Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences

ISSN: (Print) 1687-8507 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/trra20

Measurement of radon concentration in drinking

water and natural radioactivity in soil and their
radiological hazards

Suresh S, Rangaswamy D R, Srinivasa E & Sannappa J

To cite this article: Suresh S, Rangaswamy D R, Srinivasa E & Sannappa J (2020)

Measurement of radon concentration in drinking water and natural radioactivity in soil and their
radiological hazards, Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences, 13:1, 12-26, DOI:
10.1080/16878507.2019.1693175

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/16878507.2019.1693175

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 15 Dec 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 205

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=trra20
JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH AND APPLIED SCIENCES
2019, VOL. 13, NO. 1, 12–26
https://doi.org/10.1080/16878507.2019.1693175

ARTICLE

Measurement of radon concentration in drinking water and natural

radioactivity in soil and their radiological hazards
Suresh Sb, Rangaswamy D Ra,c, Srinivasa Ed and Sannappa J a

a
Department of Studies & Research in Physics, Kuvempu University, Shivamogga, India; bDepartment of Physics, M.P.E Society’s S.D.M
Degree College, Honavar, India; cDepartment of Physics, PES University, Bangalore, India; dDepartment of Physics, IDSG Government
College, Chikmagalur, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Natural radioactivity in soil, rock, building materials, and water is very important for the radi- Received 18 July 2019
ological protection point of view. Radon is one of the carcinogenic radioactive gases. Radon Revised 30 October 2019
causes radiological risk to the public via ingestion and inhalation. The 222Rn activity concentra- Accepted 10 November 2019
tions were estimated in potable water of Uttara Kannada district (Coastal region) using the KEYWORDS
Emanometry technique. Radon activity levels were found to vary from 2.37 ± 0.19 Bql−1 to 171.35 Radon; drinking water;
± 1.96 Bql−1 with a mean value of 22.62 ± 0.82 Bql−1. The majority of the radon levels are within emanometry; annual
the reference level of 100 Bql−1 proposed by WHO and EU Commission. Nearly 55% of the effective dose; coastal Uttara
potable water had radon activity levels exceeds the MCL of 11.1 Bql−1 proposed by USEPA. The Kannada; health hazards
annual average ingestion dose values are lower than the action level of 100 µSvy−1 as proposed
by WHO and EU Commission. The activity concentration of 226Ra, 232Th, and 40K in soil were
estimated by using NaI(Tl) detector-based gamma-ray spectrometry. The average activity of
226
Ra, 232Th, and 40K in soil samples is 36.12, 50.45, and 315.35 Bq kg−1, respectively, and the
activity concentration of 226Ra and 232Th is slightly higher than the world average. The calculated
radiological hazards are well within the world average value.

1. Introduction groundwater is only the dependable freshwater

resource than the surface water. Groundwater qual-
The estimation of natural radioactivity in soil, rock,
ity is much higher than surface water and it con-
building materials, and drinking water is a prime
tains dissolved compounds, minerals, and several
interest for many researchers all over the globe.
naturally occurring radioactive elements in varying
The soil is one of the most essential natural
conc
resources, which is present in the upper layer of
entrations (Rangaswamy, Srinivasa, Srilatha, &
the earth’s crust and is consists of organic matter,
Sannappa, 2016). Uranium, thorium, and actinium
mineral particles, water, air and organisms (ISO
are the three naturally occurring radioactive series
(International Organization for Standardization),
present in water; among these, uranium radioactive
2003). The primordial radionuclides and their
series is dangerous to human health, because it is
decay products are present in almost all types of
chemically toxic as well as radiotoxic (Duenas,
soils, rocks, drinking water and building materials
Fernandez, Carretero, Liger, & Canete, 1999). The
(Rajamannan et al. 2013). The natural radioactivity
concentration of these radioisotopes in water
and the associate external exposure due to gamma
depends on the rock types, presence of faults, vari-
radiation depend mainly on the geological and geo-
ety of minerals present in the rock, porosity-perme-
graphical conditions. The radiological implication of
ability; physicochemical and nature of the
these radionuclides is due to gamma-ray exposure
geological aquifers (Ball, Cameron, Colman, &
of the body and irradiation of lung tissue from the
Roberts, 1991; Bonotto & Caprioglio, 2002;
inhalation of radon and its progenies. Hence, the
Choubey & Ramola, 1997; Jobbagy, Altzitzoglou,
assessment of gamma radiation dose from natural
Malo, Tanner, & Hult, 2017; Lawrence, Poeter, &
sources isparticular importance as the natural radia-
Wanty, 1991). 226Ra, 228Ra, and 222Rn are commonly
tion is the major contributor to the external dose of
occurring radionuclides in the water which causes
the general public (United Nations Scientific
severe health hazards to human health. They dis-
Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
charge α- particles and their respiration and inges-
UNSCER, 1988). Water is absolutely needed for
tion may result in high radioactive dose to delicate
most of all life on this earth. Ground and surface
cells in the respiratory tracts, digestive organs and
water are the freshwater resources that can be uti-
also other organs of the human bodies (UNSCEAR
lized for drinking purposes. In coastal regions,

