INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024

www.ijltemas.in Page 186

Assessment of Background Ionizing Radiation Levels in Selected

Markets in Ile-Ife and Modakeke: A Public Health Perspective

Danjuma Dan-Adam Maza

, Grace Olubumi Akinlade, Rebecca Boluwatife Adeleke, Raphael Olamide Adesina

Obafemi Awolowo University Ile-Ife, Department of Physics and Engineering Physics

*Corresponding Author

DOI : https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2024.131215

Received: 29 November 2024; Accepted: 13 December 2024; Published: 09 January 2024

Abstract: This study assessed background ionizing radiation (BIR) levels in six markets across Ile-Ife and Modakeke,

Southwestern Nigeria, to evaluate potential health risks. Annual effective dose rates (AEDR) were measured and analyzed using a

handheld Geiger Counter. Results showed AEDR values ranging from 0.67 mSv/y at Texaco Market to 2.52 mSv/y at Sabo

Market. The average AEDR across all markets was below the global population average exposure of 2–3 mSv/y. The findings

suggest that BIR exposure in these markets is primarily due to naturally occurring radionuclides in the soil and rocks, with no

significant anthropogenic contributions. This study concludes that the BIR levels in these markets pose no significant health risks

to users.

Keywords: Annual effective dose rate, Dose equivalent, Market environment, Radiation exposure

I. Introduction

The environment is constantly inundated by background ionizing radiation from a host of sources [1]–[7]. Most background

ionizing radiation stems naturally from radioactive materials within the earth’s crust, water bodies, and the atmosphere [8]–[11].

Cosmic radiation from outer space also contributes to the natural background ionizing radiation in the environment. A small

fraction of background ionizing radiation is from anthropogenic sources (medical radiation facilities, nuclear fallouts, consumer

products, nuclear power plants, building materials, and the like). Background ionizing radiation levels may vary from place to

place and from time to time over any given location.

The ubiquitous nature of background ionizing radiation ensures that humans and other life forms are constantly exposed to

ionizing radiation. Human exposure to background ionizing radiation is often elevated, mostly, by a host of human activities that

are capable of releasing or introducing radionuclides contaminants into the environment [12]. The amount of background ionizing

radiation that an individual is exposed to from time to time depends on various factors which include; geographical location,

altitude, occupation, and lifestyle [13]–[15].

Although radiation is beneficial in many ways, it still has harmful effects on humans and other forms of life [16]. Exposure to

high levels of radiation is therefore a public health concern. While acute exposure to high levels of ionizing radiation can be

harmful to human health, the low levels of background radiation that we are typically exposed to in our daily lives may not be

considered to be of any significant health risk. However, chronic exposure to even low levels of background ionizing radiation

can still pose significant health risks to the public [17]. Because of the harmful effects of ionizing radiation, the practice has been

to monitor and assess the levels of exposure with the view of keeping the public exposure to ionizing radiation as low as

reasonably achievable. To this end, the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP), and the United Nations

Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) routinely set and review worldwide exposure limits for the

protection of humans and wildlife [17]–[19]. A host of human activities redistribute the radionuclides concentration in the

environment, thereby elevating the level of background ionizing radiation in the environment. Additionally, some anthropogenic

activities have been known to deplete the ozone layer as a result, increasing the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the earth.

The current research aims to assess background ionizing radiation dose rate levels in selected consumer markets in Ile-Ife and

Modakeke, two neighboring communities. The goal is to determine potential health impacts on market goers from these radiation

levels. These markets primarily deal with agricultural products, where buyers and sellers frequently interact. It is important to

evaluate whether the background ionizing radiation levels are elevated enough to pose health concerns for individuals who visit

these markets regularly, sometimes daily. The market shops are mostly open-sided structures designed to protect traders from the

elements. In some cases, traders display their goods directly on the ground and use umbrellas for shade.

II. Materials and Methods

Location of the Study Area

The study covers some selected consumer markets in Ile-Ife and Modakeke, Osun State, Southwestern part of Nigeria (Figure 1).

Ile-Ife and Modakeke are neighbouring communities located approximately between latitudes 7.48

N and 7.50

N, and

longitudes 4.530 E and 4.56

E [20]. The two communities have a combined population of approximately 1 million inhabitants.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024

www.ijltemas.in Page 187

Figure 1. Study area showing the location of Ile-Ife and Modakeke (Drawn using QGIS version 3.34.3)

Sampling and Measurement

Background radiation dose rate levels in the selected markets were measured using a handheld FNIRSI GC-01 Geiger Counter

Nuclear Radiation Detector. The device is capable of detecting x-rays, γ-rays, and ß-rays. With this device, doses can be measured

in µSv/h, µGy/h, mR/h, counts per second (cps), and counts per minute (cpm). It has a gamma energy range of 48 keV-1.5 MeV

and a sensitivity of 80 cpm.

