Advertisement

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

, Volume 322, Issue 2, pp 1169–1177 | Cite as

Assessment of radiation hazards of white and grey Portland cements

  • Miguel Ángel SanjuánEmail author
  • José A. Suarez-Navarro
  • Cristina Argiz
  • Pedro Mora
Article

Abstract

Activity concentration of 232Th, 226Ra and 40K was determined in 11 white and 63 grey Portland cements by using gamma spectrometry. The potential γ-ray radiation hazards due to mentioned activity concentrations were assessed by following five approaches: internal hazard index, Hin, external hazard index, Hex, activity concentration index, I, absorbed dose rate, D, and effective dose, Ep. All of these showed results falling below threshold limits. Particularly, white cements exhibited slightly lower values than grey ones. The annual effective dose estimated for all the Portland cements falls within 0.10 mSv to 0.47 mSv (≤ 1 mSv: threshold criterion for building materials).

Keywords

Portland cement Radioactivity Activity concentration index Effective dose rate 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the coordination tasks of Marina Romay at OFICEMEN, and the participation of the Spanish cement companies’ members of that Association.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Rezola-Izaguirre J (1975) White Portland cement and its applications. Institute for Construction Sciences “Eduardo Torroja”, Madrid, Spain, p 396 (in Spanish)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) (2018) …/…determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, ANNEX I Benchmarks. Brussels, 19.12.2018, C/2018/8664 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=pi_com:C(2018)8664
  3. 3.
    EN 197-1 (2011) Cement—Part 1: composition, specifications and conformity criteria for common cements. CEN, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    UNE 80305:2012 (2001) White cements. The Spanish standardization Body, UNE, Madrid, Spain. (in Spanish). https://www.une.org/encuentra-tu-norma/busca-tu-norma/norma/?Tipo=N&c=N0048846
  5. 5.
    International Commission on Illumination (1986) In: CIE Publication No. 15.2, second ed. The evaluation of whiteness, Colorimetry, CIE Central Bureau, Vienna, Austria, pp 36–38Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    UNE 80117:2012 (2012) Methods of testing cements. Physical analysis. Colour determination in clinkers and white cements. The Spanish standardization Body, UNE, Madrid, Spain (in Spanish)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Global Cement Directory (2015) The Global Cement Report™—12th editionGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM (2014) Laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom. Article 75 “Gamma radiation from building materials”. 2013, European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, 17.1.2014, L 13/31. p 73Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sanjuán MA, Argiz C (2012) The new european standard on common cements specifications. EN-197-1:2011. Mater Constr 62:425–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arafa W (2002) Permeability of radon-222 through some materials. Radiat Meas 35(3):207–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang W, Ungar K, Chen J, St-Amant N, Tracy BL (2009) An accurate method for the determination of 226Ra activity concentrations in soil. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 280:561–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mauring A, Gäfvert T (2013) Radon tightness of different sample sealing methods for gamma spectrometric measurements of 226Ra. Appl Radiat Isot 81:92–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yang B, Ha Y, Li A, Zhou H, Wang F, Li W (2013) Optimisation design of cylindrical containers for improving the detection efficiency of a high-purity germanium detector using the LabSOCS. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 298(3):1673–1677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suarez-Navarro JA, Gascó C, Alonso MM, Blanco-Varela MT (2018) Use of Genie 2000 and Excel VBA to correct for γ-ray interference in the determination of NORM building material activity concentrations. Appl Radiat Isot 142:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Asghar M, Tufail M, Sabiha J, Abid A, Waqas M (2008) Radiological implications of granite of northern Pakistan. J Radiol Prot 28:387–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beretka J, Mathew PJ (1985) Natural radioactivity of Australian building materials, industrial wastes and by-products. Health Phys 48:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Markkanen M (1995) Radiation dose assessments for materials with elevated natural radioactivity, report STUK-B-STO 32, Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety, Helsinki, Finland, p 38Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sabiha J, Tufail M, Asghar M (2010) Hazard of NORM from phosphorite of Pakistan. J Hazard Mater 