m shown in Fig. 2a, while 222Rn concentration at surface
roughness of 1.0 m dropped by a factor of 2.45 Bq m
3 per meter
from 50 m to 200 m displayed in Fig. 2b. With the increasing dis-
tance along downwind direction from shaft outlet exhaust, the
values of Cz¼1.0/Cz¼0.1 increased rapidly to the maximum of 1.48 at Fig. 3. Radon concentration comparison in the height of 1.7 m in the X ¼ 0 plane for
the distance of 120 m, then dropped remarkably to 1.1 from 120 m underlying surface roughness of 0.1 m and 1.0 m.
 D. Xie et al. / Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 129 (2014) 57e62
to 200 m. The effects of resistance of surface roughness at high
atmospheric wind speeds were not evident as at the low atmo-
spheric wind speeds, and this meant surface roughness and at-
mospheric wind speeds had a certain negative correlation to
frictional resistance.
3.2. Radiological effective dose rate calculation and evaluation
As expected, the maximum effective dose rate was found around
the shaft outlet, as shown in Fig. 4. At the distance of 50 m
downwind from uranium mine ventilation shaft outlet, the 222Rn
effective dose rate was very high with the value of
3.0  10
3 mSv h
1. Such high doses which correspond to annual
value of 21 mSv at 7000 h y
1 exposure time may cause a significant
risk to the residents from the health hazard point of view. The value
was much higher than the occupational upper limit of 10 mSv y
1
recommended by ICRP (ICRP, 2010). The maximum effective dose
rates dropped dramatically with the distance changing from 50 m
to 200 m, by more than 80%, then reduced slowly further away. The
consequence could be explained by the fact that the 222Rn accu-
mulation was caused by the effects of vortex flow at the valley of
120 m along downwind slope surface and then the 222Rn plume
would disperse quickly at the location far from the valley. No
apparent difference between maximum and minimum value could
be found at the distance exceeding 300 m downwind from the
uranium mine ventilation shaft.
Using the radon radiological effective dose rate calculation
methods, 222Rn concentration and effective dose caused by radon at
the distance of 250 m, the location of the farm house, were calcu-
lated and shown in Table 3. Considering that the farmhouse was
located atop uranium-bearing mountains, it was anticipated that
indoor radon concentrations would be elevated through ventilation
or air permeability, although it was difficult to predict. As a result,
the occupants near the active site would receive higher radon dose
not only because of exposure to the radon coming directly from the
ventilation outlet exhausts, but also exposure to the radon con-
centrations originated from the rock and soil surrounding the
house. A conservative value of 20 h every day of exposure time for
the farmer was thus chosen in this study. This represented a total
time of 7300 h y
1, exceeding the 7000 h y
1 indoors or 2000 h y
1
at work recommended by ICRP (ICRP, 1993). According to the
effective dose calculation equation, the calculated average effective
dose rate for a resident at the distance of 250 m was 0.78 mSv y
1.
Fig. 4. Maximum and Minimum of public personal effective dose rate per hour E/T
(mSv h
1) at the height of 1.7 m in the X ¼ 0 plane.
61
Table 3
The average value of 222Rn concentrations and the effective dose rate at Y ¼ 250 m,
H ¼ 1.7 m in the X ¼ 0 plane.
Atmospheric wind Probability [CRn] (Bq m
3) E/T (mSv h
1)
speed (m s
1)
Z ¼ 0.1 Z ¼ 1.0 Z ¼ 0.1 Z ¼ 1.0
0.5 8% 51 55 2.75E-04 2.97E-04
1.0 17% 30 32 1.62E-04 1.79E-04
2.0 61% 15 15.5 8.1E-05 8.37E-05
4.0 9% 12 12.6 6.48E-05 6.8E-05
The total 19.41 20.43 1.05E-04 1.1E-04
The maximum effective dose rate calculated for a resident assumed
to be outside at the location of the farm house was 2.2 mSv y
1 and
it occurred in the conditions of 0.5 m s
1 wind speed and 1.0 m
surface roughness. The average and maximum effective values
calculated in the paper were below the annual effective dose limit
of 3e10 mSv recommended by ICRP (ICRP, 1993a, 2010b) for public
exposure. In reality, the actual effective dose rate should be lower
than the calculated maximum value. The real wind direction to-
wards the farmhouse was not the prevailing wind direction, and
the atmospheric wind speed probability at 0.5 m s
1 was only 8%.
However, in respect of safety, the farmer should show caution and
reduce working hours in carrying out occupational activities within
the region of 250 m surrounding shaft outlet exhausts.
