Occurrence of uranium in groundwater of a shallow granitic aquifer and its suitability for domestic...

Occurrence of uranium in groundwater of a shallow graniticaquifer and its suitability for domestic use in southern India

K. Brindha • L. Elango

Received: 19 March 2012 / Published online: 28 September 2012

� Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Abstract Groundwater used for domestic purpose with-

out proper treatment should be free from chemical and

biological contaminants. This study was carried out to

assess the groundwater quality with respect to uranium in a

part of Nalgonda district, Andhra Pradesh, India. Ground-

water was regularly monitored for uranium concentration

by collection of samples once every two months from

March 2008 to November 2009 from 44 wells. The con-

centration of uranium in groundwater ranged from 0.2 to

118.4 ppb. Groundwater is unsuitable for domestic use in

2 % of this area based on the limit of 60 ppb prescribed by

the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board of India. However,

due the wide variation in limit suggested by different

organizations and countries, the no-observed-adverse-

effect level and lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (in

mg/kg day) was used to understand the dosage of uranium

that reaches the people through drinking water pathway.

This level varied from 0 to 0.02 mg/kg day and 0 to

0.08 mg/kg day based on an uncertainty factor of 10 and

50 respectively for the mean uranium concentration in

groundwater in each well. With an uncertainty factor of 50,

5 groundwater samples had uranium above 0.06 mg/kg day

which is the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level. This

study showed that with the presence of present level of

uranium concentration in groundwater of this area there is

no major threat to humans through the drinking water

pathway.

Keywords Geology � Granitic rock � Drinking water �Uranium standard � NOAEL � LOAEL � Nalgonda � India

Introduction

Naturally groundwater consists of major ions, minor ions,

trace metals, heavy metals, radionuclides, organic matter

etc. It is often used for drinking and domestic purposes

apart from agricultural and industrial purposes due to its

wide distribution and as it is comparatively less polluted

than surface water. The groundwater quality needs to be

monitored regularly so as to check that its composition do

not exceed the limits of drinking water quality standards.

Assessment of groundwater quality for different uses based

on these standards has been carried out in several parts of

the world [1–5]. India is one among several developing

countries where treated piped water supply is not available

throughout the day and hence the people depend on using

groundwater for their basic needs without treatment

from private wells. It is therefore important to monitor

the groundwater quality in such areas regularly to advice

the community to exercise proper caution while using the

groundwater for different domestic purposes. The ground-

water quality in these areas may be controlled by several

factors. Geochemical processes and geology of an area

control the groundwater quality [6–8]. The geology in an

area play a significant role especially in an ore mineralised

region.

The present study was carried out in a part of Nalgonda

district, Andhra Pradesh, southern India (Fig. 1) where

unconformity related uranium deposits have been reported

[9]. Uranium is a radionuclide present in minute quantity in

groundwater naturally which has been studied by several

researchers [10–12]. In this area uranium is abundant in the

K. Brindha � L. Elango (&)

Department of Geology, Anna University, Chennai 600 025,

India

e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

K. Brindha

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Radioanal Nucl Chem (2013) 295:357–367

DOI 10.1007/s10967-012-2090-6

granitic rocks as reported by Shrivastava et al. [13]. Singh

et al. [14] reported the range of uranium concentration

from 0.5 to 410 ppb in groundwater in Palnadu sub-basin

which is located adjacent to the present study area having a

similar geological setup. Previous studies have been carried

out in this area on groundwater quality based on EC (elec-

trical conductivity), fluoride, bromide and nitrate [15–18].

The impact on the groundwater environment due to the

transport of uranium and other radionuclides from the

proposed tailings pond in this area was studied by Elango

et al. [19].

Brindha et al. [20] reported that the concentration of

uranium was relatively higher than the USEPA drinking

water limit of 30 ppb [21] in three areas based on the

sampling carried out in this area for six times during March

2008 to January 2009. The present study was a continua-

tion of this work carried out by the collection and analysis

of groundwater samples until the end of the year 2009. As

the uranium concentration in groundwater varies dynami-

cally with respect to space and time, it is important to

consider this variation over a longer period of time for

classifying this region with suitable or unsuitable ground-

water quality. This aspect is essential when management

measures are to be planned and implemented. Thus this

study was carried out with an aim of assessing the

groundwater quality with respect to uranium based on two

year regular monitoring in a part of Nalgonda district,

Andhra Pradesh.

Description of study site

The study area is located in Nalgonda district at a distance

of about 80 km from Hyderabad in the state of Andhra

Pradesh in India (Fig. 1). Arid to semi-arid climate prevails

in this area, with hot climate during April-June with a

temperature ranging from 30 �C to 46.5 �C and in

November–January the temperature is varying between

16 �C and 29 �C. Average annual rainfall in this area is

about 600 mm which occurs usually during the southwest

monsoon (June–September). The study area was demar-

cated as far as possible with well-defined hydrological

boundary covering an area of about 724 km2 (Fig. 2a).

Gudipalli Vagu and Pedda Vagu are two rivers that form

the northern and southern boundaries of the study area

respectively. These two rivers are seasonal and they flow

for a few days during the southwest monsoon period of

June–September. Nagarjuna Sagar reservoir is located at

the southeastern side of the study area. The forest cover in

this area is thin to moderate. Most of the study area com-

prises of agricultural land (Fig. 2b). Paddy is the principle

crop grown in this area while other crops include sweet

lime, castor, cotton, grams and groundnut. Drip irrigation is

practiced in this area especially for growing sweet lime.

Most of this study area has an undulating topography

with a minimum elevation of 150 m msl (Fig. 2c). In

general, the ground surface slopes towards southeast

direction with intermittent hillocks with height ranging

Fig. 1 Location of study area

358 K. Brindha, L. Elango

123

from 250 to 300 m. The rainfall, topography and nature of

formation have lead to dentritic to subdentritic drainage

pattern in this area (Fig. 2a). Trellis type drainage pattern is

also seen. Numerous small reservoirs are present in the

depressed parts of the undulating topography of the study

area. There are also wide lined canal networks catering for

irrigation purposes.

Geologically this region is largely comprised of granite/

granitic gneisss, pink biotite granite, grey hornblende biotite

gneiss, migmatite granite and metabasalt belonging to late

Archean (Fig. 2d). These rocks are generally medium to

coarse grained. Most part of the investigated area has

exposures of granitic rocks belonging to late Archaen. The

granitic rocks are characterised by criss crossing joints and

they are the most commonly observed structural feature in

the area. The Srisailam formation, the youngest member of

the Cuddapah supergroup overlies the basement granite with

a distinct unconformity. This Srisailam formation is exposed

in the southeastern part of the study area. The Srisailam

formation are mainly arenaceous and include pebbly–gritty

quartzite shale with dolomitic limestone, intercalated

sequence of shale–quartzite and massive quartzite. The litho

units of this formation are dipping at an angle ranging from

38 to 58 towards SE. In the early 1990s uranium minerali-

sation was located in the unconformity of this area between

Srisailam formation of Cuddapah supergroup and the base-

ment granites [22].

Materials and methods

Data collection

To prepare the base map and drainage map of the study

area, toposheet nos. 56 L/13 SE, 56 L/13/SW, 56 P/1/SW,

56 P/1/SE, 56 L/14/NW, 56 L/14/NE, 56 P/2/NW, 56 P/2/

NE, 56 P/6/NW, 56 P/2/SW, 56 P/2/SE, 56 P/5/SW and 56

P/6/SW (scale-1:25,000) covering the study area was

obtained from Survey of India, Hyderabad, Andhra Pra-

desh, India. The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission

(SRTM) data was used to prepare the topographic map of

the study area. The geological map (scale-1:50,000)

was acquired from Geological Survey of India (GSI)

[23], Hyderabad, and this was modified based on field

investigations.

Fig. 2 a Drainage with monitoring wells, b land use, c topography, and d geology of the study area

Uranium occurrence in groundwater and its suitability for domestic use in southern India 359

123

Groundwater sampling and analysis

An intensive field survey was carried out and nearly 240 wells

were studied for choosing appropriate sampling wells for

periodical monitoring of uranium concentration. Based on the

EC a representative well approximately at a distance of 5 km

each was chosen. Forty-four wells were thus selected for peri-

odical monitoring which is shown in Fig. 2a. Groundwater

samples were collected from these wells from March 2008 to

November 2009, once every 2 months. The sampling bottles of

500 ml capacity were cleaned prior to sampling by soaking

them in 1:1 diluted HNO3 for 24 h and they were washed

thoroughly with distilled water. Further, these bottles were

washed again before each sampling at least two times with the

filtrates of the sample. The uranium concentration in these

groundwater samples was determined using laser fluorimeter

which has a detection limit of 0.1 ppb [24, 25]. All the ana-

lytical reagents used were procured from Merck. Blanks and

standards were run intermittently during the measurement for

ensuring accuracy of the result. For every ten samples, three

samples were run in triplicates by varying the concentration of

the standard and a calibration curve was obtained to cross check

the accuracy of the instrument and to avoid handling errors.

Software used

Groundwater quality maps based on uranium were plotted out

using Arc GIS 9.3. This software was also used for the prep-

aration of topography, drainage, geology and land use maps.

Fig. 3 Uranium concentration (ppb) in groundwater of different locations


123

Results and discussion

It is essential to study the groundwater quality of areas

where ores of any mineral occur as there are chances that

the groundwater may be enriched by that mineral due to

natural processes. Taking account of this the uranium

concentration in groundwater of this uranium mineralised

area is studied. No other studies carried out from this area

have reported adverse-effect of major ions on groundwater

quality except for the spatial and temporal variation in the

concentration of EC, fluoride, bromide and nitrate [15–18].

Several studies have also reported uranium occurrence in

groundwater and surface water around the world based on

one time sampling and hence they did not take into account

the temporal variation. A total of 446 groundwater samples

were collected and analysed in this study based on which

the interpretation has been made.

Variation in uranium concentration

Uranium concentration in groundwater of the study area

varies significantly with respect to space and time. The

Fig. 4 Variation in uranium concentration (ppb) from March 2008 to November 2009 along with the maximum permissible limits

Fig. 5 Temporal variation in uranium concentration (ppb) in groundwater of few wells


123

concentration of uranium in groundwater samples collected

from various wells for September 2008 and September

2009 are shown in Fig. 3. Uranium concentration in

groundwater ranged from 0.2 to 118.4 ppb with an average

of 18.5 ppb in the study area and the range varied with time

(Fig. 4). The temporal variation in uranium concentration

is in the order of magnitude of 2 to 10. As an example the

temporal variation in a few wells are shown in Fig. 5.

The concentration of uranium in groundwater greatly

depends on the composition of the rocks in the aquifer. The

concentration of uranium in granitic rocks has been studied

widely by several researchers (Table 1) which is up to

35.4 ppm [26–30]. The granitic rocks which occur in most

of the study area contain uranium in the range of

10.2–116 ppm with an average of 35 ppm and thorium

between 25.5 and 60.7 ppm with an average of 50 ppm

[13].

Interaction between the uranium rich weathered granitic

rocks or top soil and groundwater has resulted in increase

in uranium concentration in groundwater of this study area.

Based on the rock type the sampling wells were divided to

understand its relationship with uranium (Fig. 6). Uranium

concentration was higher in wells located in granitic gneiss,

followed by migmatite granite and pink biotite granite

respectively. This shows that granitic rocks contribute

significantly to uranium concentration in groundwater of

this area.

Water quality based on uranium

Continuous monitoring of uranium concentration in

groundwater over a period of two years was used to assess

the groundwater quality in this area. WHO [31] had rec-

ommended 15 ppb of uranium in drinking water as safe

limit. USEPA [21] has put forth 30 ppb of uranium as the

permissible limit. Though the Indian standards specifica-

tion for drinking water [32] does not specify any maximum

permissible limit for uranium, a maximum limit of 60 ppb

as recommended by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board

(AERB), India [33]. Of the total 446 groundwater samples

collected and analyzed, 2 % of the groundwater samples

were above the AERB limit (Fig. 7). The number of

groundwater samples exceeding this limit is also shown in

Fig. 4. Based on USEPA limit, 22.5 % of the groundwater

samples had uranium above the maximum permissible

limit of 30 ppb (Fig. 7).

The mean uranium concentration in different wells

based on AERB limit and its suitability for drinking is

shown in Fig. 8. Groundwater of these locations are suit-

able for domestic use such as cooking and drinking as it

contains average uranium concentration below 60 ppb.

Number of groundwater samples with various ranges of

uranium concentration is shown in Fig. 9. Nearly 40 % of

the groundwater samples had uranium concentration within

10 ppb. Even though the mean uranium concentration

based on eleven bimonthly measurements is within the

AERB limit of 60 ppb (Fig. 8) during certain times the

Table 1 Uranium content in granite rocks

Rock type Location Uranium

concentration

(ppm)

Reference

Quartz monzonite

and granite

South

California

5.2–5.3 [26]

Idaho 2.2–6.3

Sierra

Nevada

2.3–7.2

Granite Alaska 5.6–35.4 [27]

Mica granite Egypt 20.3 average [28]

Hornblende biotite

granite

4.9 average

Granite Shingbhum,

India

4.75 average [29]

Granite Shingbhum,

India

7 average [30]

Fig. 6 Uranium concentration

in groundwater under different

rock types


123

concentration of uranium in groundwater exceeded the

maximum limit of 60 ppb (Fig. 4). Hence it is important to

assess its possible impact on humans who may consume

this water.

The maximum permissible limit of uranium in drinking

water recommended by different countries and organisations

are very different. As mentioned in the earlier section, the

maximum permissible limit for uranium in drinking water as

per WHO is 15 ppb [31], USEPA is 30 ppb [21] and AERB is

60 ppb [33]. Hence delineation of wells into suitable and

unsuitable based on these standards is not meaningful. Fur-

ther, uranium is occurring in relatively high concentration in

the rocks in India and hence the background level of con-

centration in groundwater is expected to be more. Hence, it

will be better to compare the groundwater quality based on

the toxicity caused by intake of groundwater containing

uranium in the human body rather than assessing the suit-

ability based on its absolute concentration.

NOAEL/LOAEL

The toxicological effects of uranium on animals have been

studied by various researchers. The no-observed-adverse-

effect level (NOAEL) is the highest dose in a toxicity study

that does not result in any observed adverse-effect (an

adverse-effect significantly alters the health of the target

animal for a sustained period of time or reduces survival)

[34]. The lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) is

the lowest dose in a toxicity study that results in an

observed adverse-effect (usually one dosage level above

the NOAEL) [34]. So classifying the groundwater of the

study area on the basis of NOAEL or LOAEL will give us

an insight into the level of contamination of groundwater

by the natural geogenic sources.

NOAEL/LOAEL is given as [35],

C ¼ NOAEL=LOAEL� BW� RSC

UF � DWð1Þ

where, C = a public health-protective concentration

(C) for uranium in drinking water (mg/l); NOAEL/LO-

AEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level/lowest-observed-

adverse-effect level (mg/kg day); BW = body weight of

an adult human (kg); RSC = relative source contribution;

UF = uncertainty factor; and DW = daily water con-

sumption default for an adult (l/day).

With the variations in drinking water standards of various

countries and organisations like WHO, USEPA and AERB it

Fig. 7 Percentage of groundwater samples with uranium concentra-

tion above various standards

Fig. 8 Mean uranium concentration (ppb) in groundwater based on eleven times of sampling once in 2 months


123

is not reasonable to estimate the suitability of water for

drinking purposes. It is more meaningful to estimate the

intake of natural uranium through drinking water and then

comparing it with the NOAEL/LOAEL. The measured ura-

nium concentration in groundwater of each sampling loca-

tion was used and the NOAEL/LOAEL were calculated to

determine its suitability for drinking purpose. This method

will help in assessing the groundwater quality with respect to

the chemical toxicity of uranium.

So, NOAEL/LOAEL is calculated by,

NOAEL=LOAEL ¼ DW� UF� Cð Þ= BW� RSCð Þ ð2Þ

The daily water consumption for an adult is 2 l/day and

the average adult body weight is considered 70 kg for this

Fig. 9 Groundwater samples

with uranium concentration in

different ranges

Fig. 10 Range and mean LOAEL of uranium at different sampling locations


123

purpose. Instead of C which helps to arrive at a

public health-protective concentration (C) for uranium in

drinking water, in this equation, C was substituted with the

concentration of uranium in groundwater. For conservative

estimates of the intakes, a UF of 10, 50 and 100 was used in

the derivation.

The NOAEL for natural uranium is estimated as 0.2 mg/

kg day for adult by California Environmental Protection

Agency in 1997 [36]. But studies by Gilman in 1998 [37]

has estimated the LOAEL based on toxicity in rats evi-

denced by a variety of kidney and liver histological lesions

to be 0.06 mg/kg day [35]. Hence it is reasonable to

consider the LOAEL for comparison of uranium concen-

tration in groundwater obtained from this study.

The LOAEL with UF = 10 calculated for mean ura-

nium concentration of each sampling location varied from

0 to 0.02 mg/kg day. As the LOAEL did not exceed the

limit of 0.06 mg/kg day [35] with an UF of 10 at any of the

sampling wells, the spatial variation based on this is not

shown. The range and mean LOAEL of uranium at dif-

ferent sampling locations for UF = 50 and 100 is given in

Fig. 10. Figure 11 shows the variation in LOAEL with

UF = 50 and 100 at different sampling locations. The

suitability of groundwater based on the LOAEL of 0.6 mg/

Fig. 11 Variation in LOAEL with UF = 50 and 100 at sampling locations


123

kg day and UF of 50 calculated for mean uranium con-

centration in each sampling location is given in Fig. 12. Of

the 44 sampling wells, 5 wells had LOAEL above 0.06 mg/

kg day. Thus 11 % of the groundwater samples exceeded

the LOAEL of uranium in groundwater of this study area

with an uncertainty factor of 50. The LOAEL was also

calculated for the overall mean uranium concentration in

this study area of 18.5 ppb (based on 446 groundwater

samples) with UF = 10, 50 and 100. The level varied from

0.005 (UF = 10); 0.03 (UF = 50) and 0.05 (UF = 100).

Hence, in general considering the average uranium con-

centration in groundwater even with an UF of 100, there is

no major threat due to consumption to the people of this

area.

Conclusion

Periodical monitoring of uranium concentration in

groundwater was carried out from March 2008 to

November 2009 once every 2 months from 44 wells in a

part of Nalgonda district, Andhra Pradesh, India. The

uranium concentration varied from 0.2 to 118.4 ppb with a

mean of 18.5 ppb. The uranium concentration in ground-

water of 446 groundwater samples analysed was compared

with the maximum permissible limit of 60 ppb as put forth

by AERB of India and was found that 2 % of groundwater

samples were above this limit. The groundwater suitability

was also determined based on the LOAEL using the mean

concentration of uranium in each sampling well. Ground-

water was suitable based on LOEAL with an UF of 10.

With an UF of 50, 11 % of the groundwater samples were

above the LOAEL of 0.06 mg/kg day. Thus this study

helped to understand the groundwater suitability based on

uranium in a region where groundwater is used for drinking

and domestic purposes.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the

Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences, Department of Atomic

Energy, Government of India for funding this work (Grant no.

2007/36/35). Authors also like to thank the Department of Science

and Technology’s Funds for Improvement in Science and Technology

scheme (Grant No. SR/FST/ESI-106/2010) and University Grants

Commission’s Special Assistance Programme (Grant No. UGC DRS

II F.550/10/DRS/2007(SAP-1)) for their support in creating labora-

tory facilities, which helped in carrying out part of this work. The

authors also thank the anonymous reviewer for the critical and

valuable comments that helped in significantly improving the

manuscript.

References

1. Korfali SI, Jurdi M (2007) Assessment of domestic water quality:

case study, Beirut, Lebanon. Environ Monit Assess 135:241–251

2. Dawoud MA, Raouf ARA (2009) Groundwater exploration and

assessment in rural communities of Yobe State, Northern Nigeria.

Water Resour Manag 23(3):581–601

3. Toshisuke M, Fumikazu N, Hiroshi T, Kimihito N, Takeo O

(2011) Assessment of the long-term variation in the nitrogen

pollution load potential from farmland to groundwater in the

Tedori River Basin, Japan. Paddy Water Environ 9:441–449

4. Nosrati K, Eeckhaut MVD (2012) Assessment of groundwater

quality using multivariate statistical techniques in Hashtgerd

Plain, Iran. Environ Earth Sci 65:331–344

5. Brindha K, Elango L (2011) Hydrochemical characteristics of

groundwater for domestic and irrigation purposes in Madhuran-

thakam, Tamil Nadu, India. Earth Sci Res J 15(2):101–108

Fig. 12 LOAEL calculated with mean uranium in groundwater and UF = 50 in sample locations


123

6. Liu CW, Jang CS, Chen CP, Lin CN, Lou KL (2008) Character-

ization of groundwater quality in Kinmen Island using multivariate

analysis and geochemical modelling. Hydrol Process 22:376–

383

7. Zhu C, Schwartz W (2011) Hydrogeochemical processes and controls

on water quality and water management. Elements 7(3):169–174

8. Rajesh R, Brindha K, Murugan R, Elango L (2012) Influence of

hydrogeochemical processes on temporal changes in groundwater

quality in a part of Nalgonda district, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Environ Earth Sci 65:1203–1213

9. Sinha RM, Shrivastava VK, Sarma GVG, Parthasarathy TN

(1995) Geological favourability for unconformity-related Ura-

nium deposits in northern parts of the Cuddapah Basin: evidences

from Lambapur Uranium occurrences, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Explor Res Atomic Miner 8:111–126

10. Simsek C (2008) Assessment of natural radioactivity in aquifer

medium bearing uranium ores in Koprubasi, Turkey. Environ

Geol 55:1637–1646

11. Chkir N, Guendouz A, Zouari K, Ammar FH, Moulla AS (2009)

Uranium isotopes in groundwater from the continental interca-

laire aquifer in Algerian Tunisian Sahara (Northern Africa).

J Environ Radioact 100:649–656

12. Rana BK, Tripathi RM, Sahoo SK, Sethy NK, Sribastav VS,

Shykla AK, Puranik VD (2010) Assessment of natural uranium

and 226 Ra concentration in ground water around the uranium

mine at Narwapahar, Jharkhand, India and its radiological sig-

nificance. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 285:711–717

13. Shrivastava VK, Parthasarathy TN, Sinha KK (1992) Geochem-

ical study of uraniferous granites from Lambapur area Nalgonda

District Andhra Pradesh, India. Explor Res Atomic Miner 5:

41–52

14. Singh RV, Sinha RM, Bisht BS, Banerjee DC (2002) Hydrog-

eochemical exploration for unconformity-related uranium min-

eralization: example from Palnadu sub-basin Cuddapah Basin,

Andhra Pradesh, India. J Geochem Explor 76:71–92

15. Brindha K, Elango L (2011) Spatial assessment of groundwater

quality based on minor ions. American Geophysical Union 2011

Fall Meeting, San Francisco, 5–9 December 2011

16. Brindha K, Rajesh R, Murugan R, Elango L (2011) Fluoride

contamination in groundwater in parts of Nalgonda district,

Andhra Pradesh, India. Environ Monit Assess 172:481–492

17. Brindha K, Rajesh R, Murugan R, Elango L (2010) Natural and

anthropogenic influence on the fluoride and nitrate concentration

of groundwater in parts of Nalgonda district, Andhra Pradesh,

India. J Appl Geochem 12(2):231–241

18. Brindha K, Elango L (2010) Study on bromide in groundwater in

parts of Nalgonda district, Andhra Pradesh. Earth Sci India 3(1):

73–80

19. Elango L, Brindha K, Kalpana L, Faby Sunny, Nair RN, Murugan

R (2012) Groundwater flow and radionuclide decay-chain trans-

port modelling around a proposed uranium tailings pond in India.

Hydrogeol J 20(4):797–812

20. Brindha K, Elango L, Nair RN (2011) Spatial and temporal

variation of uranium in a shallow weathered rock aquifer in

southern India. J Earth Syst Sci 120(5):911–920

21. USEPA (2003) United States Environmental Protection Agency

Current drinking water standards Ground water and drinking

water protection agency, Report prepared by Wade Miller

Associates, 1–12

22. Sinha RM, Saxena VP (2003) Cuddapah basin: a store-house for

uranium deposits. Nuclear India. Available from: http://www.dae.

gov.in/ni/nijul03/cudapah.pdf. Accessed on 23rd June 2012

23. GSI (Geological Survey of India) (1995) Geology and minerals

map of Nalgonda district Andhra Pradesh, India

24. Rani A, Singh S (2006) Analysis of uranium in drinking water

samples using laser induced fluorimetry. Health Phys 91(2):101–107

25. Kumar SA, Shenoy NS, Pandey S, Sounderajan S, Venkateswa-

ran G (2008) Direct determination of uranium in seawater by

laser fluorimetry. Talanta 77:422–426

26. Larsen ES 3rd, Gottfried D (1960) Uranium and thorium in

selected suites of igneous rocks. Am J Sci 258-A:151–169

27. Reed BL, Miller TP (1980) Uranium and thorium content of some

tertiary granitic rocks in the southern Alaska range, open file

report 80–1052, United States Department of the Interior Geo-

logical Survey, 16

28. Dawood YH (2009) Radiogenic Isotope Fractionation as an

Indication for Uranium Mobility in the Granites of El Shallal

Area, West Central Sinai, Egypt. JKAU Earth Sci 20(1):215–238

29. Saha AK, Sankaran AV, Bhattacharyya TK (1969) A preliminary

study of the distribution of uranium and thorium in the granitic

rocks of Singhbhum. 36A(6):388–397

30. Sarangi AK, Singh AS (2007) Vein type uranium mineralisation

in Jaduguda uranium deposit, Singhbhum, India. Available from:

http://www.ucil.gov.in/web/Papers-Sarangi/VEIN%20TYPE%

20U%20MINERALISATION%20at%20Jaduguda,%20INDIA%

20_Extended%20ABSTRACT_.pdf. Accessed on 23rd June 2012

31. WHO (2004) World Health Organisation’s Guidelines for drinking

water quality, vol 1, 3rd edn, Recommendations, World Health

Organisation, Geneva, p 515

32. BIS (2003) Bureau of Indian Standards specification for drinking

water, IS:10500:91. Revised 2003, Bureau of Indian Standards,

New Delhi

33. AERB (2004) Atomic Energy Regulatory Board Directive for

limit on uranium in drinking water, India

34. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (1996) 6th

Edition. Prepared by the Federal-Provincial Subcommittee on

Drinking Water of the Federal-Provincial Committee on Envi-

ronmental and Occupational Health. Published by authority of the

Minister of Health of Canada, p 91

35. Public health goal for uranium in drinking water (2001) Prepared

by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,

California Environmental Protection Agency and Pesticide and

Environmental Toxicology Section, p 37

36. Public health goal for uranium in drinking water (1997) Prepared

by the Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Section, Office of

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and California Envi-

ronmental Protection Agency, p 22

37. Gilman AP, Villeneuve DC, Secours VE, Yagminas AP, Tracy

BL, Quinn JM, Valli VE, Willes RJ, Moss MA (1998) Uranyl

nitrate: 28-day and 91-day toxicity studies in the Sprague-Dawley

rat. Toxicol Sci 41:117–128


123

http://www.dae.gov.in/ni/nijul03/cudapah.pdf

http://www.dae.gov.in/ni/nijul03/cudapah.pdf

http://www.ucil.gov.in/web/Papers-Sarangi/VEIN%20TYPE%20U%20MINERALISATION%20at%20Jaduguda,%20INDIA%20_Extended%20ABSTRACT_.pdf



Occurrence of uranium in groundwater of a shallow granitic aquifer and its suitability for domestic...

Documents

Transcript of Occurrence of uranium in groundwater of a shallow granitic aquifer and its suitability for domestic...