4.6 Article

222Rn dose of mine water in different underground uranium mines

Journal

RADIATION PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY
Volume 184, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2021.109468

Keywords

Underground uranium mine; Mine water; Radon; Health risk; Bubbler

Funding

  1. Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), Government of India [ECR/2016/000723]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study conducted in Indian underground uranium mines using smart radon monitor with bubbler kit found that mine water contributes less to the 222Rn dose, with levels well below the limit values. The correlation between 222Rn release rate and water flow rate was established, showing that the mean values of 222Rn doses in different mines were all within safe limits.
This paper describes the method for estimation of the contribution of mine water to 222Rn dose and its health risk using smart radon monitor with bubbler kit in Indian underground uranium mines. A significant positive correlation between 222Rn release rate and the water flow rate was also established in this paper. The geometric means of 222Rn doses in Mine 1 and Mine 3 were found to be 2.3 mu Sv y-1 and 9.6 mu Sv y-1, respectively. The arithmetic means of 222Rn doses in Mine 2, Mine 4, and Mine 5 were found to be 4.9 +/- 4.0 mu Sv y-1, 27.1 +/- 20.2 mu Sv y-1 and 13.7 +/- 2.6 mu Sv y-1, respectively. The mean values of 222Rn doses in the above mines were well below the limit value of 100 mu Sv y-1 reported by the European Council. The average values of excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) in the mines varied from (5.9 +/- 1.1) x 10-3 to (70.0 +/- 53.3) x 10-3. The mean 222Rn-induced lung cancer cases per year per million persons (RnLCC) were found to be far below the limit range of 170-230 x 10-6 recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Therefore, mine water was found to be less contributor to the 222Rn dose in underground uranium mines.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available