Assessment of Natural Uranium in the Ground Water around Jaduguda Uranium Mining Complex, India

doi:10.4236/jep.2011.27115

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Journal of Environmental Protection, 2011, 2, 1002-1007

doi:10.4236/jep.2011.27115 Published Online September2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jep)

Assessment of Natural Uranium in the Ground

Water around Jaduguda Uranium Mining

Complex, India

N. K. Sethy1*, R. M. Tripathi2, V. N. Jha1, S. K. Sahoo2, A. K. Shukla2, V. D. Puranik2

1Environmental Assessment Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Health Physics Unit, Jaduguda Mines, Jharkhand, India;

2Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India.

Email: *[email protected]

Received May 16th, 2011; revised July 15th, 2011; accepted August 27th, 2011.

ABSTRACT

Ground water ecosystem surrounding the uranium processing facility at Jaduguda, India has been studied for natural

uranium distribution. Annual intake of uranium through drinking water for members of public residing around the ura-

nium complex is found to be in the range of 41.8 Bq·y–1 - 44.4 Bq·y–1. The intake and ingestion dose is appreciably low

(<2



Sv·y–1) which is far below the WHO recommended level of 100



Sv·y–1. The excess life time radiological risk due

to uranium natural in drinking water is insignificant and found to be of the order of 10–6. Even the highest concentra-

tion of uranium was found to be 28



g·l–1 is away (at 1.5 to 5 km distance) from mining industry and well below the

acceptable limit. The ground water in the area around the uranium facility is not affected by the mining activity. The

ground water in three zones is safe and reflects the natural distribution of uranium.

Keywords: Natural Uranium, Ingestion Dose, Radiological Risk

1. Introduction

1.1 General Description

Rapid industrialization and subsequent waste disposal

has been a concern for ground water contamination.

Ground water is the major source of drinking water in

many parts India. Industrial activities, metal mining and

waste depositary may contribute to the nearby ground

water sources by radionuclide migration. Mining and

processing of uranium in the east-Singbhum region of

Jharkhand has been started in early sixties. Uranium ore

is mined from a cluster of mines (Jaduguda, Bhatin and

Narwapahar, Turamundih, Bagjata, Mauldih) spreading

in the region and processed at centralized ore-processing

plant at Jaduguda using hydrometallurgy technique. As

the ore is of very low grade (<0.05% U3O8), a huge

quantity of process waste (tailings) is generated and dis-

posed safely in tailings ponds. Tailings pond is an engi-

neered having valley with natural hills on three sides and

earthen bund forming the fourth side. Engineering fea-

tures of the earthen bund ensures the decantation of dis-

solved radionuclides, which are treated further for re-

moval of the toxins (U, 226Ra and heavy metals) prior to

their discharge into the aquatic ecosystem. The change in

physicochemical characteristics of tailings over the pe-

riod may take place leading to dissolution of some of the

contaminants. The migration of these contaminants into

the adjoining ground water sources can be anticipated.

Evaluation of ingestion dose and subsequent risk due to

intake of water to population residing around the tailings

pond is the subject matter of this study. The mining

complex comprises of uranium mines, ore processing

plant and tailings ponds. The study area is situated at

Jaduguda (22˚30'N and long. 85˚40'E) in the East

Singbhum district of Jharkhand, India. The area is well

known for its wide mineral deposits and receives >1000

mm of rain fall annually. The maximum temperature in

summer is >45˚C and minimum is <7˚C during winter.

1.2. Health Hazard of Uranium

Toxicity of uranium has been established by animal

studies and human data from uranium miners and work-

ers with accidental exposures indicate that uranium af-

fects the proximal tubules of the kidney; at very high

acute doses, tubular degeneration and necrosis (that is,

death of tissue) may occur a few days after the intake of

Assessment of Natural Uranium in the Ground water around Jaduguda Uranium Mining Complex, India1003

uranium [1]. Kidney is generally considered to be the

critical organ for uranium through water or food. The

uranyl ion forms bicarbonate, citrate and UO3(CO2)3

complexes in blood plasma [2]. The UO2++ ion binds

with the red blood cells. During the purification of blood

in kidney, it is filtered from the blood and then recom-

bines with the cell surface ligands. Studies on uranium

toxicity studies in human have been described elsewhere

[3,4]. Though, intake of uranium by members of the pub-

lic can occur through various routes. However the prin-

cipal route of ingestion of uranium is through drinking

water [5] and to a lesser extent through the foodstuff.

Intake of uranium through drinking water by population

residing around the uranium mining area has been con-

sidered in the present study. United States Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) has classified uranium as a

group- A human carcinogen. It has prescribed maximum

contaminant level goal (MCLG) for uranium as 0 (zero)

in 1991(zero tolerance). In drinking water, EPA suggests

maximum contaminant level as (MCL) of 30 g·l–1 [6].

In Canada, the proposed interim maximum acceptable

level is (IMAC) of 20 g·l–1, whereas World Health Or-

ganization (WHO) strictly recommended a reference

level as 2 g·l–1 [7].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sampling and Analysis

Grab samples (5 lit) were collected from open wells and

tube wells situated at various distances in the public do-

main. The area around the uranium mining Industry is

divided into three zones i.e. <1.5 km, 1.5 to 5 km and >5

km. Ground water samples were collected from these

three zones. Sample locations were selected covering

three measure season of the area (October to March,

April to June and August to September) on the basis of

public utility and down stream direction from uranium

industry. More number of samples was collected from

downstream side of the Uranium Industry. Samples were

brought to the laboratory filtered and preserved in acidic

medium. About 100 ml of water sample is evaporated to

dryness and 20 ml of 0.25 N electronic grade pure H2SO4

is added and reflux for 30 minutes in a hot plate. It is

then cooled and transferred to a separating funnel/tube.

Then 20 ml of alamine-benzene (2% alamine in 98%

benzene) solution is added and the mixture is shaken for

few minutes with occasionally opening the mouth of the

separating tube to vent off the gases formed inside. The

aqueous phase is drained out and 0.1 ml from organic

phase is taken for planchatting in a platinum disc. The

basic principle of estimation of natural uranium in envi-

ronmental sample is to quantitatively transfer the trace

amount of uranium present in the sample aliquot to a

small platinum disc and measure the intensity of flores-

cence of uranium compound. A small volume (0.1 ml) of

organic media containing the uranium is transferred to

platinum disc, fused with 250 mg of NaF-Na2CO3 (15:85)

fusion mixture at 800˚C for 3 minutes. Cooled and fluo-

rescence intensity was measured in ECIL, make Fluori-

meter (Model No: FL6224A) [8].

UV radiation of excitation wavelength 3650Å is irra-

diated on the platinum disc containing fused sample and

emitted florescence of 5546Å wavelength is unique to

uranium [9]. Intensity of fluorescence is proportional to

the amount of uranium present in the sample. Standard (1

ug/ml) and blank were processed simultaneously and

uranium was estimated by using the formula



Sample readingBlank reading

UμgStandardreadingBlank reading





The uranium content of the original sample was ob-

tained from the above equation by further applying the

sampling parameters. The advantage of this method is

aqueous to organic ratio is not critical and may be varied

over a wide range. There is no need of any salting out

reagent and organic phase can directly planchatted. The

disadvantage of this method is that the fusion mixture is

hygroscopic and measurement of fluorescence intensity

should be measured without giving much delay. The de-

tection limit of this method is 0.1 g.

2.2. Quality Control

Quality assurance of the analytical procedure followed

was determined by using certified reference materials

(SRMs) produced by Canada Center for Mineral and

Energy Technology (CANMET) and supplied by Bureau

of analysed samples Ltd., UK. Environmental reference

sample such as lake sediments (LKSD-1&3), stream

sediment (STSD-1) and geochemical soil (TILL-1&2)

were analysed for natural uranium. The result of the

analysis is presented in Table 3.

3. Result and Discussions

3.1. Distribution of Uranium in water and Intake

The histogram of uranium concentration in ground water

around the uranium mining industry over the study pe-

riod is presented in Figure 1. A year wise geometric

mean concentration of uranium in the ground water

sources in different distance zones is presented in Table

1. However, the maximum concentration of U(nat)

within 1.6 km distance was observed at 11 g·l–1 with

GM of 1.13 g·l–1 and GSD of 2.64 during the entire

study period. The large variation in the uranium concen-

tration is due to uneven distribution of uranium in the

lithosphere. Further, the histogram plot (Figure 2) of the

data set reveals that in majority of ground water sources

Assessment of Natural Uranium in the Ground water around Jaduguda Uranium Mining Complex, India

1004

Figure 1. The Environmental map of Uranium Mining Complex, Jadugoda, India.

Table 1. Concentration of U(nat) in ground water samples in various distance zones.

Distances fr om T.P (km) No of samples (N) Year U(nat) (g·l–1) Geo Mean (GSD)

2003

Range

<1.6 8 0.5 - 11 1.62(3.1)

1.6 - 5.0 17 0.5 - 20 1.21(3.2)

>5.0 20 0.5 - 4.7 1.0 (2.5)

2004

<1.6 15 0.5 - 7.6 1.39(3.0)

1.6 - 5.0 15 0.5 - 28 2.8(3.7)

>5.0 10 0.5 - 4.3 2.79(3.5)

2005

<1.6 16 0.5 - 7.6 1.31(2.9)

1.6 - 5.0 16 0.5 - 19 2.39(3.2)

>5.0 11 0.5 - 4.3 1.49(2.2)

2006

< 1.6 5 0.5 - 2.3 0.86(2.1)

1.6 - 5.0 4 0.5 - 1.2 0.76(1.45)

>5.0 17 0.5 - 4.7 1.37(3.9)

2007

<1.6 15 0.5 - 1.5 0.71(1.5)

1.6 - 5.0 9 0.5 - 3.1 1.0 (1.9)

>5.0 10 0.5 - 3.5 0.78(1.9)

Assessment of Natural Uranium in the Ground water around Jaduguda Uranium Mining Complex, India

1005

100

0-11.0-2.0 2.1-3.0 3.1-5.05.1-10.0>10

Conce ntration (g.l

-1

)

Figure 2. Histogram of U in Ground water.

the concentration was less than 0.5 g·l–1. The distribu-

tion of U(nat) during the study period in the distance

zone 1.6 km - 5 km was varied with GM concentration of

1.2 mg.m-3 and GSD of 3.4. The maximum concentration

in this zone was 28 g·l–1. In the case of natural unmined

ore deposits uranium can enter the ground water by way

of leaching of uranium bearing rock strata by the ground

water aquifers. The physicochemical environment around

the source has great influence on distribution of uranium

natural in ground water. In this context solubility of ura-

nium in the medium is probably playing a vital role. Only

the hexavalent uranium compounds are soluble which is

favored by aerobic condition of the environment. The

less soluble tetravalent fraction can get dissolved and

variation in the levels can be expected even within the

same geological formations. Apart from this pH, com-

peting ions, complex formation with uranyl ions, sea-

sonal variations are also leading to variable distribution

of uranium in the ground water. During the study period,

in the distance zone of >5 km, distribution of U(nat) was

varied with GM of 1.13 g·l–1 and GSD of 2.28. One way

ANOVA (Table 2) reveals that there is insignificant

variation in uranium natural concentration at different

distances from the tailings pond with Chi-square > p

0.052. The maximum concentration within a distance of

1.6 km was appreciably low as compared to the recom-

mended national regulatory standard of 60 g·l–1 based

on the F class radiological consideration. Since uranium

appearing in drinking water is soluble uranium the most

restrictive radiological class has been considered for

recommending the limits. In other zone also the recom-

mended limit of 60 g·l–1 has not been exceeded so far.

The significantly lower concentration within a distance

of 1.6 km from uranium industry is attributed to the local

geological features of the area. This also confirms that so

far there has been insignificant migration of U(nat) from

the operation of uranium industry to the adjoining ground

water sources. The present study is compared with simi-

lar studies carried out in other countries (Table 5) as well

as in India. The concentration range in ground water in

the present study, as evident in Tabl e 5 is comparable to

study carried out in Turkey [10] but lower than similar

studies in USA [11,12].

3.2. Radiation Dose and Risk

A five year study of ground water as discussed earlier

showed natural uranium was in low concentration range.

Though mass concentration of natural uranium was

measured in ground water samples it can be expressed in

activity concentration using conversion factor of 25

mBq·g–1. Uranium level (Bq·m–3 or g·l–1) = Measured

mass concentration (g·l–1) × Conversion factor (25

mBq·g–1) Considering the daily intake of water for In-

dian reference man 4.05 l·d–1 [13,14], dose conversion

factor of 0.045 Sv·Bq–1 [15] the annual ingestion dose

to the adult individual residing around the tailings pond

due to natural uranium was estimated. Since the data

distribution in the three zones can be approximated by

log normal the intake and ingestion dose should be based

on geometric mean. Accordingly the annual intake from

drinking water in the three zones discussed can be esti-

mated to be 41.8, 44.4 and 41.8 Bq·Y–1 with an ingestion

dose of 1.88, 2.0 and 1.88 Sv·Y–1 respectively. This is

far lower than the [16] recommended guideline of 100

Sv·Y–1 for ingestion from the intake of a single ra-

dionuclide. Health effects due to exposure of uranium

can be classified as radiological risk as radioactive ele-

ment and chemical risk as a heavy metal. Radiological

risk was evaluated using the risk coefficient 4.40 ×

10-11per pCi as per the US EPA [17] standard method.

The radiological risk was converted to excess lifetime

risk by multiplying with activity concentration of ura-

nium level in ground water. While estimating the risk

average body weight (52kg) and water intake by Indian

Assessment of Natural Uranium in the Ground water around Jaduguda Uranium Mining Complex, India

1006

Table 2. Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA for U(nat) variation around tailings pond.

Source SS df MS Chi Square Prob > Chi-Square

Distance 10898.2 2 54449.1 5.89 0.052

Error 270313.3 150 1802.09

Total 281211.5 152

Table 3. Concentration of Uranium in certified reference materials.

Reference Material Unit Certified ConcentrationObserved Concentration

LKSD 1 g·g–1 9.7 8.8 ± 0.4

LKSD 3 g·g–14.6 4.4 ± 1.2

TILL 1 g·g–12.2 1.9 ± 0.6

TILL 3 g·g–12.1 1.8 ± 0.5

STSD-1 g·g–18.0 7.8 ± 1.3

Table4. Excess Radiological Risk for ground water Uranium at various distance regions (2003-07).

Distance U(mg·m–3) Geo mean Excess Radiological Risk

<1.5 km 2.29 6.06 × 10–6

1.5 km - 5 km 1.62 4.31 × 10–6

>5 km 1.17 3.11 × 10–6

Table 5. Comparison of uranium concentration in drinking water in different countries.

Country Range of U(g·l–1) References

Turkey 0.24 - 17.65 Kumru at al. [10]

South Greenland 0.5 - 1.0 Brown et al [18]

USA 0.01 - 652 Cothern et al [11]

Kuwait 0.02 - 2.48 Bou-Rabee et al [12]

Jordan 0.04 - 1400 Smith et al [19]

Central Austrlia >20 Hostetler et al [20]

Cochin, India 0.34 - 2.54 Prabhu R.S. et al [21]

Jaduguda, India 0.50 - 28 Present Study

reference man (4.05 liter per day) were considered. The

average life expectancy in India is 60 years was consid-

ered as total exposure period. Finally the radiological risk

coefficient was estimated as 1.06 × 10–4 in the Indian

scenario.

The illustrative calculation is:

Risk Factor (per Bq·l–1) = Risk coefficient (4.40 E - 11)

× water ingestion rate (4.05 l·day–1) total exposure dura-

tion (21,900 day) × conversion factor (27 pCi·Bq–1) =

1.06 × 10–4 Bq·l–1.

Excess life time cancer Risk = uranium level (Bq.l-1) x

Risk factor (1.06 × 10-4 Bq·l–1 ).

The radiological risk estimated is presented in Table 4.

The risk was found to be in the order of 10–6 and much

below the acceptable radiological risk of 10–3 [7]. Hence,

the radiological risk due to natural uranium in ground

water might be acceptable and the uranium mining in-

dustry has insignificant impact in the ground water ura-

nium concentration of the study area.

4. Conclusions

The distribution of U(nat) in ground water reflects the

natural background of the area. The variation in concen-

tration at different distances may be attributed to the

geological features of the area and the physicochemical

environment around the source. A slight reduced ura-

nium concentration in the <1.5 km or closest to uranium

industry may be attributed to the soil/rock type around

the ground water sources. The highest concentration of

uranium was found to be 28 g·l–1 is away (1.5 to 5 km

distance zone) from mining industry. The intake and in-

gestion dose is appreciably low (2 Sv·Y–1) which is far

below the WHO recommended level of 100 Sv·Y–1. The

risk due to radiological is acceptable and very low. It can

be concluded that the ground water around the uranium

Assessment of Natural Uranium in the Ground water around Jaduguda Uranium Mining Complex, India1007

industry at Jaduguda is not affected by the uranium min-

ing activity. The drinking water studied in three different

distance zones of uranium mining facility found to be

safe.

REFERENCES

[1] “Ask the Expert,” Health Physics Society, April 2002.

http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1906.html

[2] P. W. Durbin, “Metabolic Model for Uranium,” In: R. H.

Moore, Ed, Biokinetics and Analysis in Man 1984, United

States Uranium Registry, National Technical Information

Service, Springfield, 1984.

[3] J. B. Hursh and N. L. Spoor, “Data on Man,” In: H. C.

Hodge, J. N. Stannard and J. B. Hursh, Eds., Uranium,

Plutonium, Transplutonium Elements, Springer-Verlag,

Berlin, 1973, pp. 197-239.

[4] A. J. Lussenhop, J. C. Gallimore, W. H. Sweet, E. G.

Struxness and J. Robinson, “The Toxicity in Man of

Hexavalent Uranium Following Intravenous Administra-

tion,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 79, No. 1,

1958, pp. 83-100.

[5] S. C. Morris and A. F. Meinhold, “Probabilistic Risk

Assessment of Nephrotoxic Effect of Uranium in Drink-

ing Water,” Health Physics, Vol. 69, No. 6, 1995, pp.

897-908. doi:10.1097/00004032-199512000-00003

[6] U.S. EPA, Draft Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assess-

ment (Review Draft, July 1999), U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington,

D.C., 1999.

[7] D. C. Shin, Y. S. Kim, J. Y. Moon, H. S. Park, J. Y. Kim

and S. K. Park, “International Trends in Risk Manage-

ment of Groundwater Radionuclides,” Journal of Envi-

ronmental Toxicology, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2002, pp. 273-284.

[8] K. P. Eappan and P. M. Markose, “Amine Extraction for

Uranium Estimation,” Bulletin of Radiation Protection,

Vol. 9, 1986, pp. 83-86

[9] I. M. Kolthoff and P. J. Eiving, “Treatise on Analytical

Chemistry, Part II. Vol. 9,” Wiley, New York, 1962, pp.

102-111.

[10] M. N. Kumru, “Distribution of Radionuclides in Sedi-

ments and Soils along the Buyuk Mendres River,” Pro-

ceeding of Pakistan Academy of Sciences, Vol.32, 1995,

pp. 51-56

[11] C. R. Cotheren and W. L. Lappenbusch, “Occurance of

Uranium in Drinking Water in the US,” Health Physics,

Vol. 45, No. 1, 1983, pp. 89-99.

doi:10.1097/00004032-198307000-00009

[12] F. Bou-Rabee, “Estimating the Concentration of Uranium

in Some Environmental Samples in Kuwait after the 1991

Gulf War,” Applied Radiation and Isotopes, Vol. 46. No.

4, 1995, pp. 217-220.

doi:10.1016/0969-8043(94)00122-G

[13] B. M. Raghunath and S. D. Soman, “Water Intake Data

for Indian Reference Man,” Indian Journal of Environ-

mental Health, Vol. 2, 1969, pp. 1-7.

[14] H. S. Dang, D. D. Jaiswal, M. Parameswaran and S.

Krishnamony, “Physical, Anatomical, Physiological and

Metabolic Data for Reference Indian Man—A Proposal,”

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, 1994.

[15] “Dose Coefficients for Intakes of Radionuclides by

Workers,” International Commission on Radiological

Protection Series, Annals of the ICRP, Elsevier Health

Sciences, Amsterdam, 1995.

[16] WHO, Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, Volume 1,

Recommendations, 2004.

[17] SEPA, National Primary Drinking Water Regulation Ra-

dionuclide, Final Rule, 2000.

[18] A. Brown, A. Steenfelt and H. Kunzennorf, “Uranium

Districts Defined by Reconnaissance Geo Chemistry in

South Greenland,” Journal of Geochemical Exploration,

Vol. 19, No. 1-3, 1983, pp. 127-145.

doi:10.1016/0375-6742(83)90013-4

[19] B. Smith, A. E. Powel, A. Milodowski, et al., “Identifica-

tion, Investigation and Remediation of Ground Water

Containing Elevated Level of Uranium-Series Radionu-

clides: A Case Study from the Easteron Mediterranean,”

Proceddings of the 3rd International Conference on the

Geology of the Easteren Mediterranean, Nicosia, Cyprus,

2000.

[20] S. Hostetler, J. Wischisen and G. Jacbson, “Ground Water

Quality in the Papunya-Kingtore Region Northen Terri-

tory,” Austrilian Geological Survey Organization, Can-

berra, 1998.

[21] R. S. Prabhu, R. Sathyapriya, S. K. Sahoo and S. Maha-

patra, “Ingestion Dose Due to Natural Uranium to the

Public through Drinking Water Pathways in Two Districts

of Keral,” Proceedings of 16th National Symposium on

Environment, Hisar, 2008, pp. 551-555.