Natural and Artificial Radioactivity Concentrations and Health Risks

due to Radionuclides in the Soil of Nevşehir (Cappadocia)

SELİN ÖZDEN, SERPİL AKÖZCAN PEHLİVANOĞLU

Department of Physics

Kırklareli University, Faculty of Science and Literature, Campus of Kayalı, Kırklareli

TURKEY

Abstract: - Natural and artificial radionuclides in the surface soil samples collected from the Nevşehir

(Cappadocia) region were analyzed using gamma spectrometry employing an HPGe detector. Activity

concentrations of 226Ra, 232Th, and 40K range from 58.31 to 77.40 Bq kg−1, 60.56 to 90.97 Bq kg-1, and 796.42 to

1142.8 Bq kg-1, respectively. The values indicate that the activity concentrations of the natural radionuclides in

the soil samples were higher than the world average. Since Turkey is a country greatly affected by the Chernobyl

accident, 137Cs activity concentration was measured to determine whether its effect continues. The activity

concentration of 137Cs ranges from Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA) to 6.88 Bq kg−1. In addition, the radium

equivalent activity, the absorbed dose rate, the annual effective dose equivalent, and the excess lifetime cancer

risk parameters were calculated to determine the radiological effect of natural and artificial radionuclides on the

population in the study area. All values except the radium equivalent activity were found to be above the world

average.

Key-Words: - Radionuclide, Soil, Radioactivity, Gamma spectrometry, Health risks, Pollution

Received: October 16, 2022. Revised: August 14, 2023. Accepted: September 17, 2023. Published: October 17, 2023.

1 Introduction

The main known source of natural radiation is from

radionuclides in the soil to which humans are

constantly exposed [1]. Concentrations of natural

radionuclides vary depending on geological and

geographic features [2, 3]. Terrestrial radionuclides

are dispersed throughout the Earth's crust. Outdoor

exposures from terrestrial radiation sources mainly

originate from the top layer of the soil [3].

The main natural radioactive isotopes 238U,

and 232Th, and their decay products, and 40K produce

significant outdoor exposure [4, 5]. Natural

radionuclides naturally expose humans to radiation.

However, agricultural practices such as fertilization

processes and agrochemical inputs applied to

increase productivity contribute to the increase in the

radioactivity content of the soil [4]. In addition,

radionuclides in phosphate rocks can increase

radioactivity due to phosphogypsum used in building

construction [6]. The distribution of natural

radionuclides in soil depends on the distribution of

radionuclides in rocks. Higher radiation levels are

generally seen in areas with igneous rocks and lower

levels in areas with sedimentary rocks [7].

People are exposed to artificial radiation due

to reasons such as nuclear weapons tests and reactor

accidents. 137Cs is one of the fallout radionuclides

(FRNs) that should be examined due to its half-life

(t1/2=30.2 years) [8]. As a result of the Chernobyl

accident, Turkey is one of the countries exposed to

artificial radionuclide pollution [9]. Determining the

radioactivity in the soil and assessing the long-term

exposure to humans is an important step in taking

precautions. Natural and artificial radionuclides

threaten food safety and harm human health by

transferring from soil to plant [4, 10]. There are

studies on these subjects in the literature in different

regions of the world [11-16]. However, since

radionuclide concentrations differ from region to

region, radionuclide activity concentration and

radiological parameters should be evaluated

separately for each region. The behavior of artificial

radionuclides depends on their chemical form in the

fallout and environmental properties [17]. In addition

to natural radiation, the identification of artificial

radionuclides by Gamma measurements is an

important factor in predicting the fate of current and

future nuclear fallout.

In this study, concentrations of the natural

radionuclides and 137C associated with the Chernobyl

accident in soil were determined for soil samples (0-

8 cm) collected from Nevşehir (Cappadocia), Turkey.

International Journal on Applied Physics and Engineering

DOI: 10.37394/232030.2023.2.14

Seli

n Özden, Serpi

l Aközcan Pehli

vanoğlu

E-ISSN: 2945-0489

144

Volume 2, 2023

Radiological parameters were calculated to estimate

the impact of these health-threatening radionuclides

to which humans are exposed.

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Sampling and Activity Analysis

Nevşehir (Cappadocia) region was preferred as the

study area as it is one of the most touristic and

important regions of Turkey. Nevşehir province is

located at 38o 37' north latitude and 34o 42' east

longitude. It was formed as a result of the eruption of

Cappadocia, Erciyes, Hasandağ and Güllüdağ

volcanoes [18, 19].

Various flint and siliceous layers are

concentrated in places close to Mount Erciyes.

Nevşehir soil consists of volcanic tuffs. There are

metamorphic, volcanic, and sedimentary rocks in

Nevşehir province [20].

Soil samples were collected randomly from

the Nevşehir (Cappadocia) region (Fig. 1). The

samples were dried at 105 oC for approximately 2

days to lose moisture. Before gamma spectrometry

analysis, 250 g soil samples were placed in containers

for more than 30 days to allow 226Ra and daughter

products to reach equilibrium [21].

Gamma spectra were obtained using Maestro

and and GammaVision software program. Gamma-

ray spectrometry measurements were performed with

a p−type HPGe detector. A soil-mixed source

(Isotope Product Laboratories) was used as a

reference material for calibration. Each sample was

counted for at least a day. The gamma-ray peak

energies and daughter radionuclides used for

measurements are listed in Table 1.

Fig. 1: Study area (Nevşehir, Cappadocia Region,

Turkey)

Table 1. The gamma-ray peak energies and daughter

radionuclides used for the measurement

Radionuclide

Daughter

nuclide

ɤ-ray

energies

(keV)

226Ra

214Pb

351.9

214Bi

609.3

232Th

228Ac

911.2

208Tl

583.1

40K

1460.8

137Cs

661.66

The activity concentrations (A) were

calculated in Bq kg-1 by the following equation:

  

 (1)

In equation C, m, ɛ, Iγ, are the net gamma counting

rate, the sample mass (kg), the detector efficiency,

and the gamma-ray emission probability,

respectively.

2.2 Radiological Hazards

Radiological parameters were investigated to the

dose rates received by people living in the Nevşehir

(Cappadocia) region and to estimate the radiological

hazard. The radium equivalent activity (Raeq)

(Bq kg-1), the absorbed dose rate (D) (nGy h−1), the

annual effective dose equivalent (AEDE) (μSv y-1)

and the excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) were

calculated using the following equations:

        (2)

      

 (3)

  󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜  

󰇛󰇜   (4)

   (5)

where ARa, ATh, and AK are the activities of

226Ra, 232Th, and 40K, respectively. RF is the risk

factor (0.057) and DL is the average lifetime duration

(70 years).

3 Results and Discussion

226Ra and 232Th activity concentrations are shown in

Fig. 2. The average 226Ra activity concentration was

found to be 66.99 Bq kg-1. 226Ra activity

concentration varies between 58.31 and 77.40 Bq

International Journal on Applied Physics and Engineering

DOI: 10.37394/232030.2023.2.14

Seli

n Özden, Serpi

l Aközcan Pehli

vanoğlu

E-ISSN: 2945-0489

145

Volume 2, 2023

kg−1. All 226Ra activity concentrations found for soil

samples were higher than the world average value of

35 Bq kg-1 [22]. The average 232Th activity

concentration was found to be 72.54 Bq kg-1. 232Th

activity concentration varies between 60.56 and

90.97 Bq kg-1. The average 232Th activity

concentration and 232Th activity concentration values

were higher than the world average value of 30 Bq

kg-1 [22]. 226Ra and 232Th activity concentrations were

observed in almost the same value range, which

represents the similarities in the geological features.

The correlation of 232Th and 226Ra is applied to

evaluate the maintenance of proportionality within

the 238U decay series [23]. A significant positive

correlation (R = 0.82, R2=0.67) was obtained

between 226Ra and 232Th (Fig. 3).

Fig. 2: Activity concentrations of 232Th and 226Ra in

Nevşehir (Cappadocia) Region

Fig. 3: The correlation between 226Ra and 232Th

The 40K activity concentration values are

shown in Fig. 4. The highest activity concentration

was found to be 1142.8 Bq kg-1 and the lowest

activity concentration was 796.42 Bq kg-1. The

average 40K activity concentration was found to be

966.65 Bq kg-1. All calculated 40K activity

concentration values are higher than the world

average (400 Bq kg-1) [22]. The geological structure

of the studied region consists of volcanic rocks,

which are especially rich in natural radionuclides

[24]. The high concentration of 40K activity in the

region is due to the high presence of this radionuclide

in volcanic rocks [25]. The use of inorganic fertilizers

also increases the activity [4, 26]. It is estimated that

lower radionuclide concentrations were sampled

from regions with sedimentary rocks [27].

Fig. 4: Activity concentrations of 40K in Nevşehir

(Cappadocia) Region

In addition to natural radionuclides, artificial

radionuclide analysis was also performed for the

studied region. 137Cs artificial radionuclide varies

between MDA and 6.88 Bq kg-1 (Fig. 5). The

distribution of 137Cs depends on regional topography

and meteorological factors. The fact that the 137Cs

radionuclide is in a certain range is due to the small

size of the study area and the topography does not

change significantly in the region. High levels of

137Cs may depend on the following features:

migration, soil organic matter substance, and soil

texture [25].

Fig. 5: Activity concentrations of 137Cs in Nevşehir

(Cappadocia) Region

International Journal on Applied Physics and Engineering

DOI: 10.37394/232030.2023.2.14

Seli

n Özden, Serpi

l Aközcan Pehli

vanoğlu

E-ISSN: 2945-0489

146

Volume 2, 2023

In a study performed in Nevşehir, the activity

concentrations of 226Ra, 232Th, 40K, and 137Cs were

found to be in the range of 7.40–193.90, <2.8–

122.50, 37.67–1370.20, and 0.10–52.60 Bq kg−1,

respectively [28]. In this study, the activity

concentration in most soil samples was found to be

higher than in the study conducted in 2020. In Küçük

Menderes Basin-Turkey, the activity concentrations

were found to be in the range of 12.63 – 72.51 (26Ra),

11.45 –58.12 (232Th), 234.8 – 1058.52 (40K), 2.31 –

7.75 (137Cs) Bq kg−1 [29]. In Bolu-Turkey, the

activity concentrations of 226Ra, 232Th, 40K, and 137Cs

in soil samples were found to be 3.8–49.9, 4.1–37.9,

64.6–518.9, and 0.6–43.6 Bq kg−1, respectively [30].

In a study performed in Ankara-Turkey, the activity

concentrations of 226Ra, 232Th, 40K, and 137Cs were

determined as in the range of 6–186, 2–181, 23–

1355, 0.5–20.9 Bq kg−1, respectively [31]. The

activity concentrations in this study are almost in the

same range as those obtained in Küçük Menderes

Basin, Ankara, and Bolu. The highest values of 226Ra

and 232Th activity concentrations in this study are

higher than the highest values obtained in Bolu and

Küçük Menderes Basin. The highest 40K activity

concentration in this study is lower than the highest

40K activity concentration calculated for the soil

samples in Ankara.

The activity concentrations of 226Ra in this

study were found to be higher than the study

performed in Yerevan-Armenia (0.02-18.20 Bq kg-1),

Toplica-South Serbia (3.3-48.2 Bq kg-1), India

(14.59-50.49 Bq kg-1), Gorgan Region-Iran (10.59-

29.54 Bq kg-1) and Lahore-Pakistan (24.73-28.17 Bq

kg-1) [32-36]. 232Th activity concentrations in this

study were found higher than in Yerevan-Armenia

(0.02-58.19 Bq kg-1), Gorgan Region-Iran (11.16-

43.19 Bq kg-1), Toplica-South Serbia (0.9-58.9 Bq

kg-1) and Lahore-Pakistan (45.46-52.61 Bq kg-1) [32-

33, 35-36]. The highest 232Th activity concentration

in this study was found lower than the 232Th activity

concentration in India (116.12 Bq kg-1) and Ethiopia

(167 Bq kg-1) [34, 37]. The activity concentrations of

40K in this study were found to be higher than the

study determined in Yerevan-Armenia (0.35-374.80

Bq kg-1), Gorgan Region-Iran (261.69-562.88 Bq kg-

1), Lahore-Pakistan (524.84-601.62 Bq kg-1), and

Ethiopia (94-540 Bq kg-1) [32, 35-37]. The highest

activity concentration of 40K in the present study was

found lower than the 40K activity concentration in

India (1563 Bq kg-1) [34]. The highest activity

concentration of 137Cs in soil samples in Toplica-

South Serbia (83.3 Bq kg-1), Yerevan-Armenia

(80.45 Bq kg-1), Gorgan Region-Iran (12.72 Bq kg-1)

were found higher than the highest activity

concentration of 137Cs in this study [32-33, 35].

