Chapter One

CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Study
Radioactivity is the disintegration or spontaneous breakdown of unstable nucleus. Elements
with unstable nucleus are called radionuclide. This unstable nucleus breaks down to release
radiation. Exposure to radiation is inevitable.
Radiation that carries enough energy to liberate electrons from atoms or molecules thereby
ionizing them are called ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is made up of energetic
subatomic particles, ions, or atoms moving at high speeds (usually greater than 1 % of the
speed of light), and electromagnetic waves on the high-energy end of the electromagnetic
spectrum. Gamma rays, X-rays, and the higher ultraviolet part of the electromagnetic
spectrum are ionizing (WHO 2016). Ionizing radiation is radiation with enough energy so
that during an interaction with an atom, it can remove tightly bound electrons from the orbit
of an atom, causing the atom to become charged or ionized (WHO 2016). The presence and
levels of ionizing radiation cannot be detected by human organs, hence the use of radiation
detection equipment. Exposure to ionizing radiation causes damage to living tissue and can
result in cancer, radiation sickness, mutation, and death (WHO 2016). Natural gamma-
emitting radionuclides such as 238U, 232Th along with their progenies, and 40K are omnipresent
in the environment (Pulhani et al., 2005).
Exposure of human to high concentration of background radiation can pose adverse health
risk on humans, animals, plants, shrubs, etc. Human can be exposed to radiation from
radioactive materials through various media such as ingestion, inhalation and absorption,
during daily interaction with the environment (Al-Zoughool and Krewski 2009; Ryan 2012;
WHO 2016).
1
The intake of naturally occurring radionuclide in the environment via ground and surface
water, foods above allowable limit can cause cancer and other stochastic effects of exposure
to excess radiation dose (Orosun et al., 2021).
Over the years, mankind requires natural resources which are randomly distributed on earth
for survival and development (Candeias et al., 2018). Mining and mineral extraction occurs
wherever natural resources (metallic, non-metallic minerals and fossils) are present and
economically viable (Ako et al., 2014). On a large scale, mining has yielded foreign
exchange and economic development. However, Several areas in Nigeria have been
dominated by artisanal miners who are ill-equipped, uneducated and have little appreciation
of the environment (Sabo et al., 2018). Artisanal or small-scale mining circumscribes
informal, small, medium, legal and illegal mining activities involving the use of
unsophisticated tools and techniques to extract mineral resources (Sabo et al., 2018). In
developing countries (particularly in West Africa), the environmental consequence of
artisanal mining has been assessed and well documented (Hilson, 2002; Lacerda and
Salomons, 1998; Meech et al., 1998; Hollaway, 1993 and Mireku-Gyimah and Suglo, 1993).
Mining processes incite depletion of the environment such as land degradation, de-
vegetation, air and water pollutions and loss of aquatic organisms (Ako et al., 2014).
However, the poor attention from the government towards exploiting this mineral,
unemployment and extreme poverty have driven large number of people into the local mining
occupation. They are also uninformed of the implications of mining activities to the
environment and human health. Apart from small-scale mining sites, government and
industries owned mining site also poses some health hazards on humans and the environment
at large. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
(UNSCEAR, 2000) identified mining as a potential cause of exposure to naturally occurring
radioactive materials (NORM) (Faanu et al., 2016). Mining activities propagate NORM and
2
other Potentially Hazardous Trace Elements (PHTE) within the human environment.
Wherever these NORM and PHTE are present at levels above the prescribed safety limits by
UNSCEAR (2000), they become detrimental to humans and the environment in general.
Mining is not the only cause of exposure to naturally occurring radioactive materials. Due to
the poor wastes management in the country, dumpsite are been found in residential areas,
market places, schools, industrial sites etc. Dumpsites has also been a cause of naturally
occurring radioactive materials in our environment.
Terrestrial radiation is a natural source of radiation coming from the planet due to the natural
decay of radioactive elements in the planet's crust. Some of these include uranium,
plutonium, thorium, and radon among others. These decay processes are the reason the Earth
has a hot molten core giving us some of the warmth we need to live, but they also produce
particle and gamma radiation which can be deadly to us. There is another source of terrestrial
radiation that is not natural, that is the radiation released during nuclear weapons detonations
or nuclear power plant disasters. The remainder of the radiation comes from extraterrestrial
source, primarily from the Sun (Wilkening 1990).
Since radionuclides in soils are not uniformly distributed and vary from region to region,
knowing about the distribution is very important in radiation monitoring, protection and
measurements (Aleksakhin 2009; Ogunyele et al. 2020). Estimation of dose which account
for human protection may no longer be sufficient in ensuring environmental protection.
Attention has to be given to the non-human biota (ICRP, 2007). In recent years, researchers
have been making efforts in quantifying radiological impact on non-human biota by applying
specific methodologies and application software packages (Brown et al., 2008; IAEA, 2014;
ICRP, 2009; USDoE, 2004; Beresford et al., 2007; Wood et al., 2009). One of the known
software packages developed for calculating radiological dose rates and risk characterization
is Environmental Risk from Ionising Contaminant Assessment (ERICA) Tool. This is a
3
supporting software of the ERICA Integrated Approach (ERICA I.A.) which was developed
under the 6th Framework Program of the European Commission (EC) for assessing and
managing environmental risks from ionizing radiation (Larsson, 2008; Brown et al., 2008;
Beresford et al., 2007; ERICA, 2014). Results have been reported in literature on the use of
ERICA Tool on some locations and ecosystems using radioactivity measurements
(Karimullina et al., 2013; Nedveckaite et al., 2011; Vetikko and Saxén, 2010; Wood et al.,
2008, 2009). The work of Maria et al. (2016) also reported the use of ERICA tool on Greece
terrestrial environment but none have been reported for Nigeria. Therefore, a lacuna exist in
literature on the development of radiological impact and dose calculation of non-human
biota, even though several studies have reported the activity of several location within the
country (Jibiri and Emelue, 2009; Avwiri and Olatubosun, 2014; Ademola et al., 2008,
Alausa, 2014; Obed et al., 2005; Faweya and Babalola, 2010).
These radionuclides have half-life which is comparable to the age of the earth. Natural
232
radioactivity in geological materials, mainly rocks and soil, comes from Th and 238U series
and natural 40K. Artificial radionuclides such as 137

Cs which result from weapon testing and
nuclear accident could also be present (UNSCEAR, 2000). The levels due to the terrestrial
background radiation are related to the types of rock from which the soils originate. Higher
radiation levels are associated to igneous rocks such as granite and lower levels with
sedimentary rocks (Alomari et al, 2019). There are some exceptions however, since some
shale and phosphate rocks have a relatively high content of radionuclides (NCRP Report,
1993).
1.2 Statement of the Research Problem
Despite the economic benefits of mining to the mine community and the country at large, it
however, pose threat to human, animals and the non-human biota. This threat emanates from
4
the pollution the mining activities bring to the ecological habitats and also the changes in the
land scape. Research conducted and concluded internationally at different mine area have all
come to the conclusion that crops, soil, water and the air of mining areas and their
environment are contaminated by NORM and heavy metals (Arogunyo et al., 2009,
Ademola, 2008, Jibiri et al., 2007, Jwanbot et al., 2012, Masok 2015, Isikalu et al., 2011).
Another issue of concern is that these toxic materials are not only concentrated in the mining
vicinity. They are dispersed in the soil, air, and water from the source to other areas through
weather factors such as wind, surface run off and soil water. Different research across the
world has main been focus on the human biota with little attention to the non-human biota of
the ecosystem. However, measured doses in other research has compared with high
background radiation regions where noticeable radiation induced defects has been recorded.
Dose levels have been set by international organizations towards protecting the non-human
biotas (IAEA, 2011; ICRP, 2003; UNSCEAR, 2008). The dose rate for the selected
226
organisms of the non-human biota were calculated using the activity concentration of Ra
232
and Th only. Previous researches on the assessment of non-human biota dose also made
226 232
use of the activity concentration of Ra and Th only (Giwa et al, 2018 and Gomina et al,
2019).
1.3 Aim and Objectives of Study
The aim of this study is to assess natural radioactivity levels in Nigeria soil. Using ERICA
2.0 to calculate the radiological impact on non-human biota.
The objectives of the research are to:
i. Evaluate the dose to non-human biota based on the measured radionuclide
concentrations.
ii. To produce a spatial distribution map of the total dose rate to the non-human biota
5
1.4 Justification of the Study
In view of the health hazard associated with uncontrolled increase in radiation exposure to
non-human biota and their environment, it has become greatly important for continuous
environmental impact assessment of soil natural radioactivity level. This will reveal the
extent of damage done to the environment and the health risk associated with the mining and
milling processes. Little or no attention has been given to the non-human biota of the
ecosystem in most research. This study reports the total dose rate received by the non-human
226 232
biota using the activity concentration of Ra and Th. The activity concentration are
inputted into ERICA assessment tool (version 2.0, November 2022). Generally
environmental radiation measure are also important for future exploration of minerals,
problem of nuclear waste management, location of orphan sources, and processing of
radioactive material.
1.5 Scope of the Study
This research is to assess the terrestrial dose to non-human biota using the determined activity
226 232
concentration Ra and Th of reviewed researches done in Nigeria. The terrestrial dose to
non-human elements in the biota would be calculated for birds, amphibians, reptiles, trees
mammals and other organisms using the ERICA 2.0 computer simulation.
6
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Radioactivity
Radioactivity is the spontaneous decay of an unstable nucleus with excess energy. This is
accompanied by the emission of radiation in the form of electromagnetic waves (gamma
rays) or streams of subatomic (alpha, beta, or neutron) particles (UNSCEAR 2000). Unstable
atomic nuclei will spontaneously decompose to form nuclei with a higher stability. The
decomposition process is called radioactivity. The energy and particles which are released
during the decomposition process are called radiation. When unstable nuclei decompose in
nature, the process is referred to as natural radioactivity. When the unstable nuclei are
prepared in the laboratory, the decomposition is called induced radioactivity (Julia Russell
2022).
It was first discovered in 1896 by Henri Becquerel when exposing potassium uranyl sulfate to
sunlight. Three different types of radioactive radiations i.e., negative, positive, and neutral
were discovered during his scientific research (Khan 2017). Furthermore, Marie Curie coined
the term radioactivity and along with her husband Pierre, discovered other radioactive
elements such as radium and polonium from radioactive ore of uranium. In addition, another
scientist Ernest Rutherford came up with the discovery of radioactive particles and named
them alpha, beta, and gamma particles. The classification of these radiations was based on
their ability to penetrate matter (Friedlander et al. 2021; Annunziata 2007; Khan 2017).
7
Radioactive nuclides transform to stable ones (to attain stability) and in the process dissipate
mass-energy. This phenomenon termed radioactivity and related concepts are discussed in
this section. Radioactivity has played a vital role in the advancement of nuclear physics as it
has been essential in understanding the nature of the atomic nucleus. Environmental
assessment of radiation levels is achieved through the knowledge of radiations and their
interaction with matter. The basic concepts of radioactivity are reviewed in this section. Also
reviewed are similar work done by other authors in this field of research.
2.1.1 Alpha decay
Alpha decay (or α-decay) is defined by the ejection of α-particle from a parent nucleus ( Az X ).
The α-particles are nuclei of the helium atoms ( 24 He ) and after emission a new nucleus
( A−4
Z−2 )
Y is formed (Kakani and Kakani, 2008). The radioactive transformation equation for
this decay mode is expressed in equation 2.1, α emissions reduces the mass number of the
parent nucleus by 4 units and the atomic number by 2 units. However, the mass number and
total charge are conserved during transformation.

