Health risk assessment of natural background radiation in the soil of Eastern province, Saudi Arabia

Abstract

The activity concentrations of natural radionuclides 238 U, 232 Th, and 40 K in surface soil samples from Eastern Province, Dammam city, Saudi Arabia were measured by gamma spectrometry using (HPGe) detector. The activity concentration average values of the radionuclides 226 Ra, 232 Th, and 40 K in the soil samples ranged from 11. 85-30.43, 5.74-15.97, and 362-469 Bqkg −1, respectively. With overall mean values of 16.73, 10.40, and 419.99 Bqkg −1 respectively. These values are within the world average. The mean value radium-equivalent activity value was 63.93Bqkg −1 , lower the international limit 370Bqkg −1 . The Representative level index (I ɣ ), internal and external hazard index (H in , H ex ) of all samples under study were less than the limit of unity. The absorbed dose rate due to three primordial radionuclides lies in the range of 24.23-39.48 nGyh −1 with a mean of 31.68 nGyh −1 , which yields an annual effective dose of 0.039 mSvy −1 .The mean value of Excess lifetime cancer risk was calculated as 0.14 × 10 −3 which is below the World average (0.29 x 10 −3 ). The results obtained in this study are lower than the world recommended values and are found to be safe for the public and environment.

Assessment of Soil to Cassava Transfer Factor of Radionuclides in Ughelli North Local Government Area, Delta State, Nigeria

“…The results were also compared with those reported in studies conducted in other countries. The mean concentrations were lower than those obtained in Saudi Arabia [34], North of Malaysia [35], Iraq [36] and South Africa [37].…”

Cone beam computed tomography and image registration based on target area for stereotactic body radiation therapy of lung cancer

“…In the current treatment process, there are three main methods for registration of CBCT and original CT images before treatment: skin markers, bony markers, and soft tissue registration. Many people have also done different studies to verify the accuracy of each method (Al-Ghamdi, 2019;Yang et al, 2019), and the results are similar. They all believe that the results obtained by bone mark registration and soft tissue registration are quite different, and the use of bone mark registration is more.…”