The average natural radionuclide activity

concentrations in this study were found to be higher

than the average activity concentrations in Saudi

Arabia (7.64 Bq kg−1 for 226Ra, 3.76 Bq kg−1 for 232Th,

and 174 Bq kg−1 for 40K), in Wadi Al-Hussini Yemen

(61.95 Bq kg−1 for 226Ra, 32.33 and for 232Th), in

Tuban Yemen (65.20 Bq kg−1 for 226Ra, and 50.95 Bq

kg−1 for 232Th), in Iraq (11.17 Bq kg−1 for 226Ra, 13.38

Bq kg−1 for 232Th, and 158.36 Bq kg−1 for 40K), in

North-central Sicily, Italy (30 Bq kg−1 for 226Ra and

227 Bq kg−1 for 40K), Greece (28.3 Bq kg−1 for 226Ra,

35.4 Bq kg−1 for 232Th, and 444.2 Bq kg−1 for 40K),

and Bulgaria (31.7 Bq kg−1 for 226Ra, 39.9 Bq kg−1 for

232Th, and 467.2 Bq kg−1 for 40K) [38-42]. Some

activity concentration values in this study were found

to be lower than in soil samples analyzed in Italy,

Greece and Spain. In a study performed in the

Calabria region (South of Italy), 226Ra activity

concentration varied between 52.9 and 885.9 Bq kg−1

[43]. In a study performed in Italy (Caprarola

municipality), 226Ra, 232Th and 40K concentrations

range from 83 to 318 Bq kg-1, from 146 to 481 Bq kg-

1 and from 317 to 1236 Bq kg-1, respectively

[44]. Studies showed that high radionuclide

concentrations occur in tuffs, phreatomagmatic facies

and volcanic rocks [44, 45]. High activity

concentrations were observed due to the volcanic

nature of Lesvos, Greece (90 Bq kg−1 for 226Ra, 190

Bq kg−1 for 232Th, 960 Bq kg−1 for 40K, and 70 Bq kg−1

for 137Cs) [46]. In addition, in a study performed in

Western Canary Islands (Spain), which has a basaltic

and felsic volcanic rock structure, activity

concentrations 40K, 226Ra and 232Th were determined

as in the range of 52.0–1240.1, 7.0–71.0, 8.1–147.5

Bq kg−1, respectively [47].

Fig. 6: Radiological hazards Raeq (Bq kg-1), D (nGy

h-1), and AEDE (μSv y-1) in soils

Radiological hazard parameters were

calculated to obtain the potential threat due to

International Journal on Applied Physics and Engineering

DOI: 10.37394/232030.2023.2.14

Seli

n Özden, Serpi

l Aközcan Pehli

vanoğlu

E-ISSN: 2945-0489

147

Volume 2, 2023

radioactivity in soil. Radiological hazard values are

shown in Fig.6 and Fig. 7. Raeq was calculated to

determine the total amount of radiation exposure

from the natural radionuclides. Raeq ranged from

210.16 to 295.48 Bq kg-1 and the average was

calculated as 245.16 Bq kg-1. The average of Raeq and

all estimated values of Raeq were less than the

recommended value (370 Bq kg−1). The lowest and

highest values of the radiological parameter D,

calculated using activity concentration values, were

calculated as 98.89 nGy h-1 and 138.43 nGy h-1,

respectively.

The average of D (115.14 nGy h-1) and all

calculated values of D were higher than the world

average (57 nGy h−1). In addition, AEDE was

calculated to evaluate the level of health effects.

AEDE ranged from 121.27 to 169.77 μSv y-1, and the

average of AEDE determined as 141.20 μSv y-1. All

AEDE results calculated for soil samples were higher

than the world average of 70 μSv y-1. ELCR was used

to estimate the amount of cancer risk caused by

exposure to ionizing radiation. As seen in Fig. 7, all

ELCR values were higher than the world average

(0.29 × 10−3) [22]. The fact that D, AEDE, and ELCR

parameters were found higher than the world average

and recommended safety values that soil use in the

study area is not radiologically safe and can lead to

comparatively higher gamma doses for the

population of that area. Therefore, continuous

radiological monitoring of the soil to protect the

health of the population is necessary.