A 4 A −4
Z X → 2He+ Z −2Y (2.1)
Examples of α-decay are expressed in equations 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4:
238 4 234
U → He + Th + Q∝ (2.2)
92 2 90
222 4 214
Rn → He + Po + Q∝ (2.3)
86 2 84
218 4 214
Po → He + Pb + Q∝ (2.4)
84 2 82
Any group of α-particles emitted from the same type of nuclei possesses a definite velocity
and energy. They can induce intense ionization in air and can be immobilised by a thin sheet
8
of paper with velocities ranging between 1.5×107 and 2.2×107 m/s (Kakani and Kakani, 2020.
The definite distance they travel within a material is called the range of α-particles in that
material.
2.1.2 Beta decay
Beta decay (β-decay) is characterized by the emission of β-particles which are identical with
electrons with a mass of ( 1836

1
) proton. β-particles are high energy electrons that are much
more penetrating than α-particles (Ghoshal, 2021. During β- decay, a parent nucleus ( Az X )
transforms to a daughter nucleus ( z A+1 Y ) as represented in equation 2.5.
A A 0
X→ X + e + ν̅𝑒 (2.5)
Z Z+1 −1
The atomic number Z of the parent nucleus is increased by 1 unit (Z+1) in the daughter
nucleus while the mass number A is unvaried (isobaric transition) in this decay mode. β-rays
cause much less ionization in air but are about 100 times more penetrating than α-rays
(Kakani and Kakani, 2020. Up to 0.99 of light-speed, β-particles are emitted with varying
energy between zero and a certain maximum (termed end-point energy).
There are two other β-decay processes distinguished by positron emission and electron
capture. In positron emission (β+ decay), a proton-rich parent nucleus transforms into a
neutron and emits a positron e+ and an electronic neutrino (𝜈𝑒). The proton number of the
daughter reduces by a unit (ZY = Z𝑋 − 1) while the mass number remains constant, just as in
the case of electron emission. This decay process is described by Equation 2.6 as follows:
A A
X→ Y + e + + υ𝑒 (2.6)
Z Z−1
Decay by electron capture may result when an atomic electron that enters inside the nuclear
volume is captured by a proton (Bailey et al., 2020). This initiates a proton-neutron
9
transformation and ejection of an electronic neutrino (Bailey et al., 2020. The generic
relationship for the decay due to electron capture is expressed as Equation 2.7:
A 0 A
X + 𝑒→ Y + e + + υ𝑒 (2.7)
Z −1 Z−1
2.1.3 Gamma decay
Most nuclear reactions are accompanied by gamma (γ) ray production. γ-rays are very high
electromagnetic radiations with very short wavelengths. They are about 100 times more
penetrating than β-rays. During γ-decay, a nucleus exhibits a transition from one energy state
to another with no fundamental change induced in the decaying nucleus (Kakani and Kakani,
2021). This decay mode can be expressed as:
A * A
X → X + γ (2.8)
Z Z
87 * A
Sr → X + γ (2.9)
38 38
The principal modes of radioactive decay, with the form of radiation emitted, generic
equation and model for each.
2.2 Natural sources of radiation
Human radiation exposure is inevitable. Most of the world’s population exposures to
radiation are due to natural sources (UNEP, 2016). Since creation, earth’s environment has
been exposed to radiations from outer space and those from radioactive materials present in
its crust and core (UNEP, 2016). The global mean effective dose to an individual is about 2.4
mSv and varies from about 1 to more than 10 mSv depending on the location where people
live (UNEP, 2016). Natural radiation emanates from cosmic, terrestrial and internal radiation
sources. Cosmic radiations are natural background radiations originating from outer space.
They are composed of penetrating ionizing radiation reaching the earth like a steady drizzle
of rain sent by the sun and stars. The amount (dose) of cosmic radiation received from outer
10
space is influenced by the unevenness in elevation, conditions of the atmosphere, and earth’s
varying magnetic field (USNRC, 2017). Terrestrial radiation is the fragment of the natural
background radiation released on earth by naturally occurring radioactive materials such as
uranium, radium and thorium (USNRC, 2017). These materials are compositions of soil,
water and vegetation. Essentially, all air contains radon, water contains small amount of
uranium and thorium, and all organic matter contains radioactive carbon and potassium. From
birth, every individual exhibit internal radiation, resulting mainly from radioactive potassium-
40 and carbon-14 inside the human body. Thus, they are sources of exposures to others
(USNRC, 2017). Some of these contaminants are consumed with food and water while others
are inhaled (such as radon). Although the sources are not artificial, exposure can be modified
by man-made choices, such as where and how people live or what they eat and drink
2.2.1 Cosmic radiation
Cosmic radiation is an ionizing radiation produced when primary photons and α particles
from outside the solar system interact with components of the earth's atmosphere (Hanns-
Christian, 2015). A second source of cosmic radiation is the release of charged particles from
the sun, which become significant during periods of solar flare (“sun storm”). Ionizing
radiation is a natural part of the environment in which we live, present in the earth, buildings,
the food we eat, and even in the bones of our bodies. The other type is nonionizing radiation
which includes UV light, radio waves, and microwaves. Humans, animals, and plants have all
evolved in an environment with a background of natural radiation and, with few exceptions, it
is not a significant risk to health.
The amount of cosmic radiation that reaches the earth from the sun and outer space varies: its
energy is effectively absorbed by the atmosphere and is also affected by the earth's magnetic
11
field. The effect on the body will depend on the latitude and altitude at which the individual is
exposed, and on the length of time of exposure.
Cosmic radiation may be measured directly using sophisticated instruments, as was done
routinely in the Concorde supersonic transport, or it can be estimated using a computer
program integrating the route, time at each altitude, and phase of the solar cycle to calculate
the radiation dose for any given flight. Several research organizations have confirmed actual
measurements taken on board an aircraft to verify the computer estimations (Bayshaw, 2022.
Effective doses of cosmic radiation are in fact very low. The International Commission for
Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommends maximum mean body effective dose limits of
20 mSv/y (averaged over 5 years) for workers exposed to radiation as part of their occupation
(including flight crew), and 1 mSv/y for the general population for typical annual flight
schedules, crew members accumulate around 4–5 mSv/y on long-haul operations, and 1–
2 mSv/y on European short-haul operations from cosmic radiation.
2.2.2 Terrestrial radiation
Terrestrial radiation is created by the process of the natural breakdown of radioisotopes in
natural materials such as rocks, soil, vegetation, and groundwater. The Earth itself is a source
of terrestrial radiation. Radioactive materials (including uranium, thorium, and radium) exist
naturally in soil and rock. Essentially all air contains radon, which is responsible for most of
the dose that human receive each year from natural background sources. In addition, water
contains small amounts of dissolved uranium and thorium, and all organic matter (both plant
and animal) contains radioactive carbon and potassium. Some of these materials are ingested
with food and water, while others (such as radon) are inhaled. The dose from terrestrial
sources varies in different parts of the world, but locations with higher soil concentrations of
uranium and thorium generally have higher doses. The average annual dose due to terrestrial
12
radiation exposure is 0.21 mSv (21 mrem) or 7% of a person’s yearly exposure due to all
natural sources. Terrestrial radiation are low and are unlikely to affect human health.
2.2.3 Internal radiation
All people have internal radiation, mainly from radioactive potassium-40 and carbon-14
inside their bodies from birth and, therefore, are sources of exposure to others. The variation
in dose from one person to another is not as great as that associated with cosmic and
terrestrial sources
Radioactive materials from the earth can enter into the human body by being inhaled
(breathed in) or ingested (eaten).
I. Inhalation
The naturally occurring radioactive element uranium can break down and change into
an odorless, colorless gas known as radon. Radon can be found in rocks, soil,
groundwater (well water) and building materials all around us. When radon is
released into the environment, we can breathe it in. On average, a person inhales
enough radioactive materials to cause a radiation dose of 2.28 mSv (228 mrem) per
year. About 73% of a person’s yearly exposure to natural sources of radioactive
material comes from inhalation. This is mostly in the form of radon, which is the
largest source of natural radiation exposure.
II. Ingestion
Naturally occurring radioactive elements such as carbon, potassium, uranium,
thorium, and radium can be found in the soil and find their way into our food and
drinking water and can be ingested. You can also ingest radon through the water
supply. However, ingesting radon poses less of a threat than inhaling it. Radon in
13
groundwater can also contribute to radon levels in indoor air. The overall levels of
ingested radioactive materials are low for most people. On average, a person ingests
enough natural sources of radiation to cause a small dose of about 0.29 mSv (29
mrem) per year. About 9% of a person’s yearly exposure to natural sources of
radioactive material comes from ingestion.
2.3 Measurements of radionuclide concentrations in soil using handheld Dosimeter
The characteristics of Nigerian soils vary and physicochemical properties such as soil pH,
exchangeable cations, organic carbon content, minerals, etc, depending on parent rock types,
historical geochemical processes, and land use or anthropogenic activities (Aleksakhin 2009;
Ogunyele et al. 2020). Twelve savanna soils in Nigeria were characterized and the result
showed a wide variation in texture and constituents. Most soil samples have an appreciable
amount of silt (10–69%), kaolinite and smectite are the major mineral components of clay,
quartz and K-feldspar 12 constitute a higher proportion in sands, while other minerals such as
ilmenite, magnetite, extractable phosphates, organic carbon, and radioactive elements are also
present in Nigerian soils (Møberg and Esu 1991; Ogunyele et al. 2020; Akingboye et al.,
2021). Soil acts as a repository for many environmental pollutants including radionuclides.
Ibikunle et al. (2019) reported the radiation dose of naturally occurring radionuclides in the
soils of some south-western cities in Nigeria. HpGe detector was used in evaluating the
232 226 40
activity concentrations of Th, Ra, and K in the soil samples. The mean activity
232
concentrations of Th, 226Ra, and 40K measured in the soils are 76.79, 52.91, and 393.73 Bq
kg-1 respectively. The concentration of 40K is about five times the concentrations of the other
investigated radionuclides (Ibikunle et al. 2019). The high activity levels of the radionuclides
were attributed to the rocky geology of the study areas. The measured mean absorbed air dose
rate (86.44) was higher than the 13 worldwide average value (60). This showed an upsurge in
14
the recommended value considered safe for the environment. The radioactivity levels of soils
around an iron and smelting company in Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria were measured using a
well-calibrated NaI(Tl) detector.
In stark contrast, some of the studies had relatively lower activity levels of 40K. Adebiyi and
238
Ore (2020) reported increased levels of U over 40K in the measurement of radioactivity
232
levels of oil-contaminated soils. The activity concentrations of Th, 238U, and 40K were 0.89
± 0.08, 132.13 ± 0.16, and 51.52 ± 0.06 Bq/Kg, respectively. The measured mean absorbed
air dose rate (63.73) was higher than the worldwide average thus indicating the susceptibility
of residents to long-term health hazards.
Atipo et al. (2020) measured the levels of primordial radionuclides in the soils of a tin mine
232
in Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria using HpGe detector. The activity concentrations of Th, 238U,
40
and K in the normal soils were 436.08±26.31, 168.83±9.35, and 346.1±21.92 Bq/kg
respectively. The increased levels in thorium, uranium, and potassium were attributed to the
mineral composition of the soils, which are rich in cassiterite, zirconium sand, theorite,
columbite, and uranyl monazite. Radioactive elements predominant in soils are a reflection of
the type of parent material. Lower levels of 18 potassium and thorium are usually associated
with sedimentary rocks while higher levels are associated with igneous rocks (Ramola et al.
2011; Ajayi et al. 2018). However, there is a need for further research on the risk assessment
of soil radioactive pollution under different environmental conditions. Impact on agricultural
practices, soil biodiversity, and environmental protection strategy should be given due
consideration in future research. The computerised system was coupled to a 3×3 squared inch
NaI(Tl) measuring assembly. Employing the ICRP dose estimation methods, the annual
effective doses were estimated to be 0.26 and 1.83 mSv for surface and subsurface mines
respectively. The results obtained for surface mines were below the 1.00 mSv per year
15
threshold while results for underground mines were above the 1.00 mSv per year stipulated
threshold for workplace exposure (ICRP, 2007).
At the locality of two Minna (Nigeria) tertiary institutions, background radiations were
assessed by in-situ measurements by Olarinoye et al. (2010). 34 points across the institutions
were marked and assessed using a mobile radiation dosimeter (Geiger-Mueller tube-based).
Dose rates obtained at Niger State College of Education Minna (NCM) varied from 0.13 to
0.17 μSv/h. Dose rates at the Federal University of Technology Bosso Campus (FUTB)
varied from 0.15 to 0.18 μSv/h. While at the FUT Gidan-Kwano campus (FUTG) the dose
rate was between 0.14 and 0.18 μSv/h. The mean dose rate for the surveyed points was 0.15
μSv/h with equivalent 0.19 mSv/y average annual effective dose. This value was 29 below
the recommended 1.00 mSv/y stipulated by the ICRP for non-occupational population.
2.4 Measurements of radionuclide concentrations in soil using Spectrometer
Gbadamosi et al. (2017) quantified the activity concentrations of radioactive materials in
waste dumpsite soils in Agbara, Ogun State, Nigeria using a properly calibrated high purity
germanium (HpGe) γ-ray spectrophotometer. The mean measured activity concentrations of