3.3. Uncertainty analysis of radiological effective dose rate
Given the main impact caused by ventilation exhausts to nearby
region, the dose assessments for the farmers assumed to be only
outside at the location of the farm house. In fact, the different oc-
cupancies time outdoors and indoors would cause the exposure
time difference between outdoors and indoors such as 10 h out-
doors exposure and 12 h indoors exposure according to local reg-
ular work hours. Considering ventilation and air permeability,
radon concentration indoors were presumed to be higher than
outdoors. A conservative value of 20 h every day of exposure time
for the farmer was assumed to compensate the exposure indoors in
the study. A factor for estimating the ingress of radon activity
concentration in air outdoors to indoors needs to be considered on
the condition of measurements of outdoor and indoor radon levels
in the future work.
An equilibrium factor of 0.6 applicable to outdoors was chosen
and only outdoor exposure was computed in the paper. Considering
that the farmers conducting activities both in outdoors and indoors,
so indoor radon exposure needs to be considered at the same time.
According to UNSCEAR report (UNSCEAR, 2000), the equilibrium
factor applicable to outdoors was ranging from 0.2 to 1.0 while the
equilibrium factor applicable to indoors was ranging from 0.1 to 0.9.
So there would be different equilibrium factors coupled for indoor
and outdoor radon effective rate calculation. Furthermore, the dose
conversion factor of 9.0  10
6 mSv per Bq m
3 h was used to
calculate the effective dose received by adults per unit 222Rn ac-
tivity per unit of air volume. But this value may range from
6.0  10
6 to 15.0  10
6 mSv per Bq m
3 h according to the
UNSCEAR report (UNSCEAR, 2000). This would be another uncer-
tainty to calculate radon effective dose rate.
Radon diurnal variations in four seasons have been proven by
hourly measurements on radon concentrations and the meteoro-
logical parameters (Pitari et al., 2013). Atmospheric stability in
night time coupled to the temperature inversion at the surface of
mountain would discourage vertical air movement and may pro-
duce large increases of radon concentrations surrounding to the
exhaust outlets, thus would create higher radon concentrations
downwind in the valley during morning hours. In addition, atmo-
spheric stability would change in seasons and diurnal cycles under
62 D. Xie et al. / Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 129 (2014) 57e62
mountainous terrains. So radon concentration levels computed in
this paper would show diurnal and seasonal variations accordingly.
4. Conclusions
222
Rn dispersion and effective dose analysis in the vicinity area
of one uranium mine ventilation shaft were conducted using three-
dimensional CFD simulations. The investigations of the influence of
wind profiles and surface roughness on 222Rn dispersion in the
atmosphere revealed that for the 3.0 m s
1 shaft exhaust exit ve-
locity and 2.0 m shaft height, the effect of wind speed over
2.0 m s
1 on the dispersion process was more pronounced than the
effect of underlying surface roughness. Topographic conditions
were also found to play a significant role in the dispersion process
at low atmospheric wind speeds. The weighting 222Rn concentra-
tions derived from their historical frequency at the distance of
250 m for different wind speeds, and the maximum effective dose
value of 2.2 mSv y
1, below the low dose limit region of 3e
10 mSv y
1 recommended by ICRP (ICRP, 1993a, 2010b), was
computed.
Due to the radiological soil upon which the farmhouse located,
indoor radon may be significant and independent of the outdoor
radon concentrations. As the actual radiation dose may vary
seasonally, with both indoor radon and the farmer’s outdoor
occupational activities, additional work needs to be done in order
to refine any dose assessments. Measurements of the levels of
radon outdoors and indoors should be carried out in air from both
activity concentrations in the air filtering into the building and from
radon emanating from the ground below the house. In particular,
field measurements indoors and outdoors during different seasons
could provide data upon which informed actions aimed at dose
reduction could be taken. For more precise and accurate simula-
tions, a larger physical model, more detailed wind profiles, precise
radio-aerosol characteristics, better knowledge of the dispersion
coefficient of radon, improved characterization of surface rough-
ness, and atmospheric stabilities should be further investigated.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge with thanks the financial support
provided by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 11105068), Postdoctoral Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
2013M542140) and Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Central
South University (Grant No.126640). We also deeply thank the
anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful suggestions that resul-
ted in a much improved revision of this paper.
References
Ana Pilar, G.S., Jeroen, V.B., Patrick, R., Domenico, O., 2002. Numerical and experi-
mental modelling of pollutant dispersion in a street canyon. J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerod. 90, 321e339.
Ansys Fluent 13.0.0, 2010. Ansys Fluent Inc.