Fig. 7: ELCR values in soils and the world average

4 Conclusion

Natural and artificial radionuclide analyses of surface

soil samples were carried out for the Nevşehir

(Cappadocia) region, which is one of the most

touristic regions of Turkey and has volcanic and

sedimentary soil characteristics. Natural radioactivity

concentrations were above the world average. The

reason why natural radionuclides are found above the

world average is that volcanic rocks are dominant in

the geological structure of the study area. 137Cs, an

artificial radionuclide, is not found in high amounts

compared to other studies in the literature, but its

presence in small amounts in the region indicates that

it may have harmful effects on health. In addition, the

calculated radiological parameters (D, AEDE, and

ELCR) are above the world average, indicating that

the population in this region is in radiological danger

and will pose a health risk with long-term exposure.

The main result of the present study is that

the results obtained constitute the first data on the

Cappadocia region, which still has a volcanic and

complex geological structure. As a preliminary study

in this region, the present study shows that the natural

radionuclide concentrations in the soils of the region

are higher than the permissible limit values and it

should not be forgotten that many studies on

radioactivity should be carried out in this area.

However, continuous radiological monitoring of the

regions is encouraged to control variations in

radionuclide concentrations due to different factors

such as seasonal variations, geological structure, etc.

Radioactivity monitoring studies should be carried

out in important tourism regions of Turkey such as

Cappadocia. It is thought that the presented results

will constitute reference data and will be useful for

the future radioactivity map of Turkey.

In our future studies, we plan to use ARIMA and

Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) methods together.

This is because the use of MCS saves time, financial

resources, and effort by avoiding the preparation of

standard solutions with various isotopes. Also the

proposed simulation models are useful for other

hazardous substances in environmental systems. In

addition, ARIMA and MCS have been shown to

work well even for low-activity radionuclides in our

previous studies.

Acknowledgement:

Use of facilities at the Central Research Laboratory

of Kırklareli University for HPGe detector is

acknowledged.

References:

[1] A. Kumar, S. Kumar, J. Singh, P. Singh, B. S.

Bajwa, “Assessment of natural radioactivity

levels and associated dose rates in soil samples

from historical city Panipat, India” Journal of

radiation research and applied

sciences, Vol.10, No.3, 2017, pp. 283-288.

International Journal on Applied Physics and Engineering

DOI: 10.37394/232030.2023.2.14

Seli

n Özden, Serpi

l Aközcan Pehli

vanoğlu

E-ISSN: 2945-0489

148

Volume 2, 2023

[2] F. C. A. Ribeiro, J. I. R. Silva, E. S. A. Lima, N.

M. B. do Amaral Sobrinho, D. V. Perez, D. C.

Lauria, “Natural radioactivity in soils of the state

of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil): Radiological

characterization and relationships to geological

formation, soil types and soil properties”,

Journal of environmental radioactivity,

Vol.182, 2018, pp. 34-43.

[3] L. A. Alasadi, A. A. Abojassim, “Mapping of

natural radioactivity in soils of Kufa districts,

Iraq using GIS technique”, Environmental Earth

Sciences, Vol.81, No.10, 2022.

[4] F. O. Ugbede, O. D. Osahon, A. F. Akpolile,

“Natural radioactivity levels of 238U, 232Th

and 40K and radiological risk assessment in

paddy soil of Ezillo rice fields in Ebonyi State,

Nigeria”, Environmental Forensics, Vol.23,

No.1-2, 2022, pp. 32-46.

[5] R. Osman, Y. H. Dawood, A. Melegy, M. S. El-

Bady, A. Saleh, A. Gad, “Distributions and risk

assessment of the natural radionuclides in the

soil of Shoubra El Kheima, South Nile Delta,

Egypt”, Atmosphere, Vol.13, No.1, 2022, pp.

98.

[6] N. Ahmad, M. Jaafar, M. Alsaffar, “Natural

radioactivity in virgin and agricultural soil and

its environmental implications in Sungai Petani,

Kedah, Malaysia”, Pollution, Vol.1, No.3, 2015,

pp. 305-313.

[7] G. Song, D. Chen, Z. Tang, Z. Zhang, W. Xie,

“Natural radioactivity levels in topsoil from the

Pearl river delta zone, Guangdong, China”,

Journal of environmental radioactivity,

Vol.103, No.1, 2012, pp. 48-53.

[8] L. Mabit, M. Benmansour, D. E. Walling,

“Comparative advantages and limitations of the

fallout radionuclides 137Cs, 210Pbex and 7Be

for assessing soil erosion and sedimentation”,

Journal of environmental radioactivity, Vol.99,

No.12, 2008, pp. 1799-1807.

[9] E. Kapdan, H. Taskin, E. Kam, A. E.

Osmanlioğlu, G. Karahan, A. Bozkurt, “A study

of environmental radioactivity measurements

for Cankiri, Turkey”, Radiation Protection

Dosimetry, Vol.150, No.3, 2012, pp. 398-404.

[10] Y. M. Hassan, H. M. Zaid, B. H. Guan, M. U.

Khandaker, D. A. Bradley, A. Sulieman, S. A.

Latif, (2021). “Radioactivity in staple foodstuffs

and concomitant dose to the population of

Jigawa state, Nigeria”, Radiation Physics and

Chemistry, Vol.178, 2021.

[11] A. Faanu, D. O. Kpeglo, M. Sackey, E. O.

Darko, G. Emi-Reynolds, H. Lawluvi, R.

Awudu, O. K. Adukpo, C. Kansaana, I. D. Ali,

B. Agyeman, L. Agyeman R. Kpodzro, (2013).

“Natural and artificial radioactivity distribution

in soil, rock and water of the Central Ashanti

Gold Mine, Ghana”, Environmental earth

sciences, Vol.70, 2013, pp. 1593-1604.

[12] L.P. de Castro, V.A. Maihara, P.S.C. Silva,

R.C.L. Figueira, “Artificial and natural

radioactivity in edible mushrooms from Sao

Paulo, Brazil”, Journal of Environmental

Radioactivity, Vol.113, 2012, pp. 150-154.

[13] M. Hannan, K. Wahid, N. Nguyen, “Assessment

of natural and artificial radionuclides in Mission

(Texas) surface soils”, Journal of

Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry,

Vol.305, 2015, pp. 573-582.

[14] N. Zaim, H. Atlas, “Assessment of radioactivity

levels and radiation hazards using gamma

spectrometry in soil samples of Edirne, Turkey”,

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear

Chemistry, Vol.310, 2016, pp. 959-967.

[15] B. B. Babatunde, F. D. Sikoki, I. Hart, “Human

health impact of natural and artificial

radioactivity levels in the sediments and fish of

Bonny Estuary, Niger Delta, Nigeria”,

Challenges, Vol.6, No.2, 2015, pp. 244-257.

[16] S. Aközcan, S. Mancini, S. Özden, V. Venuti, F.

Caridi, G. Paladini, M. Guida, “Comparison of

Radioactivity and Metal Pollution

Concentrations in Marine Sediment Samples

Obtained from the Aegean Sea (Turkey) and the

Calabria Region (Italy)”, WSEAS Transactions

On Environment And Development, Vol.19,

2023, pp. 591-596.

[17] A. Konoplev, “Fukushima and Chernobyl:

Similarities and Differences of Radiocesium

Behavior in the Soil–Water Environment”,

Toxics, Vol.10, No.10, 2022, pp. 578.

[18] H. M. Yilmaz, M. Yakar, O. Mutluoglu, M. M.

Kavurmaci, K. Yurt, “Monitoring of soil erosion

in Cappadocia region (Selime-Aksaray-

Turkey)”, Environmental Earth Sciences,

Vol.66, 2012, pp. 75-81.

[19] M. C. Bağdatlı, E. Can, (2021). “Spatial

evaluation of land and soil properties in the

example of Nevşehir province, Turkey”,

International Journal of Engineering

Technologies and Management Research,

Vol.8, No.7, 2021, pp. 90-103

[20] Ş. Turhan, “Radiological assessment of urban

soil samples in the residents of a central

Anatolian volcanic province, Turkey”,

International Journal of Environmental Health

Research, 2022, pp. 1-14.

[21] S. Özden, S. Aközcan, “Natural radioactivity

measurements and evaluation of radiological

hazards in sediment of Aliağa Bay, İzmir

International Journal on Applied Physics and Engineering

DOI: 10.37394/232030.2023.2.14

Seli

n Özden, Serpi

l Aközcan Pehli

vanoğlu

E-ISSN: 2945-0489

149

Volume 2, 2023

(Turkey)”, Arabian Journal of Geosciences,

Vol.14, No.64, 2021, pp. 1-14.