176:426–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nuccetelli C, Risica S, D’Alessandro M, Trevisi R (2012) Natural radioactivity in building material in the European Union: robustness of the activity concentration index I and comparison with a room model. J Radiol Prot 32:349–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bambynek W (1987) Uncertainty assignment in radionuclide metrology. In: Garcia M, Madurga G (eds) Proceedings of the first international summer School La Rabida, Huelva, Spain. World Scientific, New-JerseyGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Trevisi R, Risica S, D’Alessandro M, Paradiso D, Nuccetelli C (2012) Natural radioactivity in building materials in the European Union: a database and an estimate of radiological significance. J Environ Radioact 105:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kassi B, Boukhair A, Azkour K, Fahad M, Benjelloun M, Nourreddine A-M (2018) Assessment of exposure due to technologically enhanced natural radioactivity in various samples of Moroccan building materials. WJNST 08:176–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Turhan S (2008) Assessment of the natural radioactivity and radiological hazards in Turkish cement and its raw materials. J Environ Radioact 99:404–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shoeib MY, Thabayneh KM (2014) Assessment of natural radiation exposure and radon exhalation rate in various samples of Egyptian building materials. J Radiat Res Appl Sci 7:174–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Al-Sulaiti H, Alkhomashi N, Al-Dahan N, Al-Dosari M, Bradley DA, Bukhari S, Matthews M, Regan PH, Santawamaitre T (2011) Determination of the natural radioactivity in Qatarian building materials using high-resolution gamma-ray spectrometry. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 652:915–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Manić G, Manić V, Nikezić D, Krstić D (2015) The dose of gamma radiation from building materials and soil. Nukleonika 60:951–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Najam LA, Tawfiq NF, Kitah FH (2013) Measurement of natural radioactivity in building materials used in IRAQ. AJBAS 7:56–66Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sharma N, Singh J, Esakki SC, Tripathi RM (2019) A study of the natural radioactivity and radon exhalation rate in some cements used in India and its radiological significance. J Radiat Res Appl Sci 9:47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Petropoulos NP, Anagnostakis MJ, Simopoulos SE (2002) Photon attenuation, natural radioactivity content and radon exhalation rate of building materials. J Environ Radioact 61:257–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Damla N, Cevik U, Kobya AI, Celik A, Celik N, Van Grieken R (2010) Radiation dose estimation and mass attenuation coefficients of cement samples used in Turkey. J Hazard Mater 176:644–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mujahid SA, Rahim A, Hussain S, Farooq M (2008) Measurements of natural radioactivity and radon exhalation rates from different brands of cement used in Pakistan. Radiat Prot Dosim 130:206–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    El-Taher A, Makhluf S, Nossair A, Abdel Halim AS (2010) Assessment of natural radioactivity levels and radiation hazards due to cement industry. Appl Radiat Isot 68:169–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Puertas F, Alonso MM, Torres-Carrasco M, Rivilla P, Gasco C, Yagüe L, Suárez JA, Navarro N (2015) Radiological characterization of anhydrous/hydrated cements and geopolymers. Constr Build Mater 101:1105–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee S-C, Kim C-K, Lee D-M, Kang H-D (2001) Natural radionuclides contents and radon exhalation rates in building materials used in South Korea. Radiat Prot Dosim 94:269–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chinchón-Payá S, Piedecausa B, Hurtado S, Sanjuán MA, Chinchón S (2011) Radiological impact of cement, concrete and admixtures in Spain. Radiat Meas 46:734–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stojanovska Z, Nedelkovski D, Ristova M (2010) Natural radioactivity and human exposure by raw materials and end product from cement industry used as building materials. Radiat Meas 45:969–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bou-Rabee F, Bem H (1996) Natural radioactivity in building materials utilized in the state of Kuwait. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 213(2):143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cements and Mortars DepartmentSpanish Institute of Cement and its Applications (IECA)MadridSpain
  2. 2.Department for Environment, Environmental Radioactivity and Radiological Surveillance UnitMadridSpain
  3. 3.Civil Engineering SchoolTechnical University of MadridMadridSpain
  4. 4.Department of Geological and Mines Engineering, Mine and Energy Engineering SchoolTechnical University of Madrid (UPM)MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations