Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Oct 19;18(10):e0289113. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289113

Measurement of radioactivity in soils of Karamjal and Harbaria mangrove forest of Sundarbans for establishment of radiological database

M M Mahfuz Siraz 1,*, Jubair A M 2, M S Alam 2, Md Bazlar Rashid 3, Z Hossain 1, Mayeen Uddin Khandaker 4,5, D A Bradley 5,6, S Yeasmin 1
Editor: Md Naimur Rahman7
PMCID: PMC10586596  PMID: 37856554

Abstract

This work presents the first in-depth study of soil radioactivity in the mangrove forest of Bangladesh part of the Sundarbans. It used HPGe gamma-ray spectrometry to measure the amount of natural radioactivity in soil samples from Karamjal and Harbaria sites of the world’s largest mangrove forest. The activity concentrations of most of the 226Ra (14±2 Bqkg-1 to 35±4 Bqkg-1) and 232Th (30±5 Bqkg-1 to 50±9 Bqkg-1) lie within the world average values, but the 40K concentration (370± 44 Bqkg-1 to 660±72 Bqkg-1) was found to have exceeded the world average value. The evaluation of radiological hazard parameters revealed that the outdoor absorbed dose rate (maximum 73.25 nGyh-1) and outdoor annual effective dose (maximum 0.09 mSvy-1) for most samples exceeded the corresponding world average values. The elevated concentration of 40K is mainly due to the salinity intrusion, usage of fertilizers and agricultural runoff, and migration of waste effluents along the riverbanks. Being the pioneering comprehensive research on the Bangladesh side of the Sundarbans, this study forms a baseline radioactivity for the Sundarbans before the commissioning of the Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant in Bangladesh.

1. Introduction

Natural background radiation is ubiquitous in our dwelling environment. It arises mostly from the Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORMs) such as 238U,232Th, and 40K and their decay products such as 226Ra, 222Rn, etc. NORMs are widespread on the Earth’s surface and vary depending on the geological formations of soils, sediments, rocks, water, vegetation, etc. Increased use of ionising radiation or anthropogenic radioactivity may pose non-negligible threats to living beings; therefore, radio-ecological assessment must be carried out to gather information on the radiological hazards to human and animal life in this present era of nuclear technology. The coastal environment and other aquatic ecosystems may provide notable information on radiological contamination because they facilitate the migration and accumulation of radioactive materials [1]. The present study site, Sundarbans, is a well-known coastal-aquatic ecosystem whose soils and sediments are also used to build homes and shelters for the nearby inhabitants.

The Sundarbans, located in the southwestern region of Bangladesh, is the largest block of tidal halophytic mangrove forest in the world, lying on the delta of Meghna, Brahmaputra, and Padma rivers on the Bay of Bengal. The forest comprises about 200 islands, divided by about 400 interconnected tidal rivers, creeks, and canals. In 1997, UNESCO declared ‘The Sundarbans’ a World Heritage Site owing to its species of biodiversity [2]. The Sundarbans is also the center of various economic activities such as timber extraction, honey collection, and fishing [3]. The Sundarbans provide a land-sea interface and seawater-freshwater interface that is home to a diverse ecosystem and provides a unique connection of different atmospheres, geologies, lithosphere, and hydrosphere. It has been reported that the Sundarbans is affected by highly diverse agricultural and aquaculture activities, which involve the usage of fertilizers and other chemicals, as well as soil erosion and wastewater runoff into the Sundarbans from these sites [4]. Since The Sundarbans is a vital site for agriculture and fishing, raised levels of radioactivity may cause by the influx of fertilizers and chemical pollution, which might affect the thousands of animal species living in the forest, and the bio-magnification of radioactivity may also affect the human population via the food chain. In the Indian region of the Sundarbans, the average activity of 40K (532–1043 Bqkg-1) was reported to be more than twice as high as the global average of 420 Bqkg-1 [5]. The authors hypothesised that the accumulation of upstream wastes and undesirable effluents along this coastal zone, together with rising salinity and the usage of fertilisers to boost crop productivity, may have collectively inficted K content. As the implications are comparable, it is necessary to do a similar radioactivity measurement in the Bangladesh part of the Sundarbans.

Moreover, Southern Bangladesh is experiencing major industrial developments, including the construction of 9 power plants. Of these, 6 projects are located in 3 locations surrounding the Sundarbans. Among these power plants, the Rampal Coal-based Thermal Power Plant poses the greatest concern, as it is located only 4km outside of the Ecologically Critical Area (ECA) on the east bank of the Pashur River. Furthermore, the Pashur River will be used for the transportation and trans-shipments of coal for the Rampal Power Plant, which poses the risk of coal spillage in the river. It has also been reported that 1–2 annual shipping accidents occur in the Sundarbans, which mainly involve coal and fertilizer shipping [6, 7]. In addition, The Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant is due to commissioning in 2023–24, which will use the Padma River water as its tertiary coolant. Since the Sundarbans lies at the delta of Padma River, the releases, if any, from the power plant might affect the overall radioactivity level of the waterbodies, sand, and sediments of the Sundarbans. Considering all of these foreseeable events, it is necessary to obtain the baseline data of NORMs in the Sundarbans areas, to monitor any radiological changes in the future due to natural or anthropogenic activities.