[22] UNSCEAR, Report to General Assembly with

Scientific Annexes, United Nations, New York,

2000.

[23] A. Navas, J. Soto, J. Machın, “238U, 226Ra,

210Pb, 232Th and 40K activities in soil profiles

of the Flysch sector (Central Spanish

Pyrenees)”, Applied Radiation and Isotopes,

Vol.57, No.4, 2022, pp. 579-589.

[24] P. İsel, L. Sahin, N. Hafızoğlu, E. Ganioğlu, A.

Mülayim, “Natural and artificial radioactive

pollution in sediment and soil samples of the

Bosphorus, Istanbul”, Environmental Science

and Pollution Research, Vol.30, No.27, 2023,

pp. 70937-70949.

[25] G. Top, Y. Örgün, I. E. Ayazlı, M. Belivermiş,

Z. Karacık, G. Kampfl, “Determination of Ra-

226, Th-232, K-40 and Cs-137 activities in soils

and beach sands and related external gamma

doses in Arikli mineralization area

(Ayvacik/Turkey)”, Radiation protection

dosimetry, Vol.193, No.3-4, 2021, pp. 137-154.

[26] S. Özden, (2022). “Assessment of natural

radioactivity levels and radiological hazard

parameters of soils collected from Bulgaria–

Turkey border region”, The European Physical

Journal Plus, Vol.137, No.1368, 2022, pp.1-13.

[27] A. Al-Haydari, E. S. Al Sharabi, M. H. Al

Buhairi, “Determination of specific activity of

226Ra, 232Th and 40K for assessment of

environmental hazards”, Radiation protection

dosimetry, Vol.148, No.3, 2012, pp. 329-336.

[28] N. Bingöldağ, P. Otansev, “Spatial distribution

of natural and artificial radioactivity

concentrations in soil samples and statistical

approach, Nevşehir, Turkey”, Radiochimica

Acta, Vol.108, No.11, 2020, pp. 913-921.

[29] S. Aközcan, “Natural and artificial radioactivity

levels and hazards of soils in the Kücük

Menderes Basin, Turkey”, Environmental earth

sciences, Vol.71, No.10, 2014, pp. 4611-4614.

[30] S. Dizman, F. K. Görür, R. Keser, O. Görür,

(2019). “The assessment of radioactivity and

radiological hazards in soils of Bolu province,

Turkey”, Environmental Forensics, Vol.20,

No.3, 2019, pp. 211-218.

[31] E. Kapdan, N. Altinsoy, G. Karahan, A. Yuksel,

“Outdoor radioactivity and health risk

assessment for capital city Ankara, Turkey”,

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear

Chemistry, Vol.318, 2018, pp. 1033-1042.

[32] O. Belyaeva, N. Movsisyan, K. Pyuskyulyan, L.

Sahakyan, G. Tepanosyan, A. Saghatelyan,

“Yerevan soil radioactivity: Radiological and

geochemical assessment”, Chemosphere,

Vol.265, No. 129173, 2021.

[33] V. Stevanović, L. Gulan, B. Milenković, A.

Valjarević, T. Zeremski, I. Penjišević,

“Environmental risk assessment of radioactivity

and heavy metals in soil of Toplica region, South

Serbia”, Environmental geochemistry and

health, Vol.40, 2018, pp. 2101-2118.

[34] M. C. Srilatha, D. R. Rangaswamy, J. Sannappa,

“Measurement of natural radioactivity and

radiation hazard assessment in the soil samples

of Ramanagara and Tumkur districts,

Karnataka, India”, Journal of Radioanalytical

and Nuclear Chemistry, Vol.303, 2015, pp. 993-

1003.

[35] R. Pourimani, S. M. Mortazavi Shahroodi,

“Analysis of environmental radioactivity of soil

and water at the source of Qarasu river along

Drazno in Gorgan region of Iran”, In Third

National Conference on Biotechnology

Innovation and Technology”, Iranian

Chemistry, Tehran. 2021.

[36] N. Akhtar, M. Tufail, M. Ashraf, M. M. Iqbal,

“Measurement of environmental radioactivity

for estimation of radiation exposure from saline

soil of Lahore, Pakistan”, Radiation

measurements, Vol.39, No.1, 2005, pp. 11-14.