CONTACT Sannappa J sannappaj2012@gmail.com

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

2000). 222Rn isotope has half-life 3.825 days which is
enough to stay in the atmosphere of the human
environment and causes risk like lung cancer, sto-
mach cancer, and leukemia (Khattak, Khan, Shah, &
Javed, 2011; Srinivasa, Rangaswamy, & Sannappa,
2015; Voronov, 2004). There are two possible ways
in which the potential health risk was caused due to
radon enriched drinking water: first transfer of 222Rn
and its progenies liberated from water into indoor
air and its inhalation, and secondly through direct
intake of dissolved 222Rn in potable water (Kendal &
Smith, 2002; USEPA, 1991; WHO 2011). Considering
the potential health risk of waterborne radon, about
89% of lung cancer caused by inhalation of 222Rn
escaped from water and 11% of stomach cancer
caused by intake of 222Rn contaminated water
(NASR 1999). 222Rn concentration in potable water,
air, and soil have been conducted in many parts of
the world in order to assess the annual effective
dose and to minimize the inauspicious health
hazards of radon on human beings (Abdallah,
Habib, Nuwayhid, Chatila, & Katul, 2007; Cosma,
Moldovan, Dicu, & Kovacs, 2008; Khattak et al.,
2011; Rani, Mehra, & Duggal, 2013; Singh, Singh,
Singh, & Bajwa, 2008; Srinivasa et al., 2015;
Voronov, 2004). Also, radon measurement studies
applied for detecting sources of geothermal energy,
surveying of geological faults and conducting vol-
canic observations, exploration of uranium and
thorium deposits (Gurav, Chandrasekharam, &
Singh, 2015; Khattak et al., 2011; Majumdar,
Majumdar, & Mukherjee, 2000). But there has been
no such study conducted so for in coastal regions
of Uttara Kannada district. Hence, this is an impor-
tant investigation in order to know the 222Rn activ-
ity distribution in potable water and to determine
the total annual equivalent effective dose due to
radon dissolved in water. Further, dose assessment
was carried out to see nonuniformity of radiation
exposure rate to divergent age groups based on the
experimental results. And also to determine the
activity of primordial radionuclides in soil samples
using gamma-ray spectrometry and to estimate the
radiological hazards indices associated with soil
samples.
2. Study area
The study area coastal regions of Uttara Kannada district
are located in Karnataka state of India between north
latitudes13º 55ʹ 02ʹʹ to 15º 31ʹ 01ʹʹ and east longitudes
74º 0ʹ 35ʹʹ to 75º 10ʹ 23ʹʹ. The 144 km long coastline
commences from the village Majali in the North and
runs up to the village Gorte in the South near Bhatkal.
Its width ranges between 16 Km and 48 Km. The geology
of coastal regions of Uttara Kannada composed of diver-
sity in the rock system as well as minerals. The
JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH AND APPLIED SCIENCES 13
geographical conditions are most favorable in the forma-
tion of different types of soils. Heavy rainfall and alter-
native seasons of heat and cold have led to the formation
of lateritic rocks. Such lateritic rocks are the parent mate-
rial of rock types along the coastal belt of Uttara Kannada.
The other common rock types along the study area are
quartzite, Granites, granitic gneisses, metabasalt, and allu-
vium rocks. Minerals such as Iron ore, Bauxite ore, mag-
netite, silicate etc.. The soil types include lateritic soil,
alluvial soil, red loamy soil, and sandy soil. The geological
map of Coastal regions of Uttara Kannada District is as
shown in Figure 1.
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Samples collection and preparation
Sixty-two potable water samples were collected from
dissimilar selected sites in coastal regions of Uttara
Kannada District Karnataka state, India, from June to
September 2017. Out of these, 02 samples were taken
from spring, 01 sample is taken from lake, 13 were col-
lected from bore wells, 06 were collected from hand
pumps, 04 were taken from public taps, 06 were collected
from river, and 30 samples were collected from open well
(Table 1). The representative samples from hand pumps
and bore well (groundwater) have been collected after 10
to 15 min of pumping. While the representative samples
from spring, river, and open well have been taken by
immersing a container fully into the waterbody and
gently closed the cap within water after ensuring no air
bubbles inside the container. From each selected site,
two samples were collected for measuring radon concen-
tration reproducibility. About 250 ml of water was col-
lected in specially designed plastic bottles for dissolved
radon measurements. The collected water samples were
then brought to the laboratory within 24 h and explore
for dissolved 222Rn using the Emanometry method
(Mayya, Eappen, & Nambi, 1998; Stringer & Burnett, 2004).
3.2. Determination of 222Rn by bubbler method
In this work, the Emanometry technique has been
employed for drinking water 222Rn concentration mea-
surements (Raghavayya, Iyengar, & Markose, 1980;
Rangaswamy et al., 2016; Srinivasa et al., 2015; Vitz,
1991). In this method, initially, the bubbler and scintil-
lation cells were evacuated using a vacuum pump and
then 60 to 70 ml of water was transferred into the
bubbler. The dissolved radon was then transferred to
the evacuated scintillation cell by bubbling the water
inside the bubbler. The cell was then kept for 3 h to
build equilibrium between 222Rn and its progeny and
then alpha counted using alpha detecting system. The
schematic diagram of radon bubbler is as shown in the
figure 2. The dissolved 222Rn concentration was calcu-
lated using the formula (Raghavayya et al., 1980).
14 S. J ET AL.
Figure 1. Geological map of the coastal belt of Uttara Kannada District.

6:97  10
2  D
Rn222 Bql
1 ¼
E  V  ð1
e
λST Þ  e
λSt
where D = Net counts, V = Volume of water (l),
E = Efficiency of the scintillation cell (74%), λ = Decay
constant for radon (2.098 9 10−6 s−1), St = Counting delay
after sampling (s), ST = Counting duration (s)
3.3. Radiation dose assessment due to 222Rn
inhalation and ingestion
Inhalation and ingestion are the two possible routes in
which 222Rn in water can get into the human body.
Here, both lungs and stomach are exposed to radon in
(1)
water. The radiation dose to stomach (ingestion)
depends on the daily water consumption. On the
other hand, the radiation dose to lungs depends on
the release of 222Rn gas from water during normal
human activities. Radiation dose to the public from
waterborne radon is considered to be a higher menace
than all other pollutants in water (Vitz, 1991). The
UNSCEAR has established standard formulas to esti-
mate annual effective doses to public (inhalation and
ingestion) from radon in water (UNSCEAR 1993).


EIn μSv  y
1 ¼ CRn  RaW  I  O  K (2)

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of radon bubbler.
where EIn is the effective dose for inhalation, CRn is the
222
Rn concentration in water (Bq l−1 or kBq m−3), RaW is
the ratio of 222Rn in air to 222Rn in water (10−4), I is the
equilibrium factor between radon and its progenies
(0.4), O is the average indoor occupancy time per
individual (7000 ha−1), and K is the dose conversion
factor for radon exposure [9 nSv (Bq h m−3)−1].
The ingestion dose is calculated using the following
formula:

sure time (365 days year−1), respectively. In calculat-
EIng μSv  y
1 ¼ CRn  AW  D (3)
where EIng is the total effective dose for ingestion, CRn is
the 222Rn concentration in water (Bq l−1 or kBq m−3), Aw
is the water consumption (60 la−1) and D is the effec-
tive dose coefficient for ingestion (3.5 nSvBq−1),
respectively.
3.4. Estimation of age-dependent ingestion dose
Radiation dose to stomach due to exposure of 222Rn in
water for individuals of different age groups has been
JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH AND APPLIED SCIENCES 15
calculated using the equation given in the United
Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation (UNSCEAR) (1993) report (UNSCEAR, 1993).


EIng μSv  y
1 ¼ CRn  DWI  F  T (4)
where EIng is the total effective dose for ingestion,
CRn is the 222Rn concentration in water (Bq l−1 or
kBq m−3), DWI is daily water consumption, and F is
dose conversion factor (10−8 Sv Bq−1) and T expo-
ing doses from drinking water intake, the DWI for
the public of different age groups like infants, chil-
dren, males, females, pregnancy, and lactation are
given in Table 3 (NRC, 1999).
4. Estimation of natural radioactivity in soil
4.1. Sample collection and preparation
The soil samples were randomly collected in different
places, which were free from surface runoff during
16 S. J ET AL.

