ARID ZONE JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING, TECHNOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT AZOJETE September 2024. Vol. 20(3):691-698 Published by the Faculty of Engineering, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Nigeria. Print ISSN: 1596-2490, Electronic ISSN: 2545-5818 www.azojete.com.ng Corresponding author’s e-mail address: pbiere2003@gmail.com 691 MEASUREMENT OF BACKGROUND IONIZING RADIATION LEVEL AND DOSE RISK AROUND NIGERIA’S FIRST OIL WELL, OTUABAGI, OLOIBIRI CLAN, BAYELSA STATE, SOUTH-SOUTH, NIGERIA P. E. Biere1*, K. Emumejaye2, G. E. Ogobiri1, R. O. K. Meindinyo1, J. James1, and E. Abule1 1Department of Physics, Niger Delta University, Wilberforce Island, Bayelsa State, Nigeria 2Department of Physics, Delta State University of Science and Technology, Ozoro, Nigeria *Corresponding author's email address: pbiere2003@gmail.com ARTICLE INFORMATION Submitted 21 June, 2024 Revised 18 July, 2024 Accepted 20 July, 2024 Keywords: Radiation well head crude dose rates ABSTRACT Individuals who get exposed to radiation stand the danger of experiencing health problems such as skin burn, acute radiation syndrome, cardiac condition. Natural radiation chains exist in nature including oil and gas fields in the ground. Therefore, crude may contain natural radioactivity. In this study, the background ionizing radiation level around the immediate vicinity of Nigeria’s first oil well has been measured using the Radalert-100X, a potable radiation detector. The background exposure rate ranges from 0.0095 to 0.0155 mRh-1 with a mean of 0.0128 mRh-1. The absorbed dose rate calculated ranges from 82.65 to 156.6 nGyh-1 with a mean of 109.56 nGyh-1. The averages of the annual effective dose equivalent ranges from 0.101 to 0.192 mSvy-1 with a mean of 0.136 mSvy-1. The calculated averages of ELCR from the study area ranges from 0.359 x 10-3 to 0.670 x 10-3 with a mean of 0.476 x 10- 3. From the evaluation made, the granite area around the well head, has the highest background ionizing radiation value and other parameters compared to results from the well head and the muddy area. Given the values recorded in the study, it is imperative to advise that appropriate precautions be taken, such as adhering to the ALARA principle, to shield the public from radiation related risks. 1.0 Introduction The level of ionizing radiation in the environment at a specific location that has not been caused by any kind of intentional introduction of radiation sources is known as background radiation. (Ugwuanyi et al., 2021). Many sources, whether natural, man-made, or both, contribute to background radiation. Normally, this is the scenario when monitoring the ambient dosage for environmental reasons. Ionizing radiation, when present in an environment, has sufficient energy to affect the atom in a living cell and thereby damage the genetic materials (DNA). Fortunately, our body cells are remarkably efficient at fixing the harm (Adrian and Andres, 2020). However, if the damage is not properly repaired, a cell might die or finally become cancerous (Adrian and Andres, 2020; Zhivotovsky and Orrenius, 2010). Human population exposed to radiation is at risk of having health effects like skin burn, acute radiation syndrome and cardiovascular diseases. Studies have shown that exposure to low level radiation in the http://www.azojete.com.ng/ mailto:%20hauwamari@gmail.com mailto:%20salami.lukman@adelekeuniversity.edu.ng mailto:%20salami.lukman@adelekeuniversity.edu.ng Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, September 2024; Vol. 20(3)691-698. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545- 5818; www.azojete.com.ng Corresponding author’s e-mail address: pbiere2003@gmail.com 692 environment does not cause immediate health effect but it is a contributor to overall cancer risk (Yasser et al., 2020). Sedimentary formations, which are good hosts to rocks for uranium deposits, are also generally good reservoir rocks for petroleum crude oil (Soumyajit et al., 2023). Crude itself may contain some level of natural radioactivity, as natural radiation chains, such as those found in underground oil and gas deposits, are present in nature (Ajayi et al., 2009). Atoms in such chains are not stable, radioactive decay process may occur, which leads to release of radiation in the environment and so can enhance the background radiation level of the environment. Mostly, the oil and gas sector use unsealed radioactive solids (powder and granular forms), liquids and gases to look into or track the flow of