2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.06.097
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of gamma radiation and associated radiation hazards in coastal sediments of south east coast of Tamilnadu, India with statistical approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
2

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
1
5
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Figure 2 shows a comparison of the absorbed dose rate of the present study with others reported around the world. The absorbed dose rate evaluated from this current work was found higher than those calculated in Katima (Namibia), India, Egypt, China and UNSCEAR recommended value while lower than those reported for Nigeria, and Henties Bay (Namibia) (Ononugbo et al., 2016; Onjefu et al., 2017 ; Amwaalanga et al., 2019 ; Havikrishnan et al., 2018 ; Sivakumar et al., 2014 ; Atef et al., 2018 ; Xinming and Wuhui, 2018 ; Omeje et al., 2021 ; UNSCEAR, 2000 ). The present study shows that the mean absorbed dose rate is 1.08 times higher than the world recommended limit.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 62%
“…Figure 2 shows a comparison of the absorbed dose rate of the present study with others reported around the world. The absorbed dose rate evaluated from this current work was found higher than those calculated in Katima (Namibia), India, Egypt, China and UNSCEAR recommended value while lower than those reported for Nigeria, and Henties Bay (Namibia) (Ononugbo et al., 2016; Onjefu et al., 2017 ; Amwaalanga et al., 2019 ; Havikrishnan et al., 2018 ; Sivakumar et al., 2014 ; Atef et al., 2018 ; Xinming and Wuhui, 2018 ; Omeje et al., 2021 ; UNSCEAR, 2000 ). The present study shows that the mean absorbed dose rate is 1.08 times higher than the world recommended limit.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 62%
“…In this light, TRI indicated that 43.48% of sampling The mHQ assesses levels of contamination by describing each metal concentration observed in sediments with SQGs. The evaluation of mHQ is of utmost importance since it evaluates the risk of individual metal to the biota and the aquatic environment [52]. With respect to the mHQ values obtained, it was completely unexpected that they showed a significant positive linear relationship with individual heavy metal content, and increased towards the increasing of the content of heavy metals (Figure 8), indicating that the mHQ value is only related to the total concentration of heavy metals and has nothing to do with sediment properties [7].…”
Section: Effect Of Sqg Values On Risk Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Uranium activity was determined based on the gamma-ray emission of 214 Bi at 1763 keV, while thorium activity was determined based on the gamma-ray emission at 2614 keV (decay 208 Tl), and nuclide activity 40 K (specific activity) was calculated directly from the gamma-ray emission at 1460.75 keV (Alshahri, 2017;Devanesan et al, 2020;Harikrishnan et al, 2018;Joel et al, 2020;Maxwell et al, 2020;Ravisankar et al, 2015;Saleh et al, 2013;Sivakumar et al, 2014;SureshGandhi et al, 2014;Ugbede, 2020). Natural radionuclides were determined based on the energy transition after reaching equilibrium for 28 days after preparing the sample in a closed container.…”
Section: Measurement Of Activity Concentration Of Radionuclidementioning
confidence: 99%