Table 1. Average radon concentration and annual effective doses in drinking water samples from bore wells, open wells, hand
pumps, tap water, spring water, river water and lake water of study area.
222
Rn Annual effective dose (µSv.y−1)
Sl No Place Source (Bq.l−1) Inhal. Lung Inges. Stomach Total
BHATKAL TALUK
1 Shiroor Bore well 17.65 ± 1.40 44.47 5.34 3.71 0.44 48.18
2 Sodegadde Open well 10.69 ± 0.53 26.94 3.23 2.24 0.27 29.18
3 Sodegadde Hand pump 38.86 ± 1.01 92.89 11.15 7.74 0.93 100.63
4 Kodasagadde Open well 9.28 ± 0.48 23.38 2.81 1.95 0.23 25.33
5 Bhatkal Open well 6.48 ± 0.85 16.34 1.96 1.36 0.16 17.7
6 Shirali Open well 25.42 ± 0.87 64.05 7.68 5.34 0.64 69.39
7 Marukeri Open well 12.99 ± 0.16 32.73 3.93 2.73 0.33 35.46
8 Murdeshwara Open well 13.88 ± 0.24 34.97 4.2 2.91 0.35 37.88
9 Murdeshwara Bore well 15.57 ± 0.68 39.23 4.71 3.27 0.39 42.5
10 Basti Open well 24.62 ± 0.63 62.04 7.44 5.17 0.62 67.21
11 Kaikini Bore well 26.70 ± 0.84 67.26 8.08 5.61 0.67 72.87
12 Venkatapur River 4.73 ± 0.62 11.93 1.43 0.99 0.12 12.92
HONAVAR TALUK
1 Vandoor Spring 3.19 ± 0.18 8.05 0.97 0.67 0.08 8.72
2 Ramthirtha Pond 2.58 ± 0.23 6.51 0.78 0.54 0.07 7.05
3 Kenchagar Open well 20.70 ± 0.77 52.17 6.26 4.35 0.52 56.52
4 Najgar Hand pump 8.00 ± 0.47 20.15 2.42 1.68 0.2 21.83
5 Nagarbastikeri Open well 7.63 ± 0.96 19.23 2.31 1.6 0.19 20.83
6 Dibbangal Open well 5.04 ± 0.45 12.7 1.52 1.06 0.13 13.76
7 Anantawadi Bore well 12.12 ± 0.86 30.55 3.67 2.55 0.31 33.1
8 Manki Open well 33.96 ± 1.38 85.57 10.27 7.13 0.86 92.7
9 Ramthirtha Bore well 7.63 ± 0.87 19.23 2.31 1.6 0.19 20.83
10 Honavar Town Tap water 5.18 ± 0.23 13.06 1.57 1.09 0.13 14.15
11 Molkod Hand pump 12.25 ± 0.52 30.88 3.71 2.57 0.31 33.45
12 Gundibal Open well 7.15 ± 0.62 18.03 2.16 1.5 0.18 19.53
13 Duggur Spring 3.34 ± 0.22 8.41 1.01 0.7 0.08 9.11
14 Rajatagiri Bore well 6.31 ± 0.70 15.9 1.91 1.33 0.16 17.23
15 Higunda Open well 5.18 ± 0.61 13.05 1.57 1.09 0.13 14.14
16 Manki town Bore well 171.35 ± 1.96 431.8 51.82 35.98 4.32 467.78
17 Alanki River 2.37 ± 0.19 5.99 0.72 0.5 0.06 6.49
18 Gundabal River 3.07 ± 0.28 7.74 0.93 0.64 0.08 8.38
19 Jaddi Bore well 84.88 ± 1.34 213.89 25.67 17.82 2.14 231.71
20 Chittar cross Bore well 67.30 ± 1.27 169.61 20.35 14.13 1.7 183.74
KUMTA TALUK
1 Holangadde Open well 5.04 ± 0.43 12.7 1.52 1.06 0.13 13.76
2 Heravatta Open well 26.71 ± 1.37 67.31 8.08 5.61 0.67 72.92
3 Madangeri Open well 27.42 ± 0.12 69.1 8.29 5.76 0.69 74.86
4 Maadangeri Bore well 34.92 ± 1.99 87.99 10.56 7.33 0.88 95.32
5 Kumta town Open well 7.04 ± 0.82 17.75 2.13 1.48 0.18 19.23
6 Dhareshwara Open well 29.33 ± 1.65 73.91 8.87 6.16 0.74 80.07
7 Hariniru Open well 19.41 ± 0.67 48.92 5.87 4.08 0.49 53
8 Bergi Open well 10.54 ± 1.37 26.56 3.19 2.21 0.27 28.77
9 Bergi Bore well 43.36 ± 1.24 109.26 13.11 9.11 1.09 118.37
10 Bergi Hand pump 32.98 ± 0.41 83.11 9.97 6.93 0.83 90.03
11 Mirjan Open well 28.53 ± 1.11 71.91 8.63 5.99 0.72 77.9
12 Mirjan Open well 22.62 ± 1.83 57 6.84 4.75 0.57 61.75
13 Aganashini River 4.83 ± 0.23 12.23 1.47 1.02 0.12 13.25
14 Alvekodi Open well 5.22 ± 0.46 13.16 1.58 1.1 0.13 14.26
ANKOLA TALUK
1 Belse Open well 18.50 ± 0.54 46.62 5.59 3.89 0.47 50.51
2 Ankola Tap water 4.87 ± 1.26 8.49 1.47 1.02 0.12 9.51
3 Belse Hand pump 56.83 ± 1.13 143.21 17.19 11.93 1.43 155.14
4 Ankola Open well 49.18 ± 1.14 123.94 14.87 10.33 1.24 134.27
5 Avarsa Hand pump 46.43 ± 1.48 59.07 7.09 4.92 0.59 63.99
6 Gangavali River 3.42 ± 0.43 78.31 9.4 6.53 0.78 84.84
7 Baleguli Bore well 28.52 ± 0.55 16.33 8.62 5.99 0.72 22.32
8 Lakshmishwara Open well 11.93 ± 0.81 30.07 3.61 2.51 0.3 32.57
9 Brahmoor Open well 6.39 ± 0.63 16.1 1.93 1.34 0.16 17.44
KARWAR TALUK
1 Binaga Tap water 5.40 ± 0.39 13.08 1.57 1.09 0.13 14.17
2 Chandiya Open well 38.01 ± 1.26 95.79 11.49 7.98 0.96 103.77
3 Karwar Bore well 45.72 ± 0.96 115.23 13.82 9.6 1.15 124.83
4 Karwar Tap water 6.86 ± 0.75 17.29 2.08 1.44 0.17 18.73
5 Todur Open well 54.48 ± 1.08 101.47 12.18 8.453 1.02 109.92
6 Amadalli Open well 46.84 ± 1.16 26.21 3.14 2.18 0.26 28.39
7 Karwar Kali river 5.16 ± 1.02 13 1.56 1.08 0.13 14.09
Maximum 171.35 ± 1.96 431.8 51.82 35.98 4.32 467.78
Minimum 2.37 ± 0.19 5.99 0.72 0.50 0.06 6.49
Average 22.62 ± 0.82 54.09 6.61 4.59 0.55 58.68