In this current work, average dose rates (AVDR) in air were measured in-situ, in µSv/h. At every sampling point, average dose

rate levels were obtained over a five-minute period. Every sampling point was geo-located using a Global Position System (GPS).

The data obtained for the external dose rate levels (in µSv/h) in air were converted into annual effective dose rates (AEDR) to the

whole body (in mSv/y) using the relation [21], [22]:

(2)

The data was therefore presented in terms of AEDR (mSv/y) (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Annual effective dose rates at the respective markets

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024

www.ijltemas.in Page 188

Table 1. Comparison of AEDR in this study with other studies

Location

AEDR (mSv/y)

Reference

OAU Market

1.63

Present study

Adedoyin Market

1.26

Present study

Sabo Market

1.31

Present study

Sasa Market

1.41

Present study

Texaco Market

1.44

Present study

Akinola Market

1.33

Present study

Emelagu village, Rivers State

0.48

[13]

Ikot Akpaden Campus, Akwa Ibom State

0.244

[23]

Quarry site in Ebonyi State

0.27

[24]

Keffi dumpsites, Nasarawa State

0.19

[25]

Itu, South-South, Nigeria

6.83

[26]

Farin Gada, Plateau State

1.54

[27]

Fadawa, Plateau State

2.18

[27]

Odus, Plateau State

3.22

[27]

Jib village, Plateau State

1.61

[27]

Jacopiang, Plateau State

1.58

[27]

Building materials, Plateau State

1.72

[27]

Nnewi, Anambra State

0.23

[28]

Ijebu-Ife, Ogun State

0.182

[29]

III. Results and Discussions

Annual effective dose rates (AEDR)

The annual effective dose rates recorded at the six markets investigated are shown in Figure 2a to 2f.

OAU market (Figure 2a): The maximum AEDR of 2.1 ± 0.384 mSv/y was recorded at latitude 7.51552

N and longitude

4.51278

E, while the minimum AEDR of 1.09 ± 0.384 mSv/y was recorded at latitude 7.51838

N and longitude 4.50992

E. The

average annual effective dose rate at this market was 1.632 ± 0.384 mSv/y.

Adedoyin market (Figure 2b): The maximum and minimum annual effective dose rates at this market were 1.77 ± 0.193 mSv/y

and 0.84 ± 0.193 mSv/y, respectively, recorded at latitude 7.47356

N, longitude 4.539

E, and latitude 7.47377

N, longitude

4.53925

E, respectively, with an average of 1.265 ± 0.193 mSv/y.

Sabo market (Figure 2c): The maximum AEDR was 2.52 ± 0.314 mSv/y obtained at latitude 7.48895

N, longitude 4.55352

and the minimum AEDR was 1.307 ± 0.314 mSv/y was, at latitude 7.48829

N, longitude 4.55348

E, with an average of 1.307 ±

0.314 mSv/y.

Sasa market (Figure 2d): The maximum AEDR of 2.10 ± 0.241 mSv/y (7.45328

N and 4.55647

E), with the minimum AEDR

of 1.18 ± 0.241 mSv/y (7.45306

N, 4.55687

E and 7.45312

N, 4.55677

E), while the average was 1.454 ± 0.241 mSv/y.

Texaco market (Figure 2e): The maximum value of AEDR was 2.10 ± 0.392 mSv/y at latitude 7.4886

N, longitude 4.53316

and the minimum was 0.67 ± 0.392 mSv/y at latitude 7.48839

N, longitude 4.53389

E. The average AEDR at this market was

1.443 ± 0.392 mSv/y.

Akinola market (Figure 2f): The maximum and minimum annual dose rates of 1.68 ± 0.155 mSv/y and 1.01 ± 0.155 mSv/y,

respectively. The maximum was found at latitude 7.49882

N, longitude 4.44151

E, while the minimum was found at two

locations (7.49898

N, 4.44151

E, and 7.49772

N, 4.44159

E). The average annual at this market was 1.330 ± 0.155 mSv/y.

