4.6 Article

Natural radioactivity of soil in the Baghdad governorate

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES
卷 80, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12665-020-09292-w

关键词

Natural radioactivity; GIS technical; Gamma ray spectroscopy; Baghdad governorate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study collected soil samples from different residential areas in Baghdad to measure the specific gamma-ray activity of naturally occurring radionuclides. Results show that the natural radioactivity lies within the acceptable level, except for one sample that needs further study. GIS tools were used to map the specific activity for all samples in the study.
The radioactive field is important for the human health due to the biologic impact that the radiation might cause (e.g., cancer induction), so it must be studied to see the changes in the doses of human exposure. In this study, 114 soil samples were collected from different locations in residential areas within the Baghdad governorate. The specific gamma-ray activity of the naturally occurring radionuclides U-238, Th-232 and K-40 for soil samples was measured spectroscopically using a NaI(Tl) detector. The results of the Karkh side show that the average value of specific activity of terrestrial gamma radiation (U-238, Th-232 and K-40) was (16.5 +/- 0.9) Bq/kg, (9.7 +/- 0.4) Bq/kg and (368 +/- 11) Bq/kg, respectively. The results of the Rasafa side show that the average value of the specific activity of U-238, Th-232 and K-40 in samples of the present study were (17.4 +/- 1.0) Bq/kg, (9.1 +/- 0.3) Bq/k and (381 +/- 22) Bq/kg, respectively. The results show that across the area, the natural radioactivity lies within the acceptable level as indicated by UNSCEAR 2008. It is subjected to the natural spatial averaging of the estimations, with the except for the sample (R3) which needs future study. GIS tools were used to map the specific activity for all samples in this study, which were divided into two groups: Karkh side and Rasafa side for simplified results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据