heavy rain, were carefully selected. An area of ∼0.5 m2
was cleared of vegetation and roots. The marked spot
was dug up to a depth of 15 cm and ∼2 kg soil was
collected at each spot. Finally, the samples were mixed
thoroughly and extraneous materials like plants, deb-
ris, big pieces of stones and pebbles were removed
[19]. Composite samples of ∼2 kg were taken and
sealed in a polythene bag. These samples were trans-
ferred to a porcelain dish and oven-dried overnight at
110°C. The samples were powdered by using Mortar
and Pestle, and sieved through 150 µm sieves,
weighted and sealed in a 300 ml plastic container
and kept for a month before counting by gamma
spectrometry in order to ensure that the radioactive
equilibrium was reached between 226Ra, 222Rn, and its
progeny.
4.2. Measurement of natural radioactivity
The gamma spectrometric procedure has been fol-
lowed to determine the activity of 226Ra, 232Th, and
40
K in soil samples. In this study 4ʹʹ × 4ʹʹ NaI(Tl) scintilla-
tion detector has been used for the measurements.
The integrated detector system coupled with a photo-
multiplier tube and preamplifier is connected to the
spectroscopic amplifier and PC-based 1K multi-chan-
nel analyzer. Details regarding activity measurements
are given elsewhere (Babai, Poongothai, &
Punniyakotti, 2013; Shams 2013).
4.3. Estimation of radiation hazards indices
The radiation hazards arise from exposure or intake of
these radioactive materials through inhalation and
ingestion which directly affects living tissue. The
assessments of radiation hazard indices represent
methods for the calculation of the collective impact
of the activity concentration of 226Ra, 232Th and 40K
present in a material in a single quantity. Different
types of hazard indices have been defined, by Beretka
and Mathew (Beretka & Mathew, 1985), UNSCEAR
report (UNSCEAR, 2000), Nordic (Nordic, 2000), and
European Commission (European Commission,
1999). Based on the activity of 226Ra, 232Th, and 40K,
outdoor and indoor indices and corresponding
annual effective doses of soil were calculated.
5. Results and discussion
222
5.1. Rn activity in drinking water
There is no unique guidelines and regulation for drink-
ing water radon concentration in India and World. For
the radiological protection point of view, several inter-
national bureau and organizations have suggested
divergent action limit (Maximum Contamination
Limit) for 222Rn activity concentration in water. In
JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH AND APPLIED SCIENCES 17
1991, as per the safe drinking water act direction,
USEPA has proposed a maximum contamination level
(MCL) of 11.1 Bql−1 (USEPA, 1991) for 222Rn concentra-
tion in groundwater and also in 1999 proposed an
alternative maximum contamination limit of 150
Bql−1 by considering the enhancement of 222Rn activity
concentration in indoor air from water (USEPA, 1991;
Zhuo, Iida, & Yang, 2001). European Union (EU)
Commission recommends the reference level of 100
Bql−1 for public drinking water supplies and 1000 Bql−1
for private water supplies in order to protect the public
from radon exposure (EU, 2001a, 2001b). The World
Health Organization recommended that some refor-
mative action should be required if the 222Rn activity
concentration in drinking water higher than 100 Bql−1
(WHO (World Health Organization), 2011). UNSCEAR
suggested a range of 4–40 Bql−1 (UNSCER 2008) of
222
Rn activity levels in water for human depletion. Till
now, the supervisory authority in India has not set any
maximum contamination level/reference level for
222
Rn in drinking water supplies.
The estimated average 222Rn concentrations and
equivalent effective dose due to inhalation and inges-
tion to the public in the coastal region of Uttara
Kannada district are encapsulated in Table 1. The
222
Rn activity in the drinking water of Bhatkal taluk
ranged from 4.37 ± 0.62 to 38.86 ± 1.01 Bql−1 with a
mean value of 17.24 ± 0.69 Bql−1. In Honnavar taluk,
222
Rn activity concentration varied between 2.37 ±
0.19 to 171.35 ± 1.96 Bql−1 with a mean value of
23.47 ± 0.71 Bql−1. In Kumta taluk, 222Rn activity con-
centration varied between 4.83 ± 0.23 to 43.36 ± 1.24
Bql−1 with an average value of 21.28 ± 0.84 Bql−1. In
Ankola taluk, 222Rn activity concentration varied
between 3.42 ± 0.43 to 56.83 ± 1.13 Bql−1with an
average value of 25.12 ± 0.89 Bql−1. Similarly in
Karwar taluk, 222Rn activity concentration varied
between 5.16 ± 1.02 to 46.84 ± 1.16 Bql−1with an
average value of 28.92 ± 0.94 Bql−1.
In the entire region, the estimated 222Rn activity
levels in different types of drinking water samples
collected along the coastal belt region of Uttara
Kannada district varied between 2.37 ± 0.19 to 171.35
± 1.96 Bql−1 with a mean value of 22.62 ± 0.82 Bql−1
respectively. The mean radon activity levels of different
regions significantly exceeded the MCL of 11.1 Bq.l−1
advised by USEPA (USEPA, 1991). It is also perceptible
that the 222Rn activity levels estimated in 55% of the
drinking water of studied area exceeds the maximum
contamination level of 11.1 Bq.l−1 proposed by USEPA
(USEPA, 1991). The 222Rn activity levels measured in
99.9% of the drinking water of the studied regions are
lesser than the action level of 100 Bq.l−1 proposed by
WHO and EU Commission (WHO (World Health
Organization), 2011; EU, 2001a; EU, 2001b). It is also
evident that 84% of the drinking water samples
showed radon activity levels well within the UNSCEAR
18 S. J ET AL.

maximum endorsed level of 40 Bql−1 (United Nations
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation UNSCER, 2008).
The radon activity concentrations observed in the
water of this study region have been compared with
the outcomes of similar studies carried out in different
parts of the world as shown in Table 2. The average
radon concentrations reported in this region were
marginally higher than those reported in Transylvania
(Romania), Peshawar (Pakistan), Southern Greater
Poland, Greece, Bursa (Turkey), Iran, Rajasthan,
Markandeya command area, and Shimoga.
The radon activity concentration distribution in
drinking water shows a wide variation and it is repre-
sented in Figure 3. The figure reveals that the distribu-
tion is highly unsymmetrical with a long tail and also
indicates that the radon concentration distribution fol-
lows a lognormal pattern. The highest activity of 222Rn
was observed in bore well water taken from Manki of
Honavar taluk this may be due to the presence of grani-
tic gneiss at a depth of 10 m below the lateritic rock.
Higher activity concentration was also observed in the
Bhatkal region because of granitic gneiss at various
depths and the presence of thrusts, faults, and shears
which provide a way for the upward movement of
radon gas. The higher 222Rn activity was observed in
Ankola and Karwar regions was mainly due to the pre-
sence of Dharwar rocks type particularly black granites
and these rocks containing higher activity of primordial
radionuclides 235U, 232Th, and 226Ra (Rangaswamy et al.,
2016; Srinivasa et al., 2015). The lower 222Rn activity
concentration in water was observed at some locations,
this may be due to the underlying bedrock system
attributed by lateritic, gneiss, quartz-chlorite schist,
metabasalt, mica schist, orthoquartzite, and limestone
rocks which contain lower activity concentration of

Table 2. Comparison of radon concentration in drinking water with those reported by other investigators.
Radon concentration in water (Bq.l−1)
Region Range Mean value References
Garhwal Himalaya, India 8.0–3050 510 (Prasad, Prasad, Gusain, & Romala, 2008)
Shimoga, Karnataka state, India 3.1–38.50 13.6 (Rangaswamy et al., 2016)
Peshawar, Pakistan 1.6–18.2 8.8 (Khattak et al., 2011)
Southern Greater Poland 0.42–10.52 1.92 (Henryk, Urszula, Marta, Ewa, & Daria, 2014)
Iran 0.064–49.1 16.2 (Binesh, Mohammadi, Mowavi, & Parvaresh, 2010)
Rajasthan, India 0.5–85.7 9 (Singh et al., 2008)
Transylvania, Romania 0.5–129.3 15.4 (Cosma et al., 2008)
Busan, South Korea 0–300.0 - (Cho, Ahn, Kim, & Lee, 2004)
Markandeya command area 2.21–27.3 9.3 (Somashekar & Ravikumar, 2010)
Bursa, Turkey 1.46–53.64 - (Akar et al., 2012)
Greece 0.8–24.0 5.4 (Nikolopoulos & Louizi, 2008)
Hassan district 0.85–60.74 26.5 (Srinivasa et al., 2015)
Kolar Gold Fields, 3.3–122.9 46.9 (Umesha Reddy et al. 2017)
Coastal regions of Uttara Kannada District 2.37–171.35 22.62 Present study

Figure 3. Distribution of 222Rn concentration of the drinking water samples.

 JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH AND APPLIED SCIENCES 19

radionuclides (Rangaswamy et al., 2014; Srilatha,
Rangaswamy, & Sannappa, 2014). The geological region
with high uranium/radium bearing granite rock (local
geology) and geo-hydrological conditions of the aquifer
are the dependent factors for variation of 222Rn activity
in drinking water (Choubey & Ramola, 1997). 226Ra rich
minerals present along the fractured surface putrefy and
released a 222Rn into the groundwater. The other rea-
sons to explain dissimilarity in the 222Rn concentration
are the heterogeneous depths of water resources and a
different process influences the climate and geo-hydro-
logical nature of the regions (Lefta & Ibrahim, 2013).
5.2. Annual effective dose
The calculated inhalation dose ranged from 5.99 µSvy−1
to 431.80 µSvy−1 with a mean value of 54.09 µSvy−1. The
radiation dose to the lungs from these sources ranges
from 0.72 µSv.y−1 to 51.82 µSvy−1 with a mean value of
6.61 µSvy−1. The calculated annual ingestion dose varies
from 0.50 µSvy−1 to 35.98 µSvy−1 with a mean value of
4.59 µSvy−1. The radiation dose to the stomach from
these sources ranges from 0.06 µSv.y−1 to 4.59 µSvy−1
with a mean value of 0.55 µSvy−1. The total annual
effective dose due to 222Rn inhalation and ingestion
varied between 6.49 µSvy−1 to 467.78 µSvy−1 with a
mean value of 58.68 µSvy−1, respectively. It can be
evident from the above results that there is a greater
probability for bronchial epithelium tissues to become
cancerous than tissues in the stomach walls.
The World Health Organization (WHO, 2004) and the
EU Council (EU, 2001a, 2001b) recommend the action
level for annual ingestion dose received from water con-
sumption of 100 µSvy−1. According to WHO, if the total
annual effective ingestion dose is less than 100 µSvy−1,
then the water is appropriate for consumption purpose
and no further remedial action is necessary; however, if
the dose is more than 100 µSvy−1, then mitigation actions
are needed. The outcomes reveal that the total annual
ingestion dose exposure from the water samples were
well below the reference level of 100 µSvy−1 of WHO and
hence do not cause any health hazards from 222Rn dose
received by water in the study regions [33, 45].
Depending on the annual water consumption, the
ingestion dose was calculated for different age group
peoples in order to know the hazardous health effect
of radon. The calculated total annual ingestion doses
to the people of dissimilar age groups are summarized
in Table 3. The mean ingestion dose exposure to
infants and children due to 222Rn in drinking water
are well within the UNSCEAR and WHO recommended
limit of 100 µSvy−1; this may be due to the fact that
infants and children consume less water than the
adults. The mean ingestion dose exposures to adults
due to radon in water were slightly higher than the
UNSCEAR and WHO endorsed limit of 100 µSvy−1,
respectively (UNSCEAR 2008; WHO, 2004).
5.3. Comparison of radon concentration level on
the basis of drinking water sources
The variation of 222Rn concentration with divergent
water resources are shown in Figure 4. From the figure,
it is clear that 222Rn concentration is highest in ground-
water (water from bore well and hand pump) than the
surface water. This may be due to the fact that the
radionuclides such as 238U and 226Ra are present in
rocks and soil with a variable amount; therefore, the
radon can move freely through porous rocks under
the saturated water tables. When the water comes
from these porous, the radon present in the soil and
rocks can easily dissolve into the water and transferred
along with it. Another reason for the higher radon con-
centration is due to the greater depth of the wells and
hand pumps. The deeper bore wells and hand pumps
allow more water to engage with a considerable thick-
ness of aquifer (Khattak et al., 2011; Xinwei, 2006). The
lower 222Rn concentration in water was noticed in tap
water in contrast to the tube well and hand pump. This
is possibly because of the dissolved radon is disrobed
and get released in the way between the water source
and water sample collection point. Very low 222Rn

Table 3. Annual effective ingestion doses to different age groups due to radon in drinking water.
Annual effective ingestion dose (µSvy−1)
Life stage Age group DWI (L day−1) Min Max GM Avg. SD
Infants 0–6 months 0.7 6 438 35 58 67
7–12 months 0.8 7 500 40 66 77
Children 1–3 years 1.3 11 813 66 107 125
4–12 years 1.7 14 1063 86 140 164
Males 9–13 years 2.4 20 1501 121 198 231
14–18 years 3.3 28 2064 166 272 318
Adults 3.7 32 2314 186 305 357
Females 9–13 years 2.1 16 1313 105 173 202
14–18 years 2.3 19 1438 116 189 222
Adults 2.7 23 1688 136 222 260
Pregnancy 14–18 years 3 25 1876 151 247 289
19–50 years 3 25 1876 151 247 289
Lactation 14–18 years 3.8 32 2376 191 313 367
19–50 years 3.8 32 2376 191 313 367
20 S. J ET AL.

Figure 4. Variation of radon concentration with different sources of water.

activity concentration was observed in the surface
water. The surface water (River, Pond, and lake) are
well exposed and the dissolved radon easily released
to the atmosphere because of the atmospheric tem-
perature variation.
5.4. Natural radioactivity in soil
The activity concentrations of 226Ra, 232Th, and 40K in
soil samples collected in different places in coastal
taluks of Uttara Kannada district are summarized in
Table 4. The Activity concentration of 226Ra in the soil
samples of the study area ranges from 23.30  1.23
Bqkg−1 to 48.69  1.82 Bqkg−1 with a mean value of
36.12  1.41 Bqkg−1. The 232Th concentration varies
from 33.34  1.37 Bqkg−1 to 96.63  2.16 Bqkg−1 with
an average value of 50.45  1.66 Bqkg−1 and activity
concentration of 40K in the samples under investigation
ranges from 182.11  2.01 Bqkg−1 to 522.65  6.72
Bqkg−1 with a mean value of 315.35  3.65 Bqkg−1. It
was observed in this study that in all the samples, 40K
concentration is much higher than the 226Ra and 232Th
concentrations. The natural radioactivity depends on
the activity of primordial radionuclides in parent rock
as well as the type of formation and transfer process
that are involved. The activity concentrations of 226Ra

Table 4. The activity concentrations of 226

Ra, 232
Th, and 40
K in soil samples collected from different places of coastal taluks of
Uttara Kannada district.
Activity of radionuclides (Bq.kg−1)
226 232 40 232
Sl. No. Locations Ra Th K Th/226Ra
1 Marukeri 48.69  1.82 96.63  2.16 413.58  5.65 1.98
2 Gorte 42.50  1.63 51.48  1.74 356.85  3.99 1.21
3 Kaikini 41.60  1.34 70.44  2.02 381.25  3.84 1.69
4 Manki 36.10  1.18 50.24  1.67 340.11  3.95 1.39
5 Najgar 24.30  1.25 36.80  1.44 283.59  2.89 1.51
6 Gunavanti 29.38  1.12 33.34  1.37 182.11  2.01 1.13
7 Heravatta 46.76  1.47 51.40  1.68 223.18  2.14 1.10
8 Alvikodi 23.60  1.17 41.38  1.54 196.32  1.98 1.75
9 Mirjan 28.30  1.29 43.60  1.38 306.42  4.02 1.54
10 Baleguli 23.30  1.23 36.80  1.56 314.45  3.75 1.58
11 Avarsa 34.10  1.57 46.20  1.64 276.48  2.84 1.35
12 Gangavali 29.20  1.46 41.31  1.47 287.67  2.54 1.41
13 Belse 56.87  1.88 46.19  1.63 443.81  5.49 0.81
14 Near Kali bridge 38.96  1.26 54.26  1.87 522.56  6.72 1.39
15 Majali 38.17  1.49 56.65  1.79 201.75  3.01 1.48
Average 36.12  1.41 50.45  1.66 315.35  3.65 1.42
Maximum 48.69  1.82 96.63  2.16 522.65  6.72 1.98
Minimum 23.30  1.23 33.34  1.37 182.11  2.01 0.81
 JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH AND APPLIED SCIENCES 21