232 238
Th, U, and 40K are 26 ±2.2, 40.3 ±7.2, and 103±7.5 Bq kg -1 respectively. The relatively
higher activity level of 40K was ascribed to the possible predominant use of potassium-rich
fertilizers on the soils. The estimated absorbed air dose rate of 40.69± 5.31 nGy hr -1 was
lower than the crustal average of 60 nGyhr -1 (UNSCEAR 2000). The findings of the study
showed that little or no immediate radiological threats are associated with exposure to the
measured activity.
Several research interests have been inspired by the inhomogeneous distribution of NORM
within the environment. Human exploits such as oil exploration and mining alter
16
concentration magnitudes of NORM (Kamunda et al., 2016) and have resulted to
environmental contamination and degradation. Global productions of mineral products have
increased in recent years, resulting in processing of larger volumes of materials and with
proportional negative environmental impacts (Jain et al., 2016). The environmental and
health implications of artisanal gold mining have kindled research interests.
Faanu et al. (2011) conducted studies to assess the exposure of the public to NORM from the
processing of gold ore from Tarkwa gold-mine in Ghana. Samples of water, dust, rock, and
soil were examined employing Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) and direct gamma
spectrometry techniques. Sequentially, 15.2, 26.9 and 157.1 Bq/kg were the average activity
238 232 40
concentrations for U, Th and K in the soil/rock samples. The mean activity
concentrations measured in the dust samples were respectively 4.90 and 2.75 μBq/m 3 for
238 232
Uand Th. The total annual effective dose to the public was estimated to be 0.69 mSv.
Upon comparison with the world average value of 1 mSv/annum, Faanu et al. (2011)
concluded that the results stipulate an insignificant public exposure from gold mining
activities in Tarkwa.
Suleiman et al., (2018) reported minimal level of radiation exposure around Erena mining
sites in Niger State, Nigeria. 7 soil samples were collected and analysed using a laboratory
NaI(Tl) γ-ray spectrometer at the Centre for Energy Research and Training (CERT), Ahmadu
40
Bello University Zaria. The activity concentrations for K ranged from 48.52±3.58 to
1002.96±9.80 Bq/Kg, for 226Ra it ranged from 23.29±2.20 to 75.32±5.09 Bq/Kg and for 232
Th
the range was from 23.83±2.05 to 59.29±2.39 Bq/Kg. However, the mean values of activity
concentrations and radiological parameters were below the global screening levels.
Therefore, Suleiman et al., (2018) suggested that no radiological risk was envisaged to the
populace of the study areas and the miners working on the mining sites.
17
2.4 Health effects of radiation
The fundamental difference between ionizing radiation and other common types of radiation
in the environment such as heat is its ability to undergo ionization. Ionization can lead to
molecular changes and to the formation of chemical species of a type which are damaging to
the chromosome material of the human cell. Radiation ranks amid the most thoroughly
examined agents associated with disease (Herman, 1996). Radiation effects vary with
intensity of radiation dose absorbed by an individual and the duration of exposure, low dose
rates occur when exposure is spread over an extensive time period, allowing affected cells
sufficient time to repair damage to their deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) molecule. Hence,
doses are less dangerous than when the same dose is instantly absorbed. Biological effects on
cells arise from direct as well as indirect radiation action. Direct effects are produced by the
instant action of the radiation itself while indirect effects are caused by the subsequent
chemical action of free radicals and other radiation products (Turner, 2007). The ensuing
biological effects of exposure of man to radiation are well known from experiments;
observations on occupation exposure of workers (this includes: scientist, medical personnel,
industrial radiographers, atomic energy worker, miners), patients exposed to radiation for
diagnosis and therapy, people exposed to fallout of nuclear weapons debris accidents such as
the wind scan accident in England in 1956, Chernobyl disaster of 1986 and Hiroshima and
Nagasaki (2021). Ionizing radiation injury is dependent on a number of factors including: the
shielding, nature (α,β,γ) and energy of the radiation, the dose, homogeneity of dose and time
of exposure. When the dose and dose rate is within the accepted level, the effect of radiation
is small and most time no effect is observed, though the effect of low level radiation are not
yet entirely understood (IAEA 1982; ICRP 1990; ICRP 1975). Human body is permanently
irradiated from ionizing radiation externally and internally. Outdoor radiation are from
natural sources (earth, cosmic) and human sources (radiation generators), they are commonly
18
termed environment ionizing radiation (Bek-Uzaov et al, 2021). In the body, the K-40 is by
its nature existent all through human life. In the case that anyhow (inhalation, ingestion, etc.),
other radionuclide (like radon in air) enters inside the body, the body becomes internally
contaminated. Generally, health effects of radiation are grouped into two namely; threshold
effects and non-threshold effects. They can occur as somatic (occurring in the person who
receives the radiation dose), genetic (occurring in an exposed person’s offspring) or
terratogenetic (occurring in the offspring of individuals exposed during gestation) (Turner,
2007).
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 Materials and Method
3.1 Materials
The materials used this research includes:
i. Google scholar
ii. ERICA 2.0
iii. ArcGIS
3.1.1 Google scholar
Google scholar provides a simple way to broadly search for scholarly literature. From one
place, you can search across many disciplines and sources: articles, thesis, books, abstract
19
and court opinions, from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories,
universities and other websites. Google Scholar helps in finding relevant work across the
world of scholarly research.
3.1.2 ERCA 2.0
The ERICA Tool is a computerised, flexible software system that has a structure based upon
the ERICA Integrated Approach to assessing the radiological risk to biota. The Tool guides
the user through the assessment process, recording information and decisions and allowing
the necessary calculations to be performed to estimate risks to selected animals and plants.
Tier 1 assessments are media concentration based and use pre-calculated environmental
media concentration limits to estimate risk quotients. Tier 2 calculates dose rates but allows
the user to examine and edit most of the parameters used in the calculation including
concentration ratios, distribution coefficients, percentage dry weight soil or sediment, dose
conversion coefficients, radiation weighting factors and occupancy factors. Tier 3 offers the
same flexibility as Tier 2 but allows the option to run the assessment probabilistically if the
underling parameter probability distribution functions are defined. Results from the Tool can
be put into context using incorporated data on dose-effects relationships and background dose
rates. The Graphic user interface (GUI) of ERICA is shown in Figure 3.1.
20
Figure 3.1The Graphic user interface (GUI) of ERICA
3.1.3 ArcGIS
ArcGIS is a family of client, server and online geographic information system (GIS) software
developed and maintained by Esri. ArcGIS was first released in 1999 and originally was
released as ARC/INFO, a command line based GIS system for manipulating data. ARC/INFO
was later merged into ArcGIS Desktop, which was eventually superseded by ArcGIS Pro in
2015. ArcGIS Pro works in 2D and 3D for cartography and visualization, and includes
artificial Intelligence (AI).ArcGIS is built around a geodatabase, which uses an object–
relational database approach for storing spatial data. A geodatabase is a "container" for
holding datasets, tying together the spatial features with attributes. The geodatabase can also
contain topology information, and can model behavior of features, such as road intersections,
with rules on how features relate to one another. When working with geodatabases, it is
important to understand feature classes which are a set of features, represented with points,
lines, or polygons. With shapefiles, each file can only handle one type of feature. A
21
geodatabase can store multiple feature classes or type of features within one file. The Graphic
user interface (GUI) of ArcGIS is shown in Figure 3.2
Figure 3.2: The Graphic user interface (GUI) of ArcGIS
3.2 Sample Collection and Preparation
Researched projects on radioactivity carried out on Nigeria soils used for this study were
gotten from Google scholar. From the researches different soil samples were collected from
gold mining sites, dumpsites, quarry sites, oil fields, coal mining sites, etc, across different
parts of the country. These collected samples were dried at 110°C in a temperature-controlled
oven until there was no detectable change in the mass of the sample and the dried samples
were thoroughly crushed, ground and pulverized into powder. The grounded soil samples are
then filtered with a sieve to obtain uniformly homogenous sample matrix with improved
surface area to volume ratio. The dried homogeneously pulverized samples with dry-weight
of 250 g or 200 g were filled in air tight cylindrical plastic container (Marinelli beaker) that is
of the detector geometry, and stored for a period of 28 to 30 days before counting. This was
done in order to allow for radon and its short-lived progenies to reach secular radioactive
22
equilibrium prior to gamma spectroscopy. The reference soil was also transferred to a
container with the same material and dimensions as those used for the soil samples. This is to
ensure that the geometric configuration remained the same (Zarie and Al Mugren, 2010;
Avwiri et al., 2012; Ononugb et al., 2017; Wang, et al.,2017; Ugbede, 2020).
3.3 Study Area
Nigeria is a country in the western part of Africa with coordinate of latitude 4 oN and 14oN
and longitude 3oE and 15oE. Nigerian soils vary and physicochemical properties such as soil
pH, exchangeable cations, organic carbon content, minerals, etc., depending on parent rock
types, historical geochemical. Nigeria is characterized by three distinct climate zones, a
tropical monsoon climate in the south, a tropical savannah climate for most of the central
regions, and a Sahelian hot and semi-arid climate in the north of the country. This leads to a
gradient of declining precipitation amounts from south to north. The southern regions
experience strong rainfall events during the rainy season from March to October with annual
rainfall amounts, usually above 2,000 mm, and can reach 4,000 mm and more in the Niger
Delta.
The central regions are governed by a well-defined single rainy season (April to September)
and dry season (December to March). The dry season is influenced by the Harmattan wind
from the Sahara. Coastal areas experience a short drier season with most rain occurring over
March to October. Annual rainfall can reach up to about 1200 mm. In the north, rain only
falls from June to September in the range of 500 mm to 750 mm. The rest of the year is hot
and dry. Northern areas have a high degree of annual variation in its rainfall regime, which
results in flooding and droughts.
At least a research carry out on each of the 36 states and the country’s capital were
considered. From oil field in place like Rivers, Edo, Bayesla, Imo, Ondo, Abia, Akwa – Ibom
23
to gold mining sites in Niger, Zamfara, Osun, Kebbi and other northern states.Also, quarry
sites and coal mining sites in Ebonyi, Anambra, Kogi, Delta and Enugu state were used in
this study. Farmlands and dumpsites in some part of the country were also considered.
Figure 3.3: Map of Nigeria
3.4 Sample Analysis
The prepared sealed samples were placed over the HPGe detector respectively for counting.
The HPGe detector, Canberra model used is of coaxial geometry with one end open and a
closed end-facing window. The detector was operated at a negative bias voltage of 4000 V
DC. The detector with the accompanying pre-amplifier, connected to the Multi-channel
Analyzer (MCA) was mounted on a vertical dipstick cryostat, model 7500. The detector
element is held in place with a holder which is electrically isolated but thermally connected to
a copper coldfinger which transfers heat from the detector to the liquid nitrogen reservoir.
24
The mean counting time for each sample was 36000s. Also, an empty 1-L Marinelli beaker
was counted under identical geometry as the samples in other to determine the background
spectrum distribution. The photo peak of gamma transmission at 1460 KeV was used for the
measurement of 40K while the peak at 1760 KeV from 214