[37] T. Abate, (2022). “The activity concentrations

of radionuclides 226Ra, 232Th and 40K of soil

samples in the case of Metekel Zone, Ethiopia”,

EPJ Nuclear Sciences & Technologies, Vol.8,

No.14, 2022.

[38] F. Alshahri, “Natural and anthropogenic

radionuclides in urban soil around non-nuclear

industries (Northern Al Jubail), Saudi Arabia:

assessment of health risk”, Environmental

Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 26, No.36,

2019, pp. 36226-36235.

[39] M. Taher Hussien, G. Salaheldin, H. Salaheldin

Mohamed, H. Mansour, “Distribution of natural

radionuclides and their radiological risks on

agricultural soil samples collected from

Yemen”, Pollution, Vol. 9, No.1, 2023, pp. 195-

210.

[40] L. A. Najam, A. I. Yaseen, “Evaluation of

Radioactivity in Soil Sample from Al-Hadbaa

Cement Plant in Nineveh Governorate, Iraq”,

Aro-The Scientific Journal of Koya University,

Vol.11, No.2, 2023, pp. 83-88.

[41] G. Lanzo, S. Rizzo, E. Tomarchio, “A

radiometric and petrographic interpretation of

discrepancies on uranium content in samples

collected at Alte Madonie Mounts region

(Sicily, Italy)”, Journal of environmental

radioactivity, Vol.129, 2014, pp. 73-79.

International Journal on Applied Physics and Engineering

DOI: 10.37394/232030.2023.2.14

Seli

n Özden, Serpi

l Aközcan Pehli

vanoğlu

E-ISSN: 2945-0489

150

Volume 2, 2023

[42] A. Shahrokhi, G. Szeiler, H. Rahimi, T. Kovács,

“Investigation of natural and anthropogenic

radionuclides distribution in arable land soil of

south eastern European countries”, Int. J. Sci.

Engineer. Res, Vol.5, No.11, 2014, pp. 445-449.

[43] F. Caridi, S. Marguccio, G. Durante, R. Trozzo,

F. Fullone, A. Belvedere, M. D’Agostino, G.

Belmusto, “Natural radioactivity measurements

and dosimetric evaluations in soil samples with

a high content of NORM”, The European

Physical Journal Plus, Vol.132, 2017.

[44] F. Giustini, L. Ruggiero, A. Sciarra, S.E.

Beaubien, S. Graziani, G. Galli, L. Pizzino, M.

C. Tartarello, C. Lucchetti, P. Sirianni, P.

Tuccimei, M. Voltaggio, S. Bigi, G. Ciotoli,

“Radon hazard in central Italy: Comparison

among areas with different geogenic radon

potential”, International Journal of

Environmental Research and Public Health,

Vol.19, No.2, 2022, pp.666.

[45] B. Capaccioni, G. Cinelli, D. Mostacci, L.

Tositti, “Long-term risk in a recently active

volcanic system: Evaluation of doses and indoor

radiological risk in the quaternary Vulsini

Volcanic District (Central Italy)”, Journal of

Volcanology and Geothermal Research,

Vol.247, 2012, pp. 26-36.

[46] F. K. Pappa, D. Avgerinos, E. Kapilaris, O.

Kremeniotti, G. Poulis, G. Kuburas, C.

Matsoukas, “Radioactivity measurements in

eastern Lesvos, Greece”, HNPS Advances in

Nuclear Physics, Vol. 29, 2023, pp. 144-148.

[47] M. Lopez-Perez, C. Martin-Luis, F. Hernandez,

E. Liger, J.C. Fernandez-Aldecoa, J.M.

Lorenzo-Salazar, J. Hernandez-Armas, P.A.

Salazar-Carballo, 2021. “Natural and artificial

gamma-emitting radionuclides in volcanic soils

of the Western Canary Islands”, Journal of

Geochemical Exploration, Vol.229, 2021.

p.106840.

Contribution of Individual Authors to the

Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting

Policy)

The authors equally contributed in the present

research, at all stages from the formulation of the

problem to the final findings and solution.

Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a

Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare

that are relevant to the content of this article.

Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)

This article is published under the terms of the

Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en

_US

International Journal on Applied Physics and Engineering

DOI: 10.37394/232030.2023.2.14

Seli

n Özden, Serpi

l Aközcan Pehli

vanoğlu

E-ISSN: 2945-0489

151

Volume 2, 2023