and 232Th were found to be highest at Marukeri. The
higher concentration of 226Ra and 232Th in the soil
depends mainly on the mineral compositions of the
parent bedrock present in this area. Except for one,
remaining all the activity concentration of thorium is
higher than radium. The ratio of 232Th to 226Ra was
ranged from 0.81 to 1.98 with a mean value of 1.42.
The mean value can be used as an indicator of the
relative occurrence of uranium and thorium. The world
average value is 33, 45 and 420 Bqkg−1 for 226Ra, 232Th,
and 40K, respectively, and the Indian average value is 29,
64, and 400 Bqkg−1 for 226Ra, 232Th, and 40K, respec-
tively. In the present study, the measured average activ-
ity concentration is 36.12, 50.45, and 315.35 Bqkg−1,
respectively. The activity concentration of both 226Ra
and 232Th is slightly higher than the world average.
The 232Th concentration is also higher than the Indian
average. However, the concentration of 40 K is less than
both world and Indian average.
The mean activity concentrations of 226Ra, 232Th,
and 40K obtained in the present study are compared
with values reported in different parts of India and
other countries as shown in Table 5.
In order to find any synergistic behavior, the correla-
tions between them were drawn. Figures 5 and 6 give
the correlation between 226Ra and 232Th and 232Th and
40
K, respectively. In both the cases, the regression was
found to be linear and positive. The positive correlation
predicts that the samples collected in this region are
geochemically coherent. The correlation coefficient (R2)
between 226Ra and 232Th is 0.32, whereas that between
232
Th and 40K is 0.14.

Table 5. Comparison of the activity of 226Ra, 232Th, and 40K (Bqkg−1) recorded in the literature for different region soil samples.
Activity concentration (Bqkg−1)
226
Country Ra 232Th 40K References
Japan 6–98 2–88 15–990 (Magumi et al.)
Turkey 82.3–167 152–275 1015–1484 (Merdanoglu et al.2006)
China 40.2–442 32.6–88.1 440–913 (Yang et al. 2005)
Spain 13–165 7–204 48–1586 (Baeza et al. 1992)
USA 8–160 4–130 100–700 (Myrick et al.1983)
Greece 1–238 1–193 12–1570 (Anagnostakis et al. 1996)
Namibia 45–48 3–38 42–1100 (Steinhausler et al. 1992)
India (Himachala Pradesh) 21–50 29–92 43–811 (Bara et al. 2011)
India (Andra Pradesh) 8–85 28–248 97–1376 (Sreenivasa et al. 2007)
India (Vishakapatanum) 19–66 61–366 99–1120 (Sartandel et al. 2014)
India(Karnataka) 14.38–50.49 42.2–116.12 388.98–1563.64 (Srilatha et al. 2015)
World average 33 45 420 (UNSCEAR-2000)
India (Coastal Uttara Kannada) 23.30–48.69 33.34–96.63 182.11–522.65 (Present study)

Figure 5. Correlation between 226Ra and 232Th concentrations of the soil samples.
22 S. J ET AL.

Figure 6. Correlation between 232Th and 40K concentrations of the soil samples.

5.5. Radiological characterization correlation between 232Th and Raeq activity concentra-
tions of the soil samples is shown in Figure 7. It shows a
The outdoor and indoor hazard indices and annual
very good positive correlation with a correlation coeffi-
effective dose of soil samples in coastal taluks of
cient of 0.87.
Uttara Kannada district are summarized in Table 6.
The external hazard index (Hex) varies from 0.25 to
The gamma index (Iγ ) in the present study varies from
0.59 with an average value of 0.36. The indoor hazard
0.48 to 0.78 with a mean value of 0.48 which is less
index (Hin) ranges from 0.33 to 0.72 with a mean value
than unity. Hence, the radiation hazard effect is insig-
of 0.46, since these values are less than unity.
nificant to the general public as per European
Therefore, according to Radiation Protection
Commission reports on Radiation Protection
(European Commission, 1999) reports, the soil from
(European Commission, 1999).
these regions were safe and can be used for construc-
The radium equivalent activity in the present study
tion purposes without posing any significant radiolo-
ranges from 89.81 Bqkg−1 to 215.83 Bqkg−1 with an
gical threat to the general public.
average value of 130.33 Bqkg−1. The mean value of Raeq
The absorbed dose rate (Dout) varies from 41.36
activity in the present study is much less than the criter-
nGyh−1 to 98.23 nGyh−1 with a mean value of 60.40
ion limit of 370 Bqkg−1 (Beretka and Methew 1985). The

Table 6. Outdoor and indoor hazard indices and annual effective dose in soil samples of coastal taluks of Uttara Kannada district.
Hazard indices Annual effective dose (mSvy−1)
Raeq Dout Din
Sl No Locations Iγ (Bq kg−1) Hex (nGyh−1) Hin (nGyh−1) Eout Ein ETotal
1 Marukeri 0.78 215.83 0.59 98.23 0.72 184.18 0.12 0.90 1.02
2 Gorte 0.52 141.10 0.39 65.72 0.50 124.28 0.08 0.61 0.69
3 Kaikini 0.62 169.02 0.46 77.78 0.58 146.26 0.10 0.72 0.81
4 Manki 0.48 131.75 0.36 61.31 0.46 115.68 0.08 0.57 0.64
5 Najgar 0.36 96.78 0.27 45.36 0.33 85.52 0.06 0.42 0.48
6 Gunavanti 0.33 89.81 0.25 41.36 0.33 78.28 0.05 0.38 0.43
7 Heravatta 0.49 135.88 0.37 62.02 0.50 117.41 0.08 0.58 0.65
8 Alvikodi 0.35 96.49 0.26 44.13 0.33 82.91 0.05 0.41 0.46
9 Mirjan 0.41 112.10 0.31 52.28 0.39 98.51 0.06 0.48 0.55
10 Baleguli 0.37 97.94 0.27 46.20 0.33 87.07 0.06 0.43 0.48
11 Avarsa 0.44 119.49 0.33 55.25 0.42 104.27 0.07 0.51 0.58
12 Gangavali 0.40 108.41 0.30 50.52 0.38 95.32 0.06 0.47 0.53
13 Belse 0.57 153.99 0.42 72.81 0.58 138.63 0.09 0.68 0.77
14 Near Kali bridge 0.58 153.09 0.42 72.69 0.53 137.29 0.09 0.67 0.76
15 Majali 0.48 133.30 0.36 60.32 0.47 113.57 0.07 0.56 0.63
Average 0.48 130.33 0.36 60.40 0.46 113.95 0.07 0.56 0.63
Maximum 0.78 215.83 0.59 98.23 0.72 184.18 0.12 0.90 1.02
Minimum 0.33 89.81 0.25 41.36 0.33 78.28 0.05 0.38 0.43
 JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH AND APPLIED SCIENCES 23

Figure 7. Correlation between 232Th and Raeq activity concentrations of the soil samples.

nGyh−1, which is less than the population-weighted aver-
age value of global primordial radiation of 59 nGyh−1
(United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effect of
Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), 2000). The measured
gamma radiation level varies from 48.45 nGyh−1 to
85.45 nGyh−1 with a mean value of 65.99 nGyh−1. From
Figure 8, it is evident that there is a good positive corre-
lation between radiation doses measured using portable
survey meter (UR-705) and the calculated dose from NaI
(Tl) detector with a regression coefficient of 0.69.
The indoor absorbed dose rate (Din nGyh−1) ranges
from 78.28 nGyh−1 to 184.18 nGyh−1 with an average
value of 113.95 nGyh−1, which is higher than the world
average background level of 75 nGyh−1 (UNSCEAR, 1988).
The outdoor, indoor, and annual effective doses
vary from 0.05 to 0.12 mSvy−1, 0.38 to 0.98 mSvy−1
and 0.43 to 1.02 mSvy−1 with an average value of
0.07, 0.56 and 0.63 mSvy−1, respectively. The average
values in the present study are quite low as compared
to the value of 1 mSvy−1 as recommended by ICRP

