Debre Tabor University

College of Natural and Computational

Sciences
Department of Physics

Activity Concentrations of Natural Radionuclides 226 Ra, 232 Th and

40
K in Building Materials in Ethiopia

By:
Tadesse Abate1,†, Sitotaw Eshete1,∗
The Research project is submmitted to the office of research and publication directorate at
Debre Tabor University

1
Department of Physics, Debre Tabor University, P.O.Box 272, Debre Tabor, Ethiopia

†
Principal Investigator (PI) [Electronic address: tadesseabate96@gmail.com]

†
The author has six publications found at
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8408-2178

∗
Author0 s records [10 publications] found at
https://orcid.org/000-0003-1468-1727

October, 2023

DTU, Ethiopia
 RESEARCH APPROVAL FORMAT

Activity Concentrations of Natural Radionuclides 226 Ra, 232 Th and

40
K in Building Materials in Ethiopia
A research submitted by: Tadesse Abate, and Sitotaw Eshete
has been approved by:

Research Supervisor Name: Signature: date:

Research Coordinator Name: Signature: date:

Faculty Dean Name: Signature: date:

Research and publication Director Name: Signature: date:

R/Community Service V/President Name: Signature: date:

Research and Community Service Office

Department of Physics, Debre Tabor University, P.O.Box 272, Debre Tabor, Ethiopia

Date of Approval:-
Debre Tabor University Terminal Report

A BSTRACT

The activity concentrations of naturally occurring radioactive materials such as 226 Ra, 232 Th and
40
K were measured for different 150 cement, ceramics, concrete, sand and soil samples 30 samples

for each type collected from the South Gondar Zone North Ethiopia using gamma−spectroscopy.

The measured activities of 226 Ra, 232 Th and 40 K were found to the range from 10 to 146 Bq kg−1 with

the mean value of 64 Bq kg−1 , 26 to 167 Bq kg−1 with the mean value of 70 Bq kg−1 and 94 to 540 Bq

kg−1 with the mean value 330 Bq kg−1 , respectively. The radiological hazard parameters such as

radium equivalent activity values (Raeq ), gamma index (Iγ ) and alpha index (Iα ), terrestrial absorbed

dose (D) and annual effective dose (AED) were computed and compared with international limited

value. The Raeq mean value of building material samples is lower than 370 Bq kg−1 , equivalent to a

gamma dose of 1.5 mSvy−1 . From this study, it was noticed that the concentrations of the natural

radionuclides were not homogeneous due to the types of building material and the nature of the

location were they collected. The results of this study will be valuable for policy makers to develop

the guideline for continuous radiation safety program.

Keywords: Radionuclides, building materials, alpha index, gamma index, radium equivalent activ-

ity value

tadesseabate96@gmail.com i Department of Physics

 C ONTENTS

PAGES

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 First Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1.1 First section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1.2 Second subsection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 A simple example of sampling uncertainty evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.3 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

ii
L IST OF F IGURES

iii
 L IST OF TABLES

1.1.1The time table period of the research activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.3.1Analysis of grain taken from different levels in a grain silo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.3.2The means and standard deviations of samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

iv
Debre Tabor University Terminal Report

A BBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations Definitions
U Uranium
Ra Radium
Rn Radon
Th Thorium
K Potassium
USEPA United State Environmental Protection Agency
USEPA United Nation Environmental Protection Agency
EC European Commission
B q kg −3 Becquerel per kilo gram
BEIR Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection
UNSCEAR United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
WHO World Health Organization
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
mSvy−1 milli Sievert per year
IARPC International Atomic Radiation Protection Commitee

tadesseabate96@gmail.com v Department of Physics

 C HAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 F IRST S ECTION

1.1.1 F IRST SECTION
1.1.2 S ECOND SUBSECTION
F IRST SUBSUBSECTION

Table 1.1.1: The time table period of the research activities.

Research Atctivities from Proposal Writing to Terminal Report Submision
Months of Activity Years
Activity Task Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Year p p p p p p
PWa p p
a
PP p p
a
2022 SC p p p
SLa p
a
SF p p
a
2022/23 ET
p p p
LWb p p
DAb p p p p p
b
2023 TRW p
b
TRS p
TRPb p
TR
RSb
a
PW–proposal wrting, PP–proposal presentation, SC–sample collection, SL–sample cataloge, SF–sample filteration,
and ET–exposure time
b
LW–lab work, DA–data analysis, TRW–terminal report writing, TRS–terminal report submision, TRP–terminal report
presentation, TR RS–terminal report resubmision
Sep–Aug indicates months of a year from September to August, respectively

1.2 A SIMPLE EXAMPLE OF SAMPLING UNCERTAINTY EVALUATION

In analytical chemistry, the test sample is usually only part of the system for which information is

required. It is not possible to analyze numerous samples drawn from a population. Hence, one

has to ensure a small number of samples taken are representative and assume that the results

of the analysis can be taken as the answer for the whole. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) can be

used to check this assumption, and to determine the variation in the test portions chosen and the

contribution to the variation of the measurement process.