Overall, the annual effective dose rates range from 0.67 mSv/y to 2.52 mSv/y, with the highest and lowest values found at Sabo

market (Fig 2c) and Texaco market (Fig 2e), respectively. Furthermore, the averages of the AEDR at all six markets (Fig 3) are

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024

www.ijltemas.in Page 189

lower than the worldwide population average values of about 2 to 3 mSv/y [18]. Table 1 indicates that the mean annual effective

dose rates from background ionizing radiation measured in this study across the six markets are consistent with values reported in

similar studies conducted in various regions of the country. Further still, it shows that the radiation levels in these markets are not

elevated, suggesting that the exposure to ionizing radiation in the selected markets is primarily due only to the trace amounts of

radionuclides found in the soil and rocks within the market.

IV. Conclusion

The study investigated the annual effective dose rates (AEDR) in six markets, revealing that values ranged from 0.67 mSv/y to

2.52 mSv/y, with the highest and lowest values observed at Sabo Market and Texaco Market, respectively. Average AEDR values

in all markets were below the worldwide average population exposure levels of 2–3 mSv/y, suggesting that radiation levels in the

studied markets are within safe limits. The findings indicate that exposure to ionizing radiation in these markets is primarily

attributed to trace radionuclides naturally present in the soil and rocks. The results align with similar studies conducted in other

parts of the country, suggesting that the markets do not exhibit elevated radiation levels. These observations imply that the

environmental radiation exposure in the studied areas poses no significant health risk to the population.

Declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to

influence the work reported in this paper.

Funding statement

The authors declare that no specific grant, funding, or financial support was received from any public, private, or commercial

organization to conduct this research or prepare the manuscript.

Data access statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

1. A. Azhdarpoor, M. Hoseini, S. Shahsavani, N. Shamsedini, and E. Gharehchahi, “Assessment of excess lifetime cancer

risk and risk of lung cancer due to exposure to radon in a middle eastern city in Iran,” Radiat. Med. Prot., vol. 2, no. 3,

pp. 112–116, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.radmp.2021.07.002.

2. I. D. Benson and F. O. Ugbede, “Measurement Of Background Ionizing Radiation And Evaluation Of Lifetime Cancer

Risk In Highly Populated Motor Parks In Enugu City, Nigeria,” IOSR J. Appl. Phys. (IOSR-JAP, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 77–

82, 2018, doi: 10.9790/4861-1003017782.

3. D. Boumala, A. Belafrites, A. Tedjani, C. Mavon, and J.-E. Groetz, “Annual effective dose and excess life time cancer

risk assessment from tobacco plants,” Perspect. Sci., vol. 12, no. 27, p. 100394, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.pisc.2019.100394.

4. F. O. Ugbede and I. D. Benson, “Assessment of outdoor radiation levels and radiological health hazards in Emene

Industrial Layout of Enugu State, Nigeria,” Int. J. Phys. Sci., vol. 13, no. 20, pp. 265–272, 2018, doi:

10.5897/ijps2018.4763.

5. UNSCEAR, Sources and effects of ionizing radiation: UNSCEAR 1993 report to the General Assembly. 1993.

6. UNSCEER, “SOURCES AND EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION United Nations Scientific Committee on the

Effects of Atomic Radiation UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes,” 2000.

7. UNSCEAR, “UNSCEAR 2008 Report on Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation,” 2008.

8. O. Ademila and R. Ugo, “Radiometric evaluation of natural radioactivity and radiation hazard indices in soils from

quarries sites in southwestern Nigeria,” Int. J. Adv. Geosci., vol. 6, no. 1, p. 43, 2017, doi: 10.14419/ijag.v6i1.8609.

9. O. Ademila, “Radiometric Impact Assessment Around Two Quarry Sites, Benin-Owo Express Way, Southwestern

Nigeria,” Int. J. Eng. Geosci., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 20–35, 2018, doi: 10.26833/ijeg.357161.

10. I. U. James, I. F. Moses, and U. E. Ikoh, “EVALUATION OF BACKGROUND IONISING RADIATION LEVELS

WITHIN GWAGWALADA TOWN-ABUJA James,” vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 26–30, 2002, doi:

10.5707/cjapplsci.2014.9.2.26.30.

11. I. U. James, I. F. Moses, E. C. Akueche, and R. D. Kuwen, “Assessment of indoor and outdoor radiation levels and

human health risk in Sheda Science and Technology Complex and its environ, Abuja, Nigeria,” J. Appl. Sci. Environ.

Manag., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 13–18, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.4314/jasem.v24i1.2.

12. I. P. Farai and U. E. Vincent, “Out-door radiation level measurement in Abeokuta, Nigeria, by thermoluminescent

dosimetry,” Niger. J. Phys., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 121–126, Oct. 2006, doi: 10.4314/NJPHY.V18I1.38091.