Figure 8. Correlation between gamma absorbed dose measured using a radiation survey meter and that calculated using soil
activity.
24 S. J ET AL.
(ICRP2007). The mean outdoor annual effective dose in
the present study is equal to the world average value
of 0.07 mSvy−1 (UNSCEAR, 2000).
6. Conclusion
It can be inferred from the above results that 55% of the
drinking water of studied area exceeds the MCL of 11.1
Bq.l−1 proposed by USEPA. However, most of the 222Rn
levels are well within the action level of 100 Bq.l−1
suggested by the WHO and the EU Commission. The
heterogeneous distribution of 222Rn in drinking water of
the study regions arises due to divergent geological
aquifers (granites, granitic gneiss, schist, lateritic and
alluvium) and geohydrological parameters. The esti-
mated annual ingestion dose exposure from 222Rn in
drinking water is lesser than the proposed safe limit of
100 µSvy−1 given by WHO and EU Commission for
drinking water. The higher radon activity concentrations
were observed in bore well and hand pump drinking
water samples than the other sources of water. The
annual effective dose received by stomach walls
through ingestion was significantly low when com-
pared to lung tissues due to breathing of waterborne
radon in air. The average activity concentration of 226Ra
and 232Th is slightly higher than the world average. The
calculated radiological hazards are well within the world
average value. Hence, soil samples of these study areas
are safe and it can be used for construction purposes.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to the
Department of Physics, Kuvempu University for providing an
instrumentation facility to carry out the research work and
Dr. M.P. Karki, President M.P.E society for providing research
equipments at Undergraduate Research Center at S D M
Degree College Honavar.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Sannappa J http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4677-5341
References
Abdallah, S. M., Habib, R. R., Nuwayhid, R. Y., Chatila, M., &
Katul, G. (2007). Radon measurements in well and springs
water in Lebanon. Radiation Measurements, 42, 298–303.
Akar, T. U., Gurler, O., Akkaya, G., Kilic, N., Yalcin, S., Kaynak, G.,
& Gundogdu, O. (2012). Evaluation of radon concentration
in well and tap waters in Bursa, Turkey. Radiation
Protection Dosimetry, 150, 207–212.
Anagnostakis, M. J., Hinis, E. P., Simopoulos, S. E., &
Angelopoulos, M. G. (1996). Natural radioactivity mapping
of Greek surface soils. Environment International, 22, 3–8.
Babai, K. S., Poongothai, S., & Punniyakotti, J. (2013).
Determination of environmental radioactivity (238U, 232Th
and 40K) and indoor natural background radiation level in
Chennai City (Tamilnadu State), India. Radiation Protection
Dosimetry, 153, 457–466.
Baeza, A., Rio, M. D., Miro, C., & Paniagua, M. (1992). Natural
radioactivity in soils of the province of Caceres (Spain).
Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 45, 261–263.
Ball, T., Cameron, D., Colman, T., & Roberts, P. (1991). Behavior
of radon in the geological environment: A review.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and
Hydrogeology, 24, 169–182.
Bara, S. V., Arora, V., Chinnaesakki, S., Sartandel, S. J., Bajwa, B.
S., Tripathi, R. M., & Puranik, V. D. (2011). Radiological
assessment of natural and fallout radioactivity in the soil
of Chamba and Dharamshala areas of Himachal Pradesh,
India. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry,
256, 603–607.
Beretka, J., & Mathew, P. J. (1985). Natural radioactivity of
Australian building materials, industrial wastes and by
products. Health Physics, 48, 87–95.
Binesh, A., Mohammadi, S., Mowavi, A. A., & Parvaresh, P.
(2010). Evaluation of the radiation dose from radon inges-
tion and inhalation in drinking water. International Journal
of WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING,
2, 174–178.
Bonotto, D. M., & Caprioglio, L. (2002). Radon in ground-
waters from Guarany aquifer, South America:
Environmental and exploration implications. Applied
Radiation and Isotopes, 57, 931–940.
Cho, J. S., Ahn, J. K., Kim, H. C., & Lee, D. W. (2004). Radon
concentrations in groundwater in Busan measured with a
liquid scintillation counter method. Journal of
Environmental Radioactivity, 75, 105–112.
Choubey, V. M., & Ramola, R. C. (1997). Correlation between
geology and radon levels in groundwater, soil and indoor
air in Bhilangana Valley, Garhwal Himalaya, India.
Environmental Geology, 32, 258–262.
Cosma, C., Moldovan, M., Dicu, T., & Kovacs, T. (2008). Radon
in water from Transylvania (Romania). Radiation
Measurements, 43, 1423–1428.
Duenas, C., Fernandez, M. C., Carretero, J., Liger, E., & Canete,
S. (1999). 226Ra and 222Rn concentrations and doses in
bottled waters in Spain. Journal of Environmental
Radioactivity, 45, 283–290.
EU. (2001a). European union commission recommendation
of 20 December 2001 on the protection of the public
against exposure to radon in drinking water, 2001/982/
Euratom (notified under document number C (2001)
4580). Retrieved from http://eurpa.eu.int/comm/energy/
nuclear/radioprotection/doc.legislation/019280_en.pdf
EU. (2001b). European union commission recommendation
on the protection of the public against exposure to radon
in drinking water supplies. Official Journal of the European
Community, 344, 85–88.
European Commission. (1999). Radiological protection
principles concerning the natural radioactivity of build-
ing materials. Radiation Protection 112, Directorate
General Environment. Author. doi:10.1046/j.1469-
1809.1999.6320101.x
Gurav, T., Chandrasekharam, D., & Singh, H. K. (2015) Trace
element and REE concentrations in the thermal waters, West