1
Debre Tabor University Terminal Report

The total analysis variance is given by

σ2measur ement = σ2sampl e + σ2anal y si s (1.2.1)

where σ2sampl e is the variance due to actual differences between the samples and σ2anal y si s is the

variance in making the measurement in the laboratory.

From equation (1.2.1), it is obvious that sampling uncertainty has to be evaluated together

with the analytical uncertainty for a complete measurement uncertainty evaluation. Without

carrying out repeated testing on the samples given, one will not be able to assess the repeatability

or precision of the analyte concentration in the laboratory sample. If only a single analysis is carried

out on each of the samples drawn from a population, the end result shows the sampling precision

only.

The following example demonstrates the basic principle of one-way (or one factor) ANOVA and

how it is applied to evaluate the overall measurement uncertainty covering both sampling and

analysis uncertainties. In this case, possible contributions of biasness in both sampling and analysis

are not considered. If necessary, variances of these biases determined separately can be added to

the equation (1.2.1).

1.3 E XAMPLE

Three composite samples were taken at the top, middle and bottom of a grain silo during loading

for analysis. The laboratory samples were sub-sampled for the determination of Kjeldahl nitrogen

in 4 replicates and reported as the % crude protein by multiplying a conversion factor of 5.71. The

results are given in Table 2 below.

Table 1.3.1: Analysis of grain taken from different levels in a grain silo
Silo position
Repeat# Top Midle Bottom
1 12.3 13.4 13.2
2 12.7 12.8 13.5
3 11.8 13.6 13.1
4 12.2 13.0 12.9

1. Does the sampling procedure have a significant effect on the results at the 95% confidence

level?

tadesseabate96@gmail.com 2 Department of Physics

Debre Tabor University Terminal Report

2. If so, what are the standard uncertainties (expressed as standard uncertainties) in sampling

and in analysis?

3. What would the standard uncertainty of measurement expected if we were to make single

measurements taken at random from anywhere in the silo?

Solution:

Using factor as ‘sampling position’, the test data can be treated by a one-way ANOVA method which

can be carried out either by its basic principles or by Excel spreadsheet.

C ALCULATIONS BY FIRST PRINCIPLE

The average and standard deviation of each level sample are tabulated in Table 3, keeping reasonable

number of decimal points for accurate calculations. Upon calculation, the mean of the sample

Table 1.3.2: The means and standard deviations of samples.

Silo position
Top Midle Bottom
Mean x i 12.250 13.200 13.175
SD, Si 0.3697 0.3651 0.2500

means, x was found to be 12.875 with standard deviation Sx = 0.5414. Use equation (1.3.1) to

calculate the sum of squares (between-samples), SSb :

¢2
SS b = Σn i x i − x
¡
(1.3.1)

where ni is the number of repeats for each sample.

Hence, SSb =2.345 with 2 degrees of freedom, dfb (i.e. 3 samples – 1), leading to mean square

(between-samples), MSb =SSb /dfb =1.1725.

Use equation ((1.3.2)) to calculate the sum of squares (within-sample), SSw :

SS w = Σ(n i − 1)S i2 (1.3.2)

Upon calculation, SSw = 0.9975 with 9 degrees of freedom, dfw (3 samples × 4 repeats – 3 samples),

leading to mean square (within-sample), MSw = SSw /dfw =0.1108.

Note:- An alternative way to calculate the df for within-sample is first to find the total degrees

of freedom of whole set of data which is 3 samples × 4 repeats minus 1, giving df of 11, and then

minus the degrees of freedom for between samples which is 2. The end result is the same.

tadesseabate96@gmail.com 3 Department of Physics

Debre Tabor University Terminal Report

So, in summary, we have:

Between-sample

SS b = 2.345; d f b = 2; M S b = 1.1725

Within-sample

SS w = 0.9975; d f w = 9; M S w = 0.1108

To check the significance of between-sample variation against the within-sample variation, the

F-statistic test was carried out as follows:

M Sb
F= M Sw = 10.579 which is larger than the critical F value of 4.256 at α = 0.05, dfb = 2, dfw = 9, in-

dicating that the variance in the sampling does have a significant effect on the overall measurement

variance at 95% level. Now, the within-sample mean square allows estimation of the repeatability of

the measurement and so,

p
S w = Sr = 0.1108 = 0.33% pr ot ei n.

Note that the parameter Sr is an estimate of σanal y si s , the standard deviation of the laboratory

analysis.

The between samples mean square (MSb ) is an estimate of the combination of the analysis

variance and the variance due to the different sampling positions, i.e., MSb = MSw + n × MSsampl i ng

where n = 4 repeats in this case.

s
q M Sb − M S w
T her e f or e, S sampl i ng = M S sampl i ng = = 0.515.
n

It follows that the variance of a single analysis is given by

σ2measur ement = σ2sampl i ng + σ2anal y si s = 0.5152 + 0.3332 = 0.376

and and the combined standard uncertainty expressed as combined standard deviation umeasur ement =

σmeasur ement =0.61 (3%) protein.

Since the overall mean of this exercise x was 12.88% protein, the reporting format is:

12.88 ± 2(0.613) or 12.88 ± 1.23% pr ot ei n wi t h a cover ag e f ac t or o f 2

tadesseabate96@gmail.com 4 Department of Physics