Basit, A., Espinosa, F., Avila, R., Raza, S., Irfan, N., 2008. Simulation of atmospheric
dispersion of radionuclides using an EulerianeLagrangian modelling system.
J. Radiol. Prot. 28, 539e561.
Brian, E.L., Dudley, B.S., 1972. Lectures in Mathematical Models of Turbulence. Ac-
ademic Press, London, England.
Brian, E.L., Dudley, B.S., 1974. The numerical computation of turbulent flows.
Comput. Method. Appl. M 3, 269e289.
Bruce, R.W., Werner, S., 1990. Wind-tunnel studies of variable stack heights for a
low-profile building. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 36, 675e687.
Chen, Y.S., Kim, S.W., 1987. Computation of Turbulent Flows Using an Extended k-e
Turbulence Closure Model. NASA. CR-179204.
de Sampaio, Paulo A.B., Junior, Miltion A.G., Lapa, Celso M.F., 2008. A CFD approach
to the atmospheric dispersion of radionuclides in the vicinity of NPPs. Nucl. Eng.
Des. 238, 250e273.
Dong, X., Hanqing, W., Kimberlee, J.K., 2012. Modeling and experimental validation
of the dispersion of 222Rn released from a uranium mine ventilation shaft.
Atmos. Environ. 60, 453e459.
Evans, R.D., Harley, J.H., Jacobi, W., MacLean, A.S., Mills, W.A., Stewart, C.G., 1981.
Estimation of risk from environmental exposure to radon-222 and its decay
products. Nature 290, 98e100.
Hiroaki, T., Masamichi, C., 2008. Development of an atmospheric dispersion model
for accidental discharge of radionuclides with the function of simultaneous
prediction for multiple domains and its evaluation by application to the Cher-
nobyl nuclear accident. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 45, 920e931.
Hong, H., Yoshiaki, A., Mitsuru, A., Masamitsu, T., 2000. A two-dimensional air
quality model in an urban street canyon: evaluation and sensitivity analysis.
Atmos. Environ. 34, 689e698.
Hong, H., Ryozo, O., Shinsuke, K., 2005. Urban thermal environment measurements
and numerical simulation for an actual complex urban area covering a large
district heating and cooling system in summer. Atmos. Environ. 39, 6362e6375.
ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1993. Protection
Against Radon-222 at Home and at Work 23. Ann. ICRP. ICRP Publication 65.
ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 2010. Lung Cancer Risk
from Radon and Progeny and Statement on Radon 40. Ann. ICRP. ICRP Publi-
cation 115.
Jie, H., Zhiguo, Q., Chihang, Z., Xiangtai, B., 2009. Simulations of pollutant dispersion
at toll plazas using three-dimensional CFD models. Trans. Res. D e Tr. E. 14,
557e566.
Leelössy, Á., Mészáros, R., Lagzi, I., 2011. Short and long term dispersion patterns of
radionuclides in the atmosphere around the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant.
J. Environ. Radioact. 102, 1117e1121.
Oliver, G.S., 1953. Micrometeorology. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Patankar, S.V., 1980. Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Pitari, Giovanni, Coppari, Eleonora, De Luca, Natalia, Di Carlo, Piero, 2013. Obser-
vations and box model analysis of radon-222 in the atmospheric surface layer at
L’Aquila, Italy: March 2009 case study. Environ Earth Sci., 1e7. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s12665-013-2635-1.
Qiuju, G., Takao, I., Katsumi, O., 1995. Measurements of thoron concentration by
passive cup method and its application to dose assessment. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol.
32, 794e803.
Sharma, N., Chaudhry, K.K., Chalapati Rao, C.V., 2005. Air pollution dispersion
studies through environmental wind tunnel (EWT) investigations: a review.
J. Sci. Ind. Res. 64, 549e559.
Srinivas, C.V., Venkatesan, R., 2005. A simulation study of dispersion of air borne
radionuclides from a nuclear power plant under a hypothetical accidental
scenario at a tropical coastal site. Atmos. Environ. 39, 1497e1511.
UNSCEAR, 2000. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation, Exposures from Natural Radiation Sources. UNSCEAR 2000 Report to
the General Assembly, Annex B. United Nations, New York.
UNSCEAR, 2009. UNSCEAR 2006 Report, Annex E. Sources to Effects Assessment for
Radon in Homes and Workplaces. United Nations, New York.
Victor, Y., Steven, A.O., 1986. Renormalization group analysis of turbulence. J. Sci.
Comput. 1, 3e51.
Xiaomin, X., Huang, Z., Jiasong, W., 2005. Impact of building configuration on air
quality in street canyon. Atmos. Environ. 39, 4519e4530.