Coast Geothermal Province, India. Proceedings World
Geothermal Congress (pp. 19–25), Melbourne, Australia.
Henryk, B., Urszula, P., Marta, S., Ewa, M. B., & Daria, M. (2014).
Radon (222Rn) in underground drinking water supplies of
the Southern Greater Poland Region. Journal of
Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 299, 1307–1312.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization). (2003).
Measurement of radioactivity in the environment–Soil—
Part 1, General guide and definitions.
Jobbagy, V., Altzitzoglou, T., Malo, P., Tanner, V., & Hult,
M. (2017). A brief overview on radon measurements in
drinking water. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity,
173, 18–24.
Kendal, G. M., & Smith, T. J. (2002). Dose to organs and tissues
from radon and its decay products. Journal of Radiological
Protection, 22, 389–406.
Khattak, N. U., Khan, M. A., Shah, M. T., & Javed, M. W. (2011).
Radon concentration in drinking water sources of the
main campus of the university of Peshawar and surround-
ing areas, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Journal of
Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 290, 493–505.
Lawrence, E., Poeter, E., & Wanty, R. (1991). Geohydrologic,
geochemical and geologic controls on the occurrence of
radon in ground water near Conifer, Colorado, USA.
Journal of Hydrology, 127, 67–386.
Lefta, S. H., & Ibrahim, J. H. (2013). Radon concentration of
ground water in Babylon Governorate. Academic Research
International, 4, 260–268.
Majumdar, R., Majumdar, N., & Mukherjee, A. (2000).
Geoelectric investigations in Bakreswar geothermal
area, West Bengal, India. Journal of Applied Geophysics,
45, 187–202.
Mayya, Y. S., Eappen, K. P., & Nambi, K. S. V. (1998).
Methodology for mixed field inhalation dosimetry in mon-
azite areas using a twin cup dose meter with three track
detectors. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 77, 177–184.
Merdanoglu, B., & Altinsoy, N. (2006). Radioactivity concen-
trations and dose assessment for soil samples from
Kestanbol granite area, Turkey. Radiation Protection
Dosimetry, 121, 399–405.
Myrick, T. E., Berven, B. A., & Haywood, F. F. (1983).
Determination of concentrations of selected radionuclides
in surface soil in the U.S. Health Physics, 45, 631–642.
National Academy of Sciences Report. (1999). Risk assessment
of radon in drinking water (pp. 18). Washington: National
Academy Press.
Nikolopoulos, D., & Louizi, A. (2008). Study of indoor radon
and radon in drinking water in Greece and Cyprus:
Implications to exposure and dose. Radiation
Measurements, 43, 1305–1314.
Nordic. (2000). Naturally occurring radiation in the Nordic
countries-recommendations. The Flag-Book Series, the
Radiation Protection Authorities in Denmark, Finland,
Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
NRC. (1999). Risk assessment of radon in drinking water.
National Research Council Report. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press. doi:10.1046/j.1469-
1809.1999.6320101.x
Prasad, G., Prasad, Y., Gusain, G. S., & Romala, R. C. (2008).
Measurement of radon and thoron levels in soil, water and
indoor atmosphere of Budhakedar in Garhwal Himalaya,
India. Radiation Measurements, 43, 375–379.
Raghavayya, M., Iyengar, M. A. R., & Markose, P. M. (1980).
Estimation of radium-226 by emanometry. Bulletin of
Radiation Protection, 3, 11–14.
Rajamannan, B., Viruthagiri, G., & Suresh, J. K. (2013). Natural
radionuclides in ceramic building materials available in
JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH AND APPLIED SCIENCES 25
Cuddalore district, Tamil Nadu, India. Radiation Protection
Dosimetry, 156, 531–534.
Rangaswamy, D. R., Sannappa, J., Srilatha, M. C., Ningappa, C.,
Srinivasa, E., & Chandrashekar, M. S. (2014). Study of radon
concentration in ground water and its potential health
hazards in granite regions of Ramanagara District of
Karnataka State. ISST Journal of Applied Physics, 5, 114–118.
Rangaswamy, D. R., Srinivasa, E., Srilatha, M. C., & Sannappa, J.
(2016). Measurement of radon concentration in drinking
water of Shimoga district, Karnataka, India. Journal of
Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 307, 907–916.
Rani, A., Mehra, R., & Duggal, V. (2013). Radon monitoring in
groundwater samples from some areas of Northern
Rajasthan, India, using a RAD7 detector. Radiation
Protection Dosimetry, 153, 496–501.
Sartandel, S. J., Chinnaesakki, S., Bara, S. V., Krishna, N. S.,
Vinod Kumar, A., & Tripathi, R. M. (2014). Assessment of
natural and fallout radioactivity in soil samples of
Visakhapatnam. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear
Chemistry, 299, 337–342.
Shams, A. M. I. (2013). Radiometric assessment of natural
radioactivity levels of agricultural soil samples collected in
Rakahlia, Egypt. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 156, 59–67.
Singh, J., Singh, H., Singh, S., & Bajwa, B. S. (2008). Estimation
of uranium and radon concentration in some drinking
water samples. Radiation Measurements, 43, 523–526.
Somashekar, R. K., & Ravikumar, P. (2010). Radon concentra-
tion in groundwater of Varahi and Markandeya river
basins, Karnataka State, India. Journal of Radioanalytical
and Nuclear Chemistry, 285, 343–351.
Sreenivasa, R. B., Reddy, K. V. K., Gopal, R. C., Yadagiri, R. P.,
Ram, R. K., & Vidya, S. D. (2007). Natural radioactivity levels
in the soil samples of Khammam District, Andhra Pradesh.
Proceedings of the fifteenth national symposium on envir-
onment (pp 477–483). Coimbatore, India.
Srilatha, M. C., Rangaswamy, D. R., & Sannappa, J. (2014).
Studies on concentration of radon and physicochemical
parameters in ground water around Ramanagara and
Tumkur districts, Karnataka, India. International Journal of
Advanced Science and Technology, 2, 641–660.
Srilatha, M. C., Rangaswamy, D. R., & Sannappa, J. (2015).
Measurement of natural radioactivity and radiation hazard
assessment in the soil samples of Ramanagar and Tumkur
districts, Karnataka, India. Journal of Radioanalytical and
Nuclear Chemistry, 303, 993–1003.
Srinivasa, E., Rangaswamy, D. R., & Sannappa, J. (2015).
Determination of radon activity concentration in drinking
water and evaluation of the annual effective dose in
Hassan district, Karnataka state, India. Journal of
Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 305, 665–673.
Steinhausler, F., & Lettner, H. (1992). Radiometric survey in
Namibia. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 45, 553–555.
Stringer, C., & Burnett, W. C. (2004). Sample bottle design
improvements for radon emanation analysis of natural
waters. Health Physics, 87, 642–646.
Umesha Reddy, K., Ningappa, C., Sannappa, J., Rangaswamy,
D. R., & Srinivasa, E. (2017). Concentration of radon and
physicochemical parameters in ground water around
Kolar gold fields, Karnataka State, India. Journal of
Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 314, 907–915.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effect of Atomic
Radiation (UNSCEAR). (2000). Sources and effects of ionizing
radiation. New York: United Nation.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation (UNSCEAR). (1993). Sources and effects of ionizing
radiation. Report to the general assembly, with scientific
annexes. United Nations sales publication Annex A,
26 S. J ET AL.
Section III, Paragraph 133, Page No. 54. New York: United
Nations.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation UNSCER. (1988). Sources and effects of ionizing
radiation. United Nations Scientific Committee on the
effect of atomic radiation. New York, United Nations.
doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(88)79586-7
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation UNSCER. (2008). Report of the united nations
scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation.
Fifty-sixth Session (10–18 July 2008) (No. 46). United
Nations Publications.
USEPA. (1991). National primary drinking water regulations for
radionuclides. EPA/570/9-91/700. Washington: US,
Governmental Printing Office.
Vitz, E. (1991). Towards a standard method for determining
waterborne radon. Health Physics, 60, 817–829.
Voronov, A. N. (2004). Radon-rich waters in Russia.
Environmental Geology, 46, 630–634.
WHO (World Health Organization). (2011). Guidelines for
drinking water quality. Vol. 1. Recommendations (4th ed.).
Geneva: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2004). Guidelines for
drinking water quality: radiological aspects.
Xinwei, L. (2006). Analysis of radon concentration in drinking
water in Baoji (China) and the associated health effects.
Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 121, 452–455.
Yang, Y.-X., Wu, X.-M., Jiang, Z.-Y., Wang, W.-X., Lu, J.-G., Lin, J.,
. . . Hsia, Y.-F. (2005). Radioactivity concentrations in soils of
Xiazhung granite area, China. Applied Radiation and
Isotopes, 63, 255–259.
Zhuo, W., Iida, T., & Yang, X. (2001). Occurrence of 222Rn,
226
Ra, 228Ra and U in groundwater in Fujain province.
Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 53, 111–120.