items (IAEA, 2003). It is at the wellhead that these radiotracers are most often used to assess flow rate for a variety of reasons (IAEA, 2012). Also, in most instances, spillages which could be accidental or otherwise, may occur around oil and gas facilities thus bringing these chains to the surface, thereby increasing the possibility of heightened background radiation levels in the immediate environment. Nigeria’s first oil head, now a national historic site, as a tourist attraction has many people who visit the site for many purposes. There is therefore the need to investigate radiation profile of the immediate environment. A study such as this one to quantify background ionizing radiation level around the immediate vicinity of the well head will not only provide base line data on exposure rate but will also provide data on radiological health effects on population within the site. The area of study is the immediate surroundings of Nigeria’s first oil well. Nigeria’s first oil well head is situated in Otuabagi in Oloibiri clan, Ogbia local government area of Bayelsa state. The state is host to one of the country's biggest reserves of oil and gas. The state’s population, according to 2022 census is two million, five hundred and thirty seen thousand, four hundred (2,537, 400). The Oloibiri terrain is made up of freshwater wetlands and streams formed by the distributaries of creeks. The region is part of the coastal belt, which is made up primarily of low-lying coastal plains that are structurally related to the Niger Delta's sedimentary layers (Oborie and Oki, 2017). Its geology is made up of fluvial sediments. The region is typified by lowlands and gentle undulating coastal plains, as well as sandbars, taidal basins, mud flats, and swamps (Ononugbo et al., 2015). The area considered for this survey is about 0 – 50 m from the oil well head. The oil well itself though no longer in production, is now a tourist attraction site with some level of construction here and there round the well head. Therefore, for this study, its immediate vicinity was categorized into the well head, muddy, sandy, granites chippings and concrete areas. Figure 1 shows a picture of Nigeria’s first oil well head in Oloibiri, Bayelsa State. file:///C:/user/Downloads/azojete143/www.azojete.com.ng mailto:%20kunleoluyori@gmail.com mailto:%20kunleoluyori@gmail.com Biere et al Measurement of Background Ionizing Radiation Level and Dose Risk Around Nigeria’s First Oil Well, Otuabagi, Oloibiri Clan, Bayelsa State, South-South, Nigeria. AZOJETE, 20(3):691-698. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng Corresponding author’s e-mail address: pbiere2003@gmail.com 693 Figure 1: Nigeria’s first oil well head 2. Materials and method Radiation alert inspector (Radalert-100X), a potable radiation detector was used for measuring background ionizing radiation. Radalert has an inbuilt Geiger-Muller tube capable of producing a pulse current when radiation goes through it (Ovuomarie-Kelvin et al., 2018). The pulse produced is automatically sensed then recorded as count. The radiation alert inspector was standardized by the use of 137Cs specific energy source and made to quantity the exposure in milli-Roentgen per hour (mRhr-1) and with a precision of ±15% (Biere et al., 2023). To carry out background ionizing radiation measurement, the area around the oil well head was divided into well head, muddy, sandy, granites chippings and concrete areas. Each segment is about three to four meters wide. Readings were taken linearly starting from the well head to an adjacent road off Ogbia-Nembe road. Average values of readings in each segment were taken and recorded in table. At each measurement point, the radiation meter was positioned 1 m from ground level and its window faced the expected source. The detector was switched on for about 120 s to absorb radiation. The process was repeated in all points of measurement and obtained readings were recorded in mRhr-1. 2.1 Determination of radiological hazards The background ionizing radiation (BIR) values measured were used to calculate other radiological parameters associated with it. 2.1.1 Absorbed dose rate in air (ADR) Absorbed dose rate which is applied to evaluate probable biological variations in specific tissues was estimated by means of equation 1 as given by Rafique et al 2014 1 𝜇𝑅ℎ−1 = 8.7 n𝐺𝑦ℎ−1 = 8.7 × 10−3 (1/8760𝑦) 𝑛𝐺𝑦𝑦−1 (1) This can be written as 1 𝑚𝑅ℎ−1 = 8.7 n𝐺𝑦ℎ−1 × 103 = 8700 𝑛𝐺𝑦ℎ−1 (2) http://www.azojete.com.ng/ mailto:%20edetjoseph1991@gmail.com%09 Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, September 2024; Vol. 20(3)691-698. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545- 5818; www.azojete.com.ng Corresponding author’s e-mail address: pbiere2003@gmail.com 694 2.1.2 Annual effective dose equivalent (AEDE) Annual effective dose equivalent. This parameter is employed to calculate the likelihood of long-term health consequence which may happen in the future. AEDE was calculated by the use of equation 3 (UNSCEAR, 2008). 𝐴𝐸𝐷𝐸 (𝑚𝑆𝑣𝑦−1) = 𝐷(𝑛𝐺𝑦𝑦−1) × 8760 ℎ × 𝐶𝐹 × 𝑂𝐹 × 10−3 (3) Where D is absorbed dose rate in 𝑛𝐺𝑦𝑦−1, 8760 h is entire hours in one year, CF is dose conversion factor from absorbed dose to effective dose in Sv/Gy. CF = 0.7 Sv/Gy. OF is occupancy factor, probable time that people would spend outdoor in the study area, OF = 0.2 as suggested by UNSCEAR, 2008 2.1.3 Excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) ELCR is a quantity that is used to determine the likelihood of development of cancer owing to contact with ionizing radiation. ECLR is given by equation 4 𝐸𝐶𝐿𝑅 = 𝐴𝐸𝐷𝐸 (𝑚𝑆𝑣𝑦−1) × 𝐷𝐿 × 𝑅𝐹 (4) Where DL = 70 years (average duration of life) and RF is cancer risk factor expressed in Sv-1. In the scenario of low dose background radiation, anticipated to result in stochastic effects, ICRP 103 stipulates a threshold of 0.05 Sv-1 for the public (ICRP, 2007). 3. Results and discussion Table 1 presents averages of measured background radiation and calculated radiological parameters associated with the exposure rates within the sections of the ambience of the abandoned oil well. To gain further insight of the variation of the various radiological parameters in the different segments around the well head, the average values obtained in this study have been plotted against their respective world average values. Figures 2 to 5 show the comparison of background radiation, absorbed dose rate, annual effective dose equivalent and excess life time cancer risk with World average. Table 1: Measured and estimated radiological parameters Data collection points BIR (mRh-1) ADR (nGyh-1) AEDE (mSvy-1) ELCR (x 10-3) Well-head area average 0.0095 82.65 0.101 0.353 Mudy area Average 0.010 87.0 0.107 0.372 Sandy area Average 0.011 95.7 0.117 0.409 Granites area Average 0.018 156.6 0.192 0.670 Concrete area Average 0.0155 134.85 0.165 0.577 Mean 0.0128 109.56 0.136 0.476 file:///C:/user/Downloads/azojete143/www.azojete.com.ng mailto:%20kunleoluyori@gmail.com mailto:%20kunleoluyori@gmail.com Biere et al Measurement of Background Ionizing Radiation Level and Dose Risk Around Nigeria’s First Oil Well, Otuabagi, Oloibiri Clan, Bayelsa State, South-South, Nigeria. AZOJETE, 20(3):691-698. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng Corresponding author’s e-mail address: pbiere2003@gmail.com 695 Figure 2: comparison of background radiation mean with world average Figure 3: comparison of absorbed dose rate mean with world average Figure 4: comparison of annual effective dose equivalent mean with world average Figure 5: comparison of excess lifetime cancer risk mean with world average 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 1 2 3 4 5 BIR (mRh-1) World average 0 50 100 150 200 1 2 3 4 5 ADR (nGyh-1) world average 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1 2 3 4 5 AEDE (mSvy-1) world average 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1 2 3 4 5 ELCR (x 10-3) world average (x 10-3) http://www.azojete.com.ng/ mailto:%20edetjoseph1991@gmail.com%09 Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, September 2024; Vol. 20(3)691-698. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545- 5818; www.azojete.com.ng Corresponding author’s e-mail address: pbiere2003@gmail.com 696 Discussion Table 1 presents the averages of in-situ measurements of background ionizing radiation in different segments in the immediate vicinity of Nigeria’s first oil well. The background exposure rate ranges from 0.0095 to 0,0155 mRh-1 with a mean of 0.0128 mRh-1. It is observed that some segments have exposure rate higher than the world permissible limit of 0.013 mRh-1 (Khamis et al., 2022), this could be attributed to the introduction of some geological materials and manmade activities which could have contribute to the overall radiation level. The mean background exposure rate recorded here falls between the range of the values published by Ovuomarie-Kelvin et al., 2018. However, they are less than the figures Avwiri et al., 2014 reported. Absorbed dose rate calculated ranges from 82.65 to 156.6 nGyh-1 with a mean of 109.56 nGyh-1. Mean of the study area is above both