13. C. Ononugbo and U. Anekwe, “Background Gamma Radiation in Nigerian Market Environment,” Am. J. Environ. Sci.,

vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 48–54, 2020, doi: 10.3844/ajessp.2020.48.54.

14. A. A. Sadiq and E. H. Agba, “Background Radiation in Akwanga, Nigeria,” Facta Univ. Work. Living Environ. Prot.,

vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 7–11, 2011.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024

www.ijltemas.in Page 190

15. M. Waqar, T. A. Afridi, Q. Soomro, A. S. Abbasi, and M. Shahban, “Measurement of Ambient Ionizing Radiation

Exposure in Operating Consoles of Radiation Modalities in Cancer Hospital NORIN Nawabshah, Pakistan,” J. Eng. Res.

Sci., vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 7–12, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.55708/js0106002.

16. Y. E. Chad-Umoren, M. Adekanmbi, and S. O. Harry, “Evaluation of Indoor Background Ionizing Radiation Profile of a

Physics Laboratory Udc 546.296,” FACTA Univ. Ser. Work. Living Environ. Prot., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2006.

17. ICRP, “Annual limits on intake of radionuclides by workers based on the 1990 recommendations. A report from

Committee 2 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.,” 1991.

18. ICRP, “Annals of the ICRP Annals of the ICRP Annals of the ICRP,” 2007.

19. S. Penabei et al., “Assessment of natural radioactivity levels and the associated radiological hazards in some building

materials from Mayo-Kebbi region , Chad,” Radioprotection, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 265–278, 2018.

20. A. Ayanlade and O. I. Orinmogunje, “Assessing conflict impacts on urban physical infrastructure: A GIS approach,” Int.

J. Phys. Sci., vol. 6, no. 33, pp. 7567–7573, 2011, doi: 10.5897/IJPS09.130.

21. M. Rafique et al., “ScienceDirect Evaluation of excess life time cancer risk from gamma dose rates in Jhelum valley,” J.

Radiat. Res. Appl. Sci., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 29–35, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.jrras.2013.11.005.

22. H. Taskin, M. Karavus, P. Ay, A. Topuzoglu, S. Hidiroglu, and G. Karahan, “Radionuclide concentrations in soil and

lifetime cancer risk due to gamma radioactivity in Kirklareli, Turkey,” J. Environ. Radioact., vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 49–53,

2009, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2008.10.012.

23. S. E. Etuk, N. J. George, I. E. Essien, and S. C. Nwokolo, “Assessment of Radiation Exposure Levels within Ikot

Akpaden Campus of Akwa Ibom State University, Nigeria,” IOSR J. Appl. Phys., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 86–91, 2015, doi:

10.9790/4861-07328691.

24. E. O. Echeweozo and F. O. Ugbede, “Assessment of background ionizing radiation dose levels in quarry sites located in

Ebonyi State, Nigeria,” J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag., vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 1821–1826, 2020, doi:

10.4314/jasem.v24i10.17.

25. U. Rilwan, I. Umar, A. Z. Ngari, H. A. Abdullahi, and H. O. Aboh, “Radiometric Evaluation Naturally Occurring

Radionuclides in Some Ongoing Drilled Boreholes across Keffi Town of Nasarawa State , Nigeria,” Int. Astron.

Astrophys. Res. J., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2019.

26. G. Ekong, T. Akpa, I. Umaru, W. Lumbi, M. Akpanowo, and N. Benson, “Assessment of Radiological Hazard Indices

from Exposures to Background Ionizing Radiation Measurements in South-South Nigeria,” Int. J. Environ. Monit. Anal.,

vol. 7, no. 2, p. 40, 2019, doi: 10.11648/j.ijema.20190702.11.

27. D. I. Jwanbot, M. M. Izam, G. G. Nyam, and R. J. Dakon, “Environmental Ionizing Radiation Distribution Profile in Jos

and Environs,” J. Environ. Earth Sci. ISSN, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 87–95, 2013.

28. H. U. Chiegwu et al., “Assessment of background ionizing radiation exposure levels in industrial buildings in Nnewi ,

Anambra State , Nigeria,” Int. J. Res. Med. Sci., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 305–315, 2022, doi: 10.18203/2320-

6012.ijrms20220273.

29. P. O. Olagbaju, I. C. Okeyode, O. O. Alatise, and B. S. Bada, “Background radiation level measurement using hand held

dosimeter and gamma spectrometry in Ijebu-Ife, Ogun State Nigeria,” Int. J. Radiat. Res., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 591–598,

2021, doi: 10.52547/ijrr.19.3.591.