Bi and 2614 KeV from 208
Tl were
226
used for the measurement of Ra (238U) and 228
Ra ( 232
Th) respectively. The gamma lines
from recorded spectra were first assigned qualitatively using the energy calibration curve and
then evaluated quantitatively using the efficiency calibration curve. The concentration Cs in
BqKg-1, of a nuclide contained in an analyzed sample is given by:
N (Eγ )
Cs = (1)
ε (Eγ ) M s Pγt c
where, N(Eγ) is the net count rate of nuclide in counts/secs, ε(Eγ) is the absolute efficiency of
the detector for the specific nuclide, Pγ is the absolute γray emission probability of the
nuclide at the particular energy, Ms is the dried mass of the sample used in Kg and tc is the
total counting time for the sample.
3.5 Activity Concentration of 226Ra, 232Th and 40K
226 232
From the gamma transition peaks of Ra, Th and 40K, the activity concentrations were
calculated according to equation1 (Gbenu, et al., 2016)
C
A= (2)
E
where A is the activity of the radionuclide in Bq Kg −1; E, the detector efficiency for the
gamma ray line used and c the counts per second
3.6 Dose assessment
25
ERICA assessment tool (version 2.0, November 2022 update) was used to estimate dose rates
226
to default terrestrial organisms using the activity concentration of Ra, 232Th and 40K for the
study areas. For this study, the ERICA tool's Tier 2 was utilized. Tier 2 allows the user to be
more interactive: to change the default parameters and/ or to select specific reference
organisms. Estimated total weighted absorbed doses (sums of internal and external doses) for
each reference organism in the assessment are compared with dose rate screening values
selected by the assessor.
In order to guarantee that the greatest potential value of non-human biota dose rates are
lower than the screening dose rate requirement of 10 μGy/h, the maximum measured specific
activity of the two major contaminant radionuclides ( 226Ra and 232

Th) in soil were used as
input data in the model (Petrovic, 2018). At Tier 2, the Default Uncertainty Factor (UF) of 3
was chosen to account for the uncertainties in the assessment procedure. An UF = 3 will test
for a 5% possibility of surpassing the dosage screening value, according to the definition of
the ERICA tool software system, assuming that the risk quotient distribution is exponential
(ERICA, 2022). Using the provided data, dose rates are computed using DCCs, dose
conversion coefficients in μGy/h per Bq/kg fresh weight, and weighting factors of 10.0 for α,
3 for low β and 1 for (high energy) β and γ radiation. A number of research provide
information about the ERICA tool and its uncertainties (Brown et al., 2008, 2016; IAEA
2014; Larsson 2008; Oughton et al. 2008; Petrovic, 2018).
3.7 Geo-statistical mapping
The shape file of the study area(Nigeria ) is used as the layer on a geospatial
software(ArcGIS), the table containing the areas, latitude, longitude and the total dose rate for
the organisms is been converted to a CSV(comma-separated values) format and is then added
to the layer to give the point of each results on the layer.
26
The measurement results obtained from the samples collected from a certain area are definite
only at the sampled points. The interpolation values at the unsampled points need to be
calculated to approximately determine the distribution of the random variable. These
interpolation values were estimated by Kriging, which is one of the geostatistical methods for
interpolation (Mallet, 2002; Tolosana-Delgado et al, 2011). The method is relatively fast,
easy to compute and straightforward to interpret data. This has made Kriging to be the most
frequently used model for interpolation. Kriging assumes that the distance or direction
between sample points reflects a spatial correlation that can be used to explain variation in
the surface. The Kriging tool fits a mathematical function to a specified number of points, or
all points within a specified radius, to determine the output value for each location. Kriging is
a multistep process; it includes exploratory statistical analysis of the data, variogram
modeling, creating the surface, and (optionally) exploring a variance surface. Kriging is most
appropriate when you know there is a spatially correlated distance or directional bias in the
data. However, with the Kriging method, the weights are based not only on the distance
between the measured points and the prediction location but also on the overall spatial
arrangement of the measured points. To use the spatial arrangement in the weights, the spatial
autocorrelation must be quantified. To use the spatial arrangement in the weights, the spatial
autocorrelation must be quantified. Thus, in ordinary Kriging, the weight, depends on a fitted
model to the measured points, the distance to the prediction location, and the spatial
relationships among the measured values around the prediction location. The following
sections discuss how the general Kriging formula is used to create a map of the prediction
surface and a map of the accuracy of the prediction (Lu and Wong, 2008). In this study,
Kriging interpolation method using ArcGIS software was used to produce maps for the
distribution of 226Ra, 232Th and 40K.
CHAPTER FOUR
27
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Natural Radioactivity Levels
The specific activity concentration of NORM in soil collected from the study areas has been
226
measured using gamma spectrometric technique. The results for the concentration of Ra,
232 40
Th and K with their respective mean values in Bq.kg-1. The table for the activity
concentrations of NORM in soil samples collected across 101 cities in Nigeria is shown in
Table 4.1. The least activity concentration of 40K which varies from 1.41 to 720.10 Bq.kg-1
was recorded at Uyo Akwa-Ibom State while the highest was recored at Owo Ondo State; the
226
least activity concentration of Ra which varies from 1.41 to 720.10 Bq.kg-1 was recorded at
Igueben C.O.E, Edo State while the highest was recorded at Sokoto, Sokoto State; also the
232
least activity concentration of Th which varies from 0.40 to 1776.08 Bq.kg-1 was recorded
40
at Coalfield Kogi State while the highest was recorded at Jos Plateau State. K has the
highest activity concentration of 296.83 Bq.kg-1 due to its abundant nature in soil, with 232
Th
having 69.67 Bq.kg-1 activity concentration and 226

Ra having lowest of activity concentration
44.89 Bq.kg-1.
The variation of activity concentration across Nigeria could be attributed to natural and
human factors. Geology of a place is one of the major constituents of human factor,
geological variation is a fundamental factor that can influence the changes in activity
concentration (Orosun et al 2019). In addition, human activities like mining, improper
nuclear waste disposal and the use of fertilizers in agricultural practices (Ajibola, et al 2022,
Usikalu et al 2022, Popoola et al 2019)
28
.
Table 4.1: Activity concentrations of NORM in soil samples collected from study Area
40 226 232
Area Latitude Longitude K Ra Th Reference
Abeokuta, Ogun state 7.1475 3.3277 261.29 30.87 47.10 Ekhaguere et al. 2019
South-western cities 7.6103 4.7096 393.73 52.91 76.79 Ibikunle et al. 2019
Delta state 5.5544 5.5543 413.64 54.43 561.67 Ononugbo et al. 2019
Ile-Ife, Osun state 7.4667 4.5667 270.14 12.14 23.23 Oluyide et al 2019
Coastal area, Akwa Ibom state 4.6467 7.9429 145.00 23.00 36.00 Akpan et al. 2020
Mangoro-Agege, Lagos 6.6034 3.3200 403.07 11.47 10.44 Ilori and Alausa 2019
Asa, Kwara state 8.4154 4.4388 570.91 42.86 18.15 Orosun et al. 2019
Elere, Oyo state 7.4553 3.5713 537.30 36.55 29.05 Alausa et al. 2017
Jos, Plateau state 9.8965 8.8583 374.01 242.13 1776.08 Adesiji and Ademola 2019
South-western cities 8.1333 4.2500 554.20 25.53 61.12 Ajayi et al. 2018
Lagos state 6.8819 3.1284 19.38 10.99 11.20 Adedokun et al. 2020
South-western cities 7.2500 5.1950 151.72 8.27 17.37 Ajayi et al. 2017
Mine sites, Kebbi state 11.5108 5.1035 627.58 9.53 11.00 Dike et al. 2019
Ewekoro, Ogun state 6.9356 3.2228 285.34 1.95 51.13 Usikalu et al. 2018
40 226 232
29
Onikitinbi, Ogun state 6.9792 3.9980 350.75 30.51 103.19 Gbadamosi et al. 2018a
Agbara, Ogun state 6.5114 3.1115 103.00 40.30 26.00 Gbadamosi et al. 2017
Akure, Ondo state 7.2571 5.2058 51.52 132.13 0.89 Adebiyi and Ore 2020
Egbeda, Oyo state 6.5916 3.2911 200.00 30.50 50.80 Owoade et al. 2019
Agbaaru, Oyo state 7.9828 3.0532 381.80 25.30 26.20 Ademola 2019
Bajoga, Gombe state 10.8514 11.4282 196.11 7.41 16.27 Kolo et al. 2019
Zone A, Benue state 7.4224 8.8757 113.02 39.10 29.44 Kungur et al. 2020
Sand deposit, Ogun state 6.7933 3.9917 461.00 42.60 113.00 Gbadamosi et al. 2018b
South-western cities 6.6194 3.5105 477.69 52.05 85.84 Ibikunle et al. 2018a
sand deposit, Ondo state 6.5917 4.8320 46.46 24.13 20.10 Isinkaye et al. 2018
Ajaokuta, Kogi state 7.5584 6.6344 712.00 31.00 36.00 Usikalu et al. 2017
Osogbo, Osun state 7.7827 4.5418 223.59 15.39 4.54 Adegunwa et al. 2019b
Owo, Ondo state 7.1833 5.5833 1190.10 64.64 110.18 Aladeniyi et al. 2019
Mowe, Ogun state 6.8085 3.4367 1071.85 67.28 11.21 Egunjobi et al. 2020
Esan, Edo state 6.6653 6.1358 57.80 2.07 6.89 Popoola et al. 2019
40 226 232
Rayfield-Du, Plateau state 9.8391 8.8884 346.10 168.83 436.08 Atipo et al. 2020
Ondo, Ondo state 7.2537 5.1963 146.20 171.80 19.80 Ogundele et al. 2020
30
Ile-Ife, Osun state 7.4667 4.5667 131.11 106.03 17.17 Olalekan and Adebiyi 2020
Mine site, Zamfara state 11.8648 6.0024 370.79 18.30 16.86 Shehu et al. 2012a
Goldmining, Kebbi state 11.4942 4.2333 425.96 23.85 18.80 Shehu et al. 2012b
Mine site, Niger state 9.5836 6.5463 31.92 63.57 198.91 Gomina et al. 2019
Ado-ekiti, Ekiti state 7.6124 5.2371 207.20 33.60 20.10 Isinkaye et al. 2010
Damaturu Yola state 11.7444 11.9611 185.00 37.20 45.30 Habu et al. 2019
Keffi Nasarawa state 8.8471 7.8776 369.99 10.54 2.61 Usman et al. 2022
Warri Delta state 5.5544 5.7932 261.30 4.20 5.10 Jibiri et al. 2008
Anka, Zamfara state 12.1087 5.9278 216.02 47.06 75.97 Mbet et al. 2019
Uyo, Akwa-Ibom Sstate 5.0377 7.9128 7.05 2.87 7.02 Jibiri et al. 2011
Imo state poly, Imo state 5.3322 6.9506 59.20 8.70 12.73 Benedict et al. 2022
Shanono Area, Kano state 12.0515 7.9893 411.27 62.73 90.66 Bello et al. 2019
Orji, Enugu state 6.2537 7.2734 257.00 32.70 5.20 Janet et al. 2014
40 226 232
Coalfield, Kogi state 4.6968 8.2565 29.10 8.39 0.40 Itodo et al. 2020
Lead mine, Nasarawa state 8.2998 9.0012 27.37 28.49 33.97 Jude et al. 2022
coalmine, Gombe state 8.8674 11.4478 70.44 11.90 17.72 Kolo et al. 2017
31
Gusua, Zamfara state 12.1628 6.6745 227.10 4.68 40.58 Innocent et al. 2014
Mining sites, Benue state 7.7322 8.5391 425.92 40.34 33.69 Jibiri et al. 2013
mining sites,Ekiti state 7.8120 5.0677 455.05 128.05 24.80 Usikalu et al. 2019
Ijero,Ekiti state 7.8153 5.0671 635.41 42.02 43.27 Usikalu et al. 2019
Granite site, Ebonyi state 5.9552 7.5599 141.30 22.50 13.70 John et al. 2022
Ezillo, Ebonyi state 6.4285 7.8184 128.20 15.70 11.90 John et al. 2022
Minna, Niger state 9.5836 6.5463 229.40 7.80 29.40 Kolo et al 2012
Orlu, Imo state 5.8358 7.0196 134.13 4.15 1.64 Charles et al. 2020
Gababiya, Niger state 9.5966 6.5479 267.94 65.06 87.63 Kolo et al. 2020
Evangel uni, Ebonyi state 6.4105 7.8647 53.98 10.34 4.73 Fredrick et al. 2021
Awkuke, Enugu state 6.3907 7.4760 100.70 33.20 77.70 Osimobi et al. 2018
Central, Nasarawa state 8.5475 7.7118 403.96 32.52 56.23 Ibrahim et al. 2013
40 226 232
Akpabuyo, Enugu state 6.4668 7.5021 114.66 34.67 38.59 Anthony et al. 2015
Iwo, Oyo state 7.6292 4.1872 146.36 28.81 12.20 Giwa et al. 2018
Sokoto, Sokoto state 13.0667 5.2333 315.30 720.10 33.50 Kolo 2004
Jalingo, Taraba state 8.8929 11.3772 633.13 71.20 141.15 Alexander et al. 2022
32
Wukari, Taraba state 7.6620 9.7778 199.21 25.37 87.23 Alexander et al. 2022
Igbokoda, Ondo state 6.3530 4.7970 494.64 19.76 31.98 Olusegun et al. 2019
Oban, Cross rivers state 5.8702 8.5988 1073.06 160.74 250.76 Ubong et al.2022
Toro, Bauchi state 10.0596 9.0709 491.89 38.78 105.77 Ibrahim et al. 2019
Obio-Akpor, Rivers state 4.8776 7.0283 368.25 24.06 30.45 Ulakpa et al. 2016
Yola, Adamawa state 9.2035 12.4954 400.00 35.00 30.00 Samson et al.2022
Abuja F.C.T 9.0667 7.4833 1021.27 74.74 199.23 Shittu et al. 2015
Dana steel, Katsina state 12.9816 7.6223 104.45 27.72 50.31 Bello et al. 2016
Ilorin-west, Kwara state 8.4912 4.5109 263.55 52.24 31.29 Orosun et al. 2022
Oguta, Imo state 5.7213 6.8281 110.40 10.12 18.39 Jibiri et al. 2021
Zaria, Kaduna state 11.0855 7.7199 566.00 28.36 57.33 Elish et al. 2014
40 226 232
Coalfield, Gombe state 8.8591 11.4536 83.50 17.70 27.30 Kolo et al. 2017
Canaan city, Lagos state 6.6556 3.1613 442.66 41.98 48.35 Usikalu et al. 2020
Njaba, Imo state 5.6981 6.9961 71.23 3.73 1.19 Charles et al. 2021
Ushongo, Benue state 6.9470 9.2550 56.20 4.08 4.03 Ayaakaa et al. 2018
Okitipupa, Ondo state 6.5025 4.7795 323.79 11.76 9.66 Ibitoia et al. 2018
33
Igabi, Kaduna state 10.8060 7.7152 237.42 128.30 86.20 Sunday et al. 2020
Igarra, Edo state 7.2755 6.1076 291.59 3.15 1.85 Ojo et al. 2019
Pindiga, Gombe state 9.9848 10.9510 155.99 40.79 31.26 Muhammed et al. 2020
Buni gari, Yobe state 12.2939 11.4390 539.16 45.10 146.50 Habu et al. 2020
Geregu sSoil, Kogi state 7.5642 6.6919 105.60 15.45 10.64 Hassan et al. 2014
Dutse, Jigawa state 11.7024 9.3340 1126.28 40.72 112.82 Muhammed et al. 2021
Mining areas, Abia state 5.4527 7.5248 100.22 33.15 77.31 Ezekiel et al.2021
Igueben, C.O.E, Edo state 6.6065 6.2297 30.19 1.41 4.85 Popoola et al. 2019
Adeboyega uni, Edo state 6.5157 6.1962 57.80 2.07 6.89 Popoola et al. 2019
Coal mine, Enugu state 6.4303 7.4787 164.40 18.70 24.40 Nwankpa et al. 2015
40 226 232
Ayade, Akwa Ibom state 4.9057 7.8537 143.54 2.47 3.70 Essien et al. 2016
Odiok, Akwa Ibom state 5.0907 7.9294 33.96 8.84 3.01 Essien et al. 2016
Oku Akwa Ibom state 5.1556 8.0591 73.69 2.04 2.85 Essien et al. 2016
Quarry site Akwa Ibom 4.8869 7.7050 63.77 7.81 2.31 Essien et al. 2016
Abak Akwa Ibom state 5.0033 7.7743 98.71 24.83 5.17 Chad-Umoren et al. 2014
Dumpsites, Ogun state 7.1453 3.3590 428.91 2.09 54.60 Rasaq et al 2015
34
Dumpsite PH, Rivers state 4.7900 6.9933 222.15 29.16 32.21 Avwiri et al 2014
Egbemi, Imo state 4.8164 6.5976 92.42 10.10 7.42 Avwiri et al 2012
Gboko Benue state 7.3368 9.0018 58.88 3.33 4.66 Ayaakaa et al. 2016
Oraifite, Anambra state 6.0305 6.8297 419.22 23.54 9.69 Uzo 2020
Nembe Bayelsa state 4.5328 6.4037 439.22 20.82 49.66 Esendu et al. 2022
Maiduguri, Borno state 11.8333 13.1500 386.48 2.35 54.78 Ini et al.2022
Min. 7.05 1.41 0.40
Max. 1190.10 720.10 1776.08
Mean. 296.83 44.89 69.67
35
4.2 Radiological Impact of NORM Concentration on Non- human Biota
In order to access the radiological impact, the ERICA (Version 2.0) computer code was adopted.
In an earlier research (Beresferd et al., 2008), the exposure of small mammals situated in the
designated exclusive zones of Chernobyl nuclear plant were evaluated using the ERICA tool.
The obtained doses were found to be in good approximations to external doses obtained with
thermo luminescent dosimeters. Consequently, result produced from the ERICA tool are reliable.
The activity concentration of the areas in Table 4.1 was used to run a second tier ERICA impact
assessment analysis. The TIER 2 procedure was used to evaluate the total dose rate range from
0.059 to 20.791 µGyh-1, 0.011 to 3.732 µGyh-1, 0.017 to 5.548 µGyh-1, 0.074 to 17.065 µGyh-1,
0.027 to 9.184 µGyh-1, 0.028 to 9.589 µGyh-1, 0.011 to 2.981 µGyh-1, 0.059 to 20.749 µGyh-1,
0.107 to 33.868 µGyh-1, and 0.006 to 1.866 µGyh-1 for amphibian, bird, flying insect, grasses and
herbs, mammals- large, mammals- small burrowing, mollusc – gastropod, reptile, shrub and trees
respectively.
The mean total dose rate per organism was 1.406 µGyh -1, 0.253 µGyh-1, 0.381 µGyh-1, 1.446
µGyh-1, 0.623 µGyh-1, 0.653 µGyh-1, 0.224 µGyh-1, 1.406 µGyh-1, 2.403 µGyh-1 and 0.130 µGyh-1
for amphibian, bird, flying insect, grasses and herbs, mammals- large, mammals- small
burrowing, mollusc – gastropod, reptile, shrub and trees respectively. The limiting dose adopted
for the assessment was the generally accepted screening dose of 10 µGyh -1 (Mather and
Moussesal 2013; Aliyu and Ramli, 2015). Results of the second Tier ERICA analysis are
presented in Table 4.2. The total dose rate per organism range from for amphibian, bird, flying
insect, grasses and herbs, mammals- large, mammals- small burrowing, mollusc – gastropod,
reptile, shrub and trees respectively.
36
All obtained dose rates were low compared to the 40 µGyh -1 often considered as a dose rate of
significance to terrestrial animals according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA,
1992); UNSCAER (1996) and the United States Department of Energy (USDoE, 2002). This
dose rate is often generally adopted by government and non-governmental organizations for dose
limit criterion for terrestrial organisms. Recent research has however shown that for lesser doses,
terrestrial animal populations have produced measurable defects (Moller et al., 2014; Moller and
Mouseau, 2011). Thus the ERICA dose limit of 10 µGyh -1 was adopted for dose rate limit for the
non-human biota in this research.
37
Table 4.2: Total dose rate per organism calculated from ERICA
Area Amphibian Bird Flying Grasses Mammal- Mammal- Mollusc- Reptile Shrub Tree
[µgy h-1] [µgy h-1] insects & herbs large small- gastropod [µgy h-1] [µgy h-1] [µgy h-1]
[µgy h-1] [µgy h-1] [µgy h-1] burrowing [µgy h-1]
[µgy h-1]
Abeokuta, Ogun state 1.092 0.207 0.316 2.375 0.486 0.526 0.255 1.091 2.667 0.138
South-western cities 1.531 0.276 0.414 1.530 0.677 0.709 0.240 1.528 2.599 0.140
Delta state 1.596 0.295 0.466 3.368 0.714 0.756 0.385 1.597 3.389 0.162
Ile-Ife, Osun state 0.450 0.086 0.132 1.099 0.200 0.218 0.113 0.449 1.170 0.060
Coastal, Akwa Ibom state 0.666 0.120 0.180 0.675 0.295 0.308 0.105 0.665 1.134 0.061
Mangoro-Agege, Lagos 0.332 0.060 0.089 0.309 0.147 0.153 0.050 0.331 0.554 0.030
Asa, Kwara state 1.238 0.222 0.332 1.076 0.547 0.572 0.182 1.236 2.040 0.112
Elere, Oyo state 1.057 0.190 0.284 0.968 0.467 0.488 0.159 1.055 1.055 0.096
Jos, Plateau state 7.069 1.295 2.014 12.296 3.150 3.323 1.508 7.067 14.004 0.694
Lagos state 0.318 0.057 0.086 0.300 0.141 0.147 0.049 0.317 0.533 0.029
38
[µgy h-1] [µgy h-1] insects & herbs large small- gastropod [µgy h- [µgy h-1] [µgy h-1]
[µgy h-1] [µgy h-1] [µgy h-1] burrowing [µgy h-1] 1]
[µgy h-1]
mining sites, Kebbi state 0.276 0.050 0.074 0.265 0.122 0.127 0.042 0.275 0.464 0.025
Ewekoro, Ogun state 0.059 0.011 0.019 0.236 0.027 0.029 0.023 0.059 0.167 0.007
Onikitinbi, Ogun state 0.885 0.160 0.244 1.101 0.393 0.412 0.155 0.884 1.586 0.083
Agbara, Ogun state 1.165 0.209 0.313 1.045 0.515 0.538 0.174 1.162 1.931 0.105
Akure, Ondo state 3.815 0.684 1.018 3.112 1.685 1.759 0.545 3.807 6.207 0.342
Egbeda, Oyo state 0.883 0.159 0.239 0.906 0.391 0.409 0.140 0.881 1.508 0.081
Agbaaru, Oyo state 0.732 0.132 0.197 0.693 0.324 0.338 0.112 0.730 1.227 0.066
Bajoga, Gombe state 0.215 0.039 0.058 0.235 0.095 0.100 0.035 0.214 0.372 0.020
Zone A, Benue state 1.130 0.203 0.304 1.029 0.500 0.522 0.170 1.128 1.880 0.102
Sand deposit, Ogun state 0.698 0.125 0.188 0.642 0.308 0.322 0.105 0.696 1.163 0.063
39
[µgy h-1]
sand deposit, Ondo state 1.235 0.223 0.338 1.422 0.547 0.573 0.208 1.233 2.168 0.115
Ajaokuta, Kogi state 0.897 0.161 0.242 0.863 0.397 0.415 0.138 0.895 1.509 0.082
Osogbo, Osun state 0.445 0.080 0.119 0.379 0.196 0.205 0.065 0.444 0.730 0.040
Owo, Ondo state 1.871 0.337 0.507 1.930 0.828 0.867 0.298 1.868 3.199 0.171
Mowe, Ogun state 1.943 0.349 0.519 1.624 0.858 0.896 0.281 1.939 3.176 0.175
Esan, Edo state 0.060 0.011 0.017 0.074 0.027 0.028 0.011 0.060 0.107 0.006
Rayfield-du,Plateau state 4.893 0.884 1.337 5.592 2.168 2.272 0.822 4.887 8.575 0.453
Ondo, Ondo state 4.961 0.890 1.325 4.115 2.192 2.288 0.715 4.951 8.098 0.446
Ile-Ife, Osun state 3.062 0.549 0.818 2.558 1.353 1.413 0.442 3.056 5.005 0.275
mining, Zamfara state 0.529 0.095 0.142 0.493 0.234 0.245 0.080 0.528 0.884 0.048
Gold mining Kebbi state 0.689 0.124 0.185 0.631 0.305 0.319 0.104 0.688 1.148 0.062
Gold mining, Niger state 1.844 0.334 0.506 2.235 0.818 0.857 0.319 1.842 3.280 0.172
40
[µgy h-1]
Ado-ekiti, Ekiti state 0.971 0.174 0.260 0.865 0.429 0.448 0.144 0.969 1.608 0.088
Damaturu Yola state 1.076 0.194 0.290 1.043 0.476 0.498 0.166 1.074 1.814 0.098
Keffi Nasarawa state 0.304 0.055 0.081 0.258 0.135 0.140 0.044 0.304 0.499 0.027
Warri Delta state 0.121 0.022 0.033 0.118 0.054 0.056 0.019 0.121 0.205 0.011
Anka, Zamfara state 1.362 0.245 0.369 1.389 0.603 0.631 0.216 1.360 2.323 0.125
Uyo, Akwa-ibom state 0.083 0.015 0.023 0.094 0.037 0.039 0.014 0.083 0.145 0.008
Imo state poly, Imo state 0.253 0.046 0.068 0.253 0.112 0.117 0.040 0.252 0.429 0.023
Shanono Area, Kano state 1.815 0.327 0.491 1.813 0.803 0.840 0.285 1.812 3.080 0.166
Orji, Enugu state 0.944 0.169 0.252 0.789 0.417 0.436 0.136 0.942 1.543 0.085
coalfield, Kogi state 0.242 0.043 0.065 0.199 0.107 0.112 0.035 0.242 0.395 0.022
lead-zinc, Nasarawa state 0.824 0.148 0.222 0.796 0.365 0.381 0.127 0.823 1.388 0.075
coal mine, Gombe state 0.344 0.062 0.093 0.346 0.152 0.159 0.054 0.344 0.585 0.031
[µgy h-1]
41
Gusua, Zamfara state 0.137 0.025 0.039 0.261 0.061 0.065 0.031 0.137 0.280 0.014
mining sites, Benue state 1.166 0.210 0.313 1.074 0.516 0.539 0.176 1.164 1.944 0.106
Ijero mining, Ekiti state 3.698 0.664 0.988 3.105 1.634 1.706 0.535 3.691 6.051 0.332
Ijero, Ekiti state 1.215 0.219 0.327 1.149 0.537 0.562 0.186 1.213 2.038 0.110
Granite,Ebonyi state 0.650 0.117 0.174 0.580 0.287 0.300 0.097 0.649 1.077 0.059
Ezillo, Ebonyi state 0.454 0.082 0.122 0.414 0.201 0.210 0.068 0.453 0.755 0.041
Minna, Niger state 0.226 0.041 0.063 0.293 0.101 0.105 0.041 0.226 0.410 0.021
Orlu, Imo state 0.120 0.022 0.032 0.104 0.053 0.055 0.018 0.120 0.197 0.011
Gababiya, Niger state 1.882 0.339 0.508 1.856 0.833 0.871 0.294 1.879 3.185 0.172
Evangel uni, Ebonyi state 0.299 0.054 0.080 0.261 0.132 0.138 0.044 0.298 0.493 0.027
Awkuke, Enugu state 0.962 0.174 0.262 1.070 0.426 0.446 0.159 0.961 1.674 0.089
[µgy h-1]
Central, Nasarawa state 0.941 0.170 0.255 0.974 0.417 0.436 0.150 0.940 1.611 0.086
Akpabuyo, Enugu state 1.003 0.180 0.270 0.959 0.443 0.464 0.154 1.001 1.685 0.091
42
Iwo, Oyo state 0.832 0.149 0.223 0.723 0.368 0.384 0.122 0.831 1.371 0.075
Sokoto, Sokoto state 20.791 3.732 5.548 17.065 9.184 9.589 2.981 20.749 33.868 1.866
Jalingo, Taraba state 2.062 0.372 0.560 2.200 0.913 0.956 0.334 2.059 3.553 0.190
Wukari, Taraba state 0.736 0.133 0.203 0.921 0.327 0.343 0.130 0.735 1.321 0.069
Igbokoda, Ondo state 0.572 0.103 0.155 0.584 0.253 0.265 0.091 0.571 0.975 0.052
Oban, Cross rivers state 4.652 0.838 1.259 4.713 2.059 2.154 0.735 4.644 7.921 0.426
Toro, Bauchi state 1.124 0.203 0.308 1.305 0.498 0.522 0.190 1.123 1.978 0.104
Obio-Akpor, Rivers state 0.696 0.125 0.188 0.679 0.308 0.322 0.108 0.695 1.175 0.063
Yola, Adamawa state 1.012 0.182 0.272 0.935 0.447 0.468 0.153 1.010 1.688 0.092
Abuja F.C.T 2.167 0.392 0.592 2.499 0.960 1.006 0.365 2.164 3.805 0.201
[µgy h-1]
Dana steel, Katsina state 0.803 0.145 0.218 0.839 0.355 0.372 0.129 0.801 1.377 0.074
Ilorin-west, Kwara state 1.510 0.271 0.405 1.345 0.667 0.697 0.225 1.507 2.500 0.136
Oguta, Imo state 0.293 0.053 0.079 0.306 0.130 0.136 0.047 0.293 0.503 0.027
43
Zaria, Kaduna state 0.821 0.148 0.223 0.880 0.364 0.381 0.133 0.820 1.417 0.076
coalfield, Gombe state 0.512 0.092 0.139 0.518 0.227 0.237 0.081 0.511 0.872 0.047
Canaan city , Lagos state 1.214 0.218 0.327 1.167 0.537 0.562 0.187 1.212 2.043 0.111
Njaba, Imo state 0.108 0.019 0.029 0.092 0.048 0.050 0.016 0.108 0.177 0.010
Ushongo, Benue state 0.118 0.021 0.032 0.111 0.052 0.055 0.018 0.118 0.198 0.011
Okitipupa, Ondo state 0.340 0.061 0.091 0.313 0.150 0.157 0.051 0.339 0.567 0.031
Igabi, Kaduna state 3.708 0.666 0.995 3.339 1.639 1.713 0.554 3.701 6.153 0.335
Igarra, Edo state 0.091 0.016 0.024 0.081 0.040 0.042 0.014 0.091 0.151 0.008
Pindiga, Gombe state 1.179 0.212 0.317 1.076 0.521 0.545 0.177 1.177 1.962 0.107
[µgy h-1]
Buni gari, Yobe state 1.309 0.237 0.360 1.605 0.580 0.609 0.228 1.307 2.335 0.122
Geregu soil, Kogi state 0.447 0.080 0.120 0.403 0.197 0.206 0.067 0.446 0.741 0.040
Dutse, Jigawa state 1.181 0.213 0.323 1.377 0.523 0.548 0.200 1.179 2.080 0.110
Mining areas, Abia state 0.960 0.173 0.262 1.067 0.425 0.446 0.159 0.959 1.671 0.089
Igueben, C.O.E, Edo state 0.041 0.007 0.011 0.051 0.018 0.019 0.007 0.041 0.073 0.004
44
Adeboyega uni, Edo state 0.060 0.011 0.017 0.074 0.027 0.028 0.011 0.060 0.107 0.006
Coal mine, Enugu state 0.541 0.097 0.146 0.531 0.239 0.250 0.084 0.540 0.914 0.049
Ayade ,Akwa Ibom state 0.071 0.013 0.019 0.072 0.032 0.033 0.011 0.071 0.121 0.007
Odiok , AkwaIbom state 0.255 0.046 0.068 0.219 0.113 0.118 0.037 0.255 0.420 0.023
Oku Akwa Ibom state 0.059 0.011 0.016 0.059 0.026 0.027 0.009 0.059 0.100 0.005
Quarry site, Akwa Ibom 0.226 0.040 0.060 0.192 0.100 0.104 0.104 0.033 0.370 0.020
Abak Akwa Ibom state 0.717 0.129 0.192 0.603 0.317 0.331 0.104 0.716 1.174 0.064
[µgy h-1]
Dumpsites, Ogun state 0.063 0.012 0.021 0.252 0.029 0.031 0.024 0.063 0.179 0.007
Dumpsites, Rivers state 0.843 0.152 0.227 0.806 0.373 0.390 0.130 0.842 1.417 0.077
Egbemi, Imo state 0.292 0.052 0.078 0.265 0.129 0.135 0.044 0.291 0.485 0.026
Gboko Benue state 0.096 0.017 0.026 0.096 0.043 0.045 0.015 0.096 0.163 0.009
Oraifite, Anambra state 0.680 0.122 0.182 0.590 0.301 0.314 0.100 0.679 1.120 0.061
Nembe Bayelsa state 0.603 0.109 0.164 0.674 0.267 0.280 0.100 0.602 1.051 0.056
45
Maiduguri, Borno state 0.070 0.013 0.023 0.259 0.032 0.034 0.025 0.071 0.192 0.008
Min. 0.059 0.011 0.017 0.074 0.027 0.028 0.011 0.059 0.107 0.006
Max. 20.791 3.732 5.548 17.065 9.184 9.589 2.981 20.749 33.868 1.866
Mean. 1.406 0.253 0.381 1.446 0.623 0.653 0.224 1.406 2.403 0.130
46
The dose rate for amphibian, grasses & herbs, reptile and shrub exceeding the screening value
(10 µGyh-1) at some areas. With amphibian having a dose rate of 20.791 µGyh -1 at Sokoto,
grasses and herbs; 12.296 and 17.065 µGyh-1 at Jos and Sokoto respectively, reptile; 20.749
µGyh-1 at Sokoto, and shrub; 14.004 and 33.868 µGyh-1 at Jos and Sokoto respectively. These
group of organisms at the said areas are considered to be at risk and of radiological concern. All
organisms at all other areas are of no radiological risk of concern as indicated on Table 4.2.
It must however be noted that these estimates are conservative and underestimated since
radiation from other nuclides whose concentrations were not measured were ignored. If their
radioactive level is considerable, then the dose presented in the simulation could be higher. The
result of the dose received by non-human biota in this study has been found to be consistent with
earlier result obtained using reported radionuclide data by Ibeanu (2003) and simulated by Aliyu
et al. (2015).
4.3 Mapping of Total Dose Rate per organism
In order to map out the distribution of total dose rate per organism, the Kriging interpolation
method was employed using ArcGIS software. Figure 1 to 10 are the maps created through the
Kriging interpolation method for the total dose rate per organism. It is evident from the map that
the areas in which the dose rate are higher than the screening dose value are indicated with the
color yellow, orange, light red and red with the dose rate range of 10.00 – 13.32, 13.33 – 16.65,
16.66 – 19.98, 19.99 – 23.31 respectively.
47
Figure 4.1: Distribution map for Amphibian Figure 4.2: Distribution map for Bird
48
Figure 4.3: Distribution map for Flying insects Figure 4.4: Distribution map for Grasses & Herbs
49
Figure 4.5: Distribution map for Mammal-large Figure 4.6: Distribution map for Mammal-small-burrowing
50
Figure 4.7: Distribution map for Mollusc-gastropod Figure 4.8: Distribution map for Reptile
51
Figure 4.9: Distribution map for Shrub Figure 4.10: Distribution map for Tree
52
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusion
In this study, researches done on the activity concentration of natural radionuclides were
collected and analyzed. The radio ecological dose rate estimated for non-human biota in Nigeria
(for study areas) revealed that all non-human organism dose rate were lower than the
recommended dose rate of 10 µGyh-1 except amphibian having a dose rate of 20.791 µGyh -1 at
Sokoto, grasses and herbs; 12.296 and 17.065 µGyh -1 at Jos and Sokoto respectively, reptile;
20.749 µGyh-1 at Sokoto, and shrub; 14.004 and 33.868 µGyh -1 at Jos and Sokoto respectively.
All organisms at different study areas in Nigeria are considered safe except for amphibian at
Sokoto area, grasses and herbs at Sokoto and Jos areas and shrub at Sokoto and Jos areas are
radio logically safe within the study areas from radiation inducted defects.
5.2 Recommendations