the world average of 59.0 nGyh-1 (Taskin et al., 2009) and 84.0 nGyh-1 tolerable threshold (Ayua et al., 2017). The high values reported here indicates that there is possibility of radiological contamination of the environment. Which indicates that radiation related health risk could occur in the future if precautions are not taken. The mean absorbed dose rate is above 95.7 nGyh-1 reported by Ovuomarie-Kelvin et al., 2018, but lower than 203.41 nGyh-1 reported by Anekwe and Onoja, 2020 for similar environments. Annual effective dose equivalent ranges from 0.101 to 0.192 mSvy-1 having a mean of 0.136 mSvy-1 which is above the world average 0.07 mSvy-1 (Agbalagba et al., 2016; ICRP 2013) but lower than the 1.0 mSvy-1 recommended threshold for general public (Taskin et al., 2009; UNSCEAR 2008). The average annual effective dose is comparable to those recorded by Ovuomarie-Kelvin et al., 2018. The calculated averages of ELCR from the study area ranges from 0.359 x 10-3 to 0.670 x 10-3 with a mean of 0.476 x 10-3. This mean exceeds the global average of 0.29 x 10-3 (UNSCEAR 2000). The mean ELCR from the study area is quite high. This indicates the possibility of developing cancer in the future. The mean value reported here is slightly above reported in Ovuomarie-Kelvin et al., 2018. Figures 2 to 5 show pictorial representation of the obtained results as compared with their respective averages. In Figure 2, the average background ionizing radiation from the well head, muddy and sandy areas are seen to be below the world average while that of the granite and concrete areas are above the world average. In Figure 3, only the average absorbed dose rate from the well head area is slightly below the world average and others are higher. Figure 4 show all averages of annual effective dose equivalent to be far below world average and Figure 5 shows all averages of excess lifetime cancer risk to be above world average. Conclusion This study is intended to reveal the level of radiological parameters around the closest proximity of Nigeria’s first oil well head which is no longer in use but is now a tourist destination and a historic land mark. The background ionizing radiation has a mean value which is approximately equal to the world average. Mean absorbed dose rate is above the world suggested tolerance level. Mean of annual effective dose equivalent is below the world permissible limit. Mean excess lifetime cancer risk exceeds the global average by a considerable margin. From the evaluation made, the granite area has the highest background ionizing radiation value and other parameters compared to that from the well head and the muddy area. These values were clearly seen to be influenced by the presence of granites spread in that segment around the well head. Nevertheless, as a result of the high values recorded in study, it is necessary to recommend that adequate measures like the ALARA (as low as reasonably file:///C:/user/Downloads/azojete143/www.azojete.com.ng mailto:%20kunleoluyori@gmail.com mailto:%20kunleoluyori@gmail.com Biere et al Measurement of Background Ionizing Radiation Level and Dose Risk Around Nigeria’s First Oil Well, Otuabagi, Oloibiri Clan, Bayelsa State, South-South, Nigeria. AZOJETE, 20(3):691-698. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng Corresponding author’s e-mail address: pbiere2003@gmail.com 697 achievable) principle should be taken to protect the general public from any radiation induced hazards. References Adrian, C. and Andres, C-B. 2020. Cell cycle and DNA repair regulation in the damage response: protein phosphates take over the reins. International Journal of Molecular Science, 21(2): 446. Doi 10.3390/ijms212020446 Agbalagba, EO., Avwiri, GO. and Ononugbo, CP. 2016. GIS mapping of impact of industrial activities on the terrestrial background ionizing radiation levels of Ughelli metropolis and its Environs, Nigeria. Environmental Earth Science, 75: 1425 Ajayi, TR., Torto, N., Tchokossa, P. and Akinlua, A. 2009. Natural radioactivity and trace metals in crude oils: implication for health. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 31: 61-69. DOI. 10.1007/s10653-008-9155-z Anekwe, Ul. And Onoja, RA. 2020. Assessment Of Environmental Radioactivity Level and Its Health Implication In Imiringi Community Bayelsa State. Nigerian Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, 24(6): 1045-1050. Avwiri, OG., Nte, UF. and Esi, EO. 2014. Assessment Of Background Ionization Radiation of Oil Spillage Site at Obodo Creek in Gokana L.G.A Of River State, Nigeria. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 4(36): 5072-5079. Ayua, J., Tyovenda, AA. and Igyuse, IS. 2017. Determination of ionizing radiation exposure levels within four local mining sites selected from Sardauna local government area of Taraba State, Nigeria. International Journal of Physics, 5(5): 157-161. Bernard, LC. 2002. Cancer risk from low-level radiation. American Journal of Roentgenology. 179(5): 1137-1143. https//doi.org/10.2214/ajr.179.5.1791137 Biere, PE., Ajetunmobi, AE., David, TW. and Talabi, AT. 2023. Assessment of radiological parameters in selected communities close to a major oil and gas facility in Bayelsa state south -south Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Physics, 32(4): 66 – 72. https://doi.org/10.62292/njp.v32i4.2023.150 IAEA. 2003. Radiation protection and the management of radioactive waste in the oil and gas industry. International Atomic Energy Agency Vienna, 2003. Safety reports series No. 34. IAEA. 2012. Application of radiotracer techniques for interwell studies. International Atomic Energy Agency Vienna, 2012. IAEA radiation technology series No. 3. ICRP. 2007. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Publication 103. ICRP. 2013. Publication 121: Radiological Protection in Pediatric Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP, 42 (2): 1 – 63. http://www.azojete.com.ng/ mailto:%20edetjoseph1991@gmail.com%09 https://doi.org/10.62292/njp.v32i4.2023.150 Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, September 2024; Vol. 20(3)691-698. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545- 5818; www.azojete.com.ng Corresponding author’s e-mail address: pbiere2003@gmail.com 698 Khamis, FM., Mundi, AA., Idris, MM., Mohammed, AA., Abdullahi, MH., Sulieman, A., Iwa, SJ. and Mohammad, IA. 2022. Indoor and Outdoor Background Exposure Level Assessment of Some Locations in National Youth Service Corps Orientation Camp, Keffi, Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Journal Of Radiography and Radiation Sciences, 37(2):16-23. Oborie, E. and Oki, OA. 2017. Geo-electric evaluation of aquifer protective capacity and groundwater flow pattern in Ogbia local government of Bayelsa State, Nigeria. Journal of Multidisciplinary Engineering Science and Technology, 4(5): 7203-7207. Ononugbo, CP., Avwiri, GO. and Tutumeni, G. 2015. Estimation of Indoor and Outdoor Effective Doses from Gamma Dose Rates of Residential Buildings in Emelogu Village in Rivers State, Nigeria. International Research Journal of Pure and Applied Physics, 3(2): 18-27. Ovuomarie-kevin, SI., Ononugbo, CP. and Avwiri, GO. 2018. Assessment of radiological health risks from gamma radiation levels in selected oil spill communities of Bayelsa State, Nigeria. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 28(3): 1-12. Rafique, M., Saeed, UR.., Mohammed, B., Wajid, A., Iftikhar, A., Kharsheed, AL. and Khalil, AM. 2014. Evaluation of excess lifetime cancer risk from gamma dose rates in Jhelum valley. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences, 7(1): 29-35. Soumyajit, M., Sukanta, G. and Syed, Z. 2023. Geological relationship between hydrocarbon and uranium: Review on two different sources of energy and the Indian scenario. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 221: 1-13. Taskin, H., Karavus, M., Topuzoglu, PA., Hindiroglu, S. and Karahan, G. 2009. Radionuclide concentrations in soil and life time cancer risk due to gamma radioactivity in Kirklareli, Turkey. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 100:49-53. Ugwuanyi, DC., Nzotta, ON., Ogolodom, MP., Sibeudu, TF., Ibekwe, AM. and Ezeaku, NO. 2021. Background radiation levels in selected dumpsites in Nnewi communities setting Southeast Nigeria. International Journal of Radiation Research, 19(3): 743-747. Doi: 10.29252/ijrr.19.2.743 UNSCEAR. 2000. Sources of ionizing radiation. United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation, (UNSCEAR). 2000 report, United Nations, New York. UNSCEAR. 2008. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes. Vol. 1. New York. Yasser, FA., Francis, AC., Liu, N-A. and Guangming, Z. 2020. Cancer risk of low level dose ionizing radiation. Frontiers in Physics, 8: 234. Doi: 10.3389/fphy.2020.00234 Zhivotovsky, B. and Orrenius, S. 2010. Cell cycle and cell death in disease: past present and future. Journal of Internal Medicine, 268(5): 395 – 409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2796.2010.02282.x file:///C:/user/Downloads/azojete143/www.azojete.com.ng mailto:%20kunleoluyori@gmail.com mailto:%20kunleoluyori@gmail.com