In order to protect the non-human biota, proper disposal should be encouraged at the mine sites
to prevent the non-human species for radiological hazard. Most radiological researches in
Nigeria and around the world, focus solely on the human biota of the ecosystem with little
attention given to the non-human biota of the ecosystem. More research should be done
considering the non-human biota.
53
REFERENCES
Abba, H. T. (2019). Mapping of Terrestrial Radioactivity Levels in Surface Soil. A Case Study
of Damaturu LGA, Yobe State, Nigeria. Communication in Physical Sciences, 4.
Adedokun, M. B., Aweda, M. A., Maleka, P. P., Obed, R. I., & Ibitoye, A. Z. (2022). Evaluation
of natural radionuclides and associated radiation hazard indices in soil and water from
selected vegetable farmlands in Lagos, Nigeria. Environmental Forensics, 23(3-4), 301-
313.
Adegunwa, A. O., Awojide, S. H., & Ore, O. T. (2019). Investigation of radionuclide levels in
groundwater around transmission company of Nigeria for environmental impact
assessment. Nucl Sci, 4(4), 66.
Ademola, J. A., & Onyema, U. C. (2014). Assessment of natural radionuclides in fly ash
produced at Orji River thermal Power Station, Nigeria and the associated radiological
impact. Natural Science, 6(10), 752.
Ajibola, T. B., Orosun, M. M., Ehinlafa, O. E., Sharafudeen, F. A., Salawu, B. N., Ige, S. O., &
Akoshile, C. O. (2022). Radiological hazards associated with 238U, 232Th, and 40K in
some selected packaged drinking water in Ilorin and Ogbomoso, Nigeria. Pollution, 8(1),
117-131.
Akpan, A. E., Ebong, E. D., Ekwok, S. E., & Eyo, J. O. (2020). Assessment of radionuclide
distribution and associated radiological hazards for soils and beach sediments of Akwa
Ibom Coastline, southern Nigeria. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 13, 1-12.
54
Aladeniyi, K., Olowookere, C., & Oladele, B. B. (2019). Measurement of natural radioactivity
and radiological hazard evaluation in the soil samples collected from Owo, Ondo State,
Nigeria. Journal of radiation research and applied sciences, 12(1), 200-209.
Alusa, S. K., Odunaike, K., & Adeniji, I. A. (2017). Transfer factor of radionuclides from soil-to-
palm oil produced from Elere palm tree plantation near Ibadan Oyo state, Nigeria.
Nigeria Journal of pure and applied Physics, 7(1), 7-12.
Atipo, M., Olarinoye, O., & Awojoyogbe, B. (2020). Comparative analysis of NORM
concentration in mineral soils and tailings from a tin-mine in Nigeria. Environmental
Earth Sciences, 79(16), 394.
Avwiri, G. O., Ononugbo, C. P., & Olasoji, J. M. (2021). Radionuclide transfer factors of staple
foods and its health risks in Niger Delta Region of Nigeria. International Journal of
Innovative Environmental Studies Research, 9(1), 21-32.
Ayaakaa, D. T., Sombo, T., & Utah, E. U. Radionuclides Content of Some Surface Soils Of
Ushongo Local Government Area Of Benue State, North Central, Nigeria.
Bassey, N., & Udoh, A. (2022). Preliminary Assessment of Radiometric Survey over a Dumpsite
in eket Urban, South-Eastern. Researchers Journal of Science and Technology, 2(1), 18-
26.
Bello, S., Nasiru, R., Garba, N. N., & Adeyemo, D. J. (2019). Evaluation of the Activity
Concentration of 40K, 226Ra and 232Th in Soil and Associated Radiological Parameters
of Shanono and Bagwai Artisanal Gold Mining Areas, Kano State, Nigeria. Journal of
Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, 23(9), 1655-1659.
Bello, S., Zakari, Y. I., Ibeanu, I. G. E., & Muhammad, B. G. (2016). Characterization and
assessment of heavy metal pollution levels in soils of Dana steel limited dumpsite,
55
Katsina state Nigeria using geo-accumulation, ecological risk and hazard indices.
American journal of engineering research, 5(1).
E. Ekpe, E., Ben, U. C., Ekwok, S. E., Ebong, E. D., Akpan, A. E., Eldosouky, A. M., ... &
Gómez-Ortiz, D. (2022). Assessment of Natural Radionuclide Distribution Pattern and
Radiological Risk from Rocks in Precambrian Oban Massif, Southeastern Nigeria.
Minerals, 12(3), 312.
Ekhaguere, O. A., Alatise, O. O., & Oyeyemi, K. D. (2019, August). Assessment of natural
radionuclides in a fertilized farmland in Abeokuta, Nigeria: Implications for
environmental radioactivity evaluation and monitoring. In Journal of Physics: Conference
Series (Vol. 1299, No. 1, p. 012093). IOP Publishing.
Ekwok, S. E., Ebong, E. D., Akpan, A. E., Eldosouky, A. M., Abdelrahman, K., & Gómez-Ortiz,
D. (2022). Assessment of Natural Radionuclide Distribution Pattern and Radiological
Risk from Rocks in Precambrian Oban Massif, Southeastern Nigeria. Minerals 2022, 12,
312.
Gomina, M., Kolo, M. T., Olarinoye, O. I., Bashir, M., Suleiman, I. K., & Gene, A. S. (2021).
Assessment of non-human biota dose at the El Amin University proposed site, Minna,
Nigeria. ICRP Digital workshop on the Systems of Radiological Protection.
Gurisha, M. S., Makoba, A. A., Banzi, F. P., & Kiyengo, H. E. (2022). Determination of Natural
Radioactivity Levels and Radiation Hazards from the Soil of Tin Mining in Kyerwa
District, Tanzania.
Ibikunle, S. B., Arogunjo, A. M., & Ajayi, O. S. (2019). Characterization of radiation dose and
soil-to-plant transfer factor of natural radionuclides in some cities from south-western
Nigeria and its effect on man. Scientific African, 3, e00062.
56
Ibrahim, U., Akpa, T. C., & Daniel, I. H. (2013). Assessment of radioactivity concentration in
soil of some mining areas in Central Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Science World Journal,
8(2), 7-12.
Ilori, A. O., Chetty, N., & Adeleye, B. (2023). Assessment of Radiological Hazard Indices Due
to Natural Radionuclides in the Soil of Irele Local Government Area, Ondo State Nigeria.
Environmental Forensics, 1-7.
Innocent, A. J., John, O., Ali, H., Onimisi, M. Y., Jonah, S. A., & Nwodo, N. A. (2014).
Radiological safety assessment of some mine sites at Gusau and environs, Nigeria. Adv
Sci Eng Res, 2(2), 23-28.
Isinkaye, M. O., & Shitta, M. B. O. (2010). Natural radionuclide content and radiological
assessment of clay soils collected from different sites in Ekiti State, southwestern
Nigeria. Radiation protection dosimetry, 139(4), 590-596.
Itodo, A. U., Edimeh, P. O., Eneji, I. S., & Wuana, R. A. (2020). Radiological Impact
Assessment of Mining on Soil, Water and Plant Samples from Okobo Coal Field,
Nigeria. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 8(5), 65-81.
Jibiri, N. N., & Temaugee, S. T. (2013). Radionuclide contents in raw minerals and soil samples
and the associated radiological risk from some mining sites in Benue State North-Central
Nigeria. Int J Sci Eng Res, 4(7), 2392-2400.
Kolo, M. T. (2014). Natural radioactivity and environmental risk assessment of Sokoto
phosphate rock, Northwest Nigeria. African Journal of Environmental Science and
Technology, 8(9), 532-538.
57
Kolo, M. T., Amin, Y. M., Khandaker, M. U., & Abdullah, W. H. B. (2017). Radionuclide
concentrations and excess lifetime cancer risk due to gamma radioactivity in tailing
enriched soil around Maiganga coal mine, Northeast Nigeria.
Kolo, M. T., Khandaker, M. U., & Shuaibu, H. K. (2019). Natural radioactivity in soils around
mega coal-fired cement factory in Nigeria and its implications on human health and
environment. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 12, 1-11.
Kungur, S. T., Ige, T. A., & Ikyo, B. A. (2020). Analysis of natural radionuclides and evaluation
of radiation hazard indices in soil samples from Benue state, Nigeria. Int J Innov Res Sci
Eng, 5(5), 1765-1769.
Nduka, J. K., Umeh, T. C., Kelle, H. I., Ozoagu, P. C., & Okafor, P. C. (2022). Health risk
assessment of radiation dose of background radionuclides in quarry soil and uptake by
plants in Ezillo-Ishiagu in Ebonyi South-Eastern Nigeria. Case Studies in Chemical and
Environmental Engineering, 6, 100269.
Ogundele, L. T., Ayeku, P. O., Inuyomi, S. O., Ogunsakin, O. M., Oladejo, O. F., & Adejoro, I.
A. (2020). Assessment of naturally occurring 40K, 232Th and 238U and their associated
radiological hazard indices in soils used for building in Ondo West Local Government
Area, Southwestern, Nigeria. EQA-International Journal of Environmental Quality, 37,
11-21.
Oladele, B. B., Ugbede, F. O., & Arogunjo, A. M. (2022). Study of activity concentrations of
40K, 238U and 232Th for assessment of radiation dose in agricultural soils of
southwestern Nigeria. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 1-12.
Oluyide, S. O., Tchokossa, P., Akinyose, F. C., & Orosun, M. M. (2019). Assessment of
radioactivity levels and transfer factor of natural radionuclides around iron and steel
58
smelting company located in Fashina village, Ile-ife, Osun state, Nigeria. Facta
Universitatis, Series: Working and Living Environmental Protection, 241-256.
Orosun, M. M., Usikalu, M. R., Oyewumi, K. J., & Adagunodo, T. A. (2019). Natural
radionuclides and radiological risk assessment of granite mining field in Asa, North-
central Nigeria. MethodsX, 6, 2504-2514.
Osimobi, J. C., Avwiri, G. O., & Agbalagba, E. O. (2018). Radiometric and radiogenic heat
evaluation of natural radioactivity in soil around solid minerals mining environment in
South-Eastern Nigeria. Environmental Processes, 5, 859-877.
Popoola, F. A., Fakeye, O. D., Basiru, Q. B., Adesina, D. A., & Sulola, M. A. (2019).
Assessment of radionuclide concentration in surface soil and human health risk
associated with exposure in two higher institutions of Esan land, Edo State, Nigeria.
Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, 23(12), 22679-2284.
Samaila, B. Radiological Hazards Assessment of 226Ra, 228Ra, 228Th, 232Th, 238U and 40K
in Nigeria. AJ Planetary Space Sci, 1(1), 104.
Shittu, H. O., Olarinoye, I. O., Baba-Kutigi, A. N., Olukotun, S. F., Ojo, E. O., & Egga, A.
(2015). Determination of the radiological risk associated with naturally occurring
radioactive materials (NORM) at selected quarry sites in Abuja FCT, Nigeria: using
gamma-ray spectroscopy.
Sowole, O., & Egunjobi, K. (2019). Radioactivity Assessment of 40K, 238U and 232Th in
Surface Soil Samples of Igbokoda, Southwest of Nigeria. Tanzania Journal of Science,
45(3), 307-314.
59
Ugbede, F. O., Okoye, O. N. N., Akpolile, A. F., & Oladele, B. B. (2021). Baseline Radioactivity
in the Soil of Evangel Take-Off Campus, Evangel University, Nigeria, and its Associated
Health Risks. Chemistry Africa, 4(3), 703-713.
Usikalu, M. R., Maleka, P. P., Ndlovu, N. B., Zongo, S., Achuka, J. A., & Abodunrin, T. J.
(2019). Radiation dose assessment of soil from Ijero Ekiti, Nigeria. Cogent Engineering,
6(1), 1586271.
Usikalu, M. R., Oderinde, A., Adagunodo, E. R., & Akinpelu, A. (2018). Radioactivity
concentration and dose assessment of soil samples in cement factory and environs in
Ogun State, Nigeria. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology
(IJCIET), 9(9), 1047-1059.
Usikalu, M. R., Rabiu, A. B., Oyeyemi, K. D., Achuka, J. A., & Maaza, M. (2017). Radiation
hazard in soil from Ajaokuta North-central Nigeria. International Journal of Radiation
Research,, 15(2), 219-224.
Usikalu, M. R., Orosun, M. M., Akinpelu, A., & Oyewumi, K. J. (2022). A study of
environmental radioactivity measurement of selected Kaolin mining fields in Kwara,
Nigeria. Cogent Engineering, 9(1), 2105034.
60

Chapter One - Five

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Chapter One - Five

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter One - Five

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.1 Background of Study

Radioactivity is the disintegration or spontaneous breakdown of unstable nucleus. Elements

radiation. Exposure to radiation is inevitable.

in the environment (Pulhani et al., 2005).

to excess radiation dose (Orosun et al., 2021).

of the environment (Sabo et al., 2018). Artisanal or small-scale mining circumscribes

developing countries (particularly in West Africa), the environmental consequence of

at large. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation

(UNSCEAR, 2000) identified mining as a potential cause of exposure to naturally occurring

occurring radioactive materials in our environment.

source, primarily from the Sun (Wilkening 1990).

for human protection may no longer be sufficient in ensuring environmental protection.

is Environmental Risk from Ionising Contaminant Assessment (ERICA) Tool. This is a

ERICA Tool on some locations and ecosystems using radioactivity measurements

literature on the development of radiological impact and dose calculation of non-human

Alausa, 2014; Obed et al., 2005; Faweya and Babalola, 2010).

and natural 40K. Artificial radionuclides such as 137

1.2 Statement of the Research Problem

1.3 Aim and Objectives of Study

2.0 to calculate the radiological impact on non-human biota.

The objectives of the research are to:

i. Evaluate the dose to non-human biota based on the measured radionuclide

problem of nuclear waste management, location of orphan sources, and processing of

1.5 Scope of the Study

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

accompanied by the emission of radiation in the form of electromagnetic waves (gamma

2.1.1 Alpha decay

total charge are conserved during transformation.

Examples of α-decay are expressed in equations 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4:

2.1.2 Beta decay

electrons with a mass of ( 1836

energy between zero and a certain maximum (termed end-point energy).

volume is captured by a proton (Bailey et al., 2020). This initiates a proton-neutron

2.1.3 Gamma decay

2021). This decay mode can be expressed as:

equation and model for each.

2.2 Natural sources of radiation

Human radiation exposure is inevitable. Most of the world’s population exposures to

background radiation released on earth by naturally occurring radioactive materials such as

2.2.1 Cosmic radiation

is not a significant risk to health.

exposed, and on the length of time of exposure.

routinely in the Concorde supersonic transport, or it can be estimated using a computer

2 mSv/y on European short-haul operations from cosmic radiation.

2.2.2 Terrestrial radiation

Terrestrial radiation is created by the process of the natural breakdown of radioisotopes in

2.2.3 Internal radiation

(breathed in) or ingested (eaten).

year. About 73% of a person’s yearly exposure to natural sources of radioactive

largest source of natural radiation exposure.

Naturally occurring radioactive elements such as carbon, potassium, uranium,

mrem) per year. About 9% of a person’s yearly exposure to natural sources of

radioactive material comes from ingestion.

2.3 Measurements of radionuclide concentrations in soil using handheld Dosimeter

well-calibrated NaI(Tl) detector.

of residents to long-term health hazards.

of soil radioactive pollution under different environmental conditions. Impact on agricultural

threshold for workplace exposure (ICRP, 2007).