A few studies were reported on radiation levels of the mangrove forests in Pernambuco, Brazil, where maximum level of 40K was found to be 1338 Bqkg-1, and the authors concluded that this was due the influence of sediments and presence of granites [8]. Radioactivity studies conducted in the petrified wood forests in Egypt found levels of 238U (65.26±12.99 Bqkg-1) exceeding the world average values, along with the presence of the artificial radionuclide 137Cs arising from the nuclear accident in Chernobyl, and from the deposition from nuclear weapon tests in the neighbouring countries [9]. Very high concentrations of 232Th were found in three Norwegian forests due to their proximity to an active volcano and the complex mixture of heavy mineral salts present there [10]. In the Indian Sundarbans mangrove forest, large amounts of 40K were discovered (maximum 866 Bqkg-1), mostly due to the continuous deposition and erosion of silt, sediment, and other organic matter [1], also low levels of NORMs were discovered in the Krusadai Island Mangrove as a result of the region’s low concentration of radiation-bearing minerals [11], and nitrogen fertilisers, a source of 40K in the environment, are widely used to improve soil nitrogen balance for agricultural development [12]. Moreover, it was found that the activity of 238U and 232Th had decreased from pre-tsunami data (25.9± 15.8 Bqkg-1 and 65.1±34.5 Bqkg-1) to post-tsunami data (12.2± 4.2 Bqkg-1 and 11.7±5.0 Bqkg-1) [13]. Although, the conditions are similar in the Sundarbans of Bangladesh only two studies have been found to date in the Sundarbans of Bangladesh site, one of which reported levels of NORMs were below the world average values in sediment samples [14] and the other study assessed the number of trace elements in sediments samples revealing, using various environmental contamination indices, that the sediments of the region have moderate to severely contaminated levels of Cd and moderate to low levels of As, Sb, Th, and U [15], but no systematic study has been carried out to date, to the best of our knowledge, to measure the radioactivity of soil in the Sundarbans. Therefore, this present study aims to measure the prevailing concentration of NORMs in the soils of Sundarbans, the first of its kind, to assess the impact of human activities (coal fired power plant, agriculture, uncontrolled fishing activities) on the Sundarbands ecosystem by investigating the radioactivity distribution. This study also aims to provide baseline data which is important due to the recent commissioning of a nuclear power plant and several thermal power plants surrounding the Sundarbans.

2. Methodology

2.1 Study area

The area is located in the southwestern part of the deltaic coastal plain region of Bangladesh (Fig 1A). Physiographically, the mapped area belongs to the physiographic units of the Ganges Tidal Floodplain and Sundarbans [16]. The topography is mainly flat with gentle relief (elevation ranges from 0.5 to 3.79 m above mean sea level), formed under fluvio-tidal conditions [15]. The sediments (Holocene terrain) mainly consist of an admixture of clay, silt, and fine sand. The covering morphological units are upper tidal and lower tidal plains (Fig 1B–1D). The largest mangrove forest (Sundarbans) in the world falls under the investigated area, specially Sarankhola Range and Chandpai Range. The region experiences a humid tropical monsoon climate. The average rainfall in the location from 2006–2011 was about 2024.8 mm/year. The area has four types of soils: Peat soils, Acid Sulphate Soils, Calcareous Brown Floodplain Soils and Calcareous Grey Floodplain Soils [16, 17].

Fig 1.

Fig 1

a) Map representing Bangladesh and its surrounding areas, coastal area of Bangladesh, Sundarbans Mangrove forest (modified after [18]) and locations of the study areas; b) study areas surrounding geomorphology; c) geomorphology of Karamjal and sampling points; d) geomorphology of Harbaria and sampling points.

The Landsat satellite image of 2014 was downloaded from the website http://glovis.usgs.gov and modified for use in this study. The layer stack of the image was performed by Erdas Imagine 2014 software. The visual image interpretation was carried out by ArcMap 10.2 to delineate the different geomorphic units of the area (Fig 1B–1D) as well as subsequent field checking according to our previous research [1820].

2.2 Sampling and preparation procedure

A total of 30 topsoil samples were collected from the area around the Sundarbans (15 from Karamjal and 15 from Harbaria) in December 2021, and a global positioning system was used to record each location. The samples were collected following the systematic random sampling technique [21].

After removing extraneous components like roots, pebbles, and plant matter, along with other impurities, the samples were homogenously mixed. Each sample, weighing between 0.5 and 1 kg, then immediately stored in airtight, clean zip-lock polyethylene bags, adequately labeled. The samples were transported to the sample preparation room of the Health Physics Division of Atomic Energy Centre Dhaka (AECD) for further processing. The samples were first dried under the sunlight; then the samples were dried carefully approximately at 105°C-110°C using an oven for four days, subsequently crushed with mortar and pestle, homogenized, and screened with a test sifter of opening 425 μm. Then all samples were then put into radon-impermeable, airtight Marinelli beakers (EG &G, Ortec). Then they were kept for 30 days to ensure that 226Ra and 232Th were in secular equilibrium with short-lived daughter products.

2.3 Measurement procedures and data analysis

Using a high-resolution coaxial HPGe gamma-ray spectrometer, the activity concentrations of radionuclides within the samples were determined. The detector was contained in a cylindrical lead shielding device with a sliding cover and a fixed bottom to reduce noise interference from the environment. A detector’s ability to differentiate or discriminate the presence of two gamma rays that are closely spaced in energy is defined as the energy resolution of the detector. With a relative efficiency of 30%, it was found that the energy resolution of the 1.33 MeV energy peak for 60Co was 1.67 keV at full-width half-maximum (FWHM).

An empty sealed beaker was counted in the same way and with the same geometry as the samples before the sample measurement to figure out the background distribution in the area surrounding the detector. To reduce the degree of uncertainty in the net counts, an equal counting duration of 30000s for background and sample measurement was selected. Using the characteristic gamma lines of 241 keV, 295 keV, and 351 keV for 214Pb and 609 keV, 1120 keV, and 1764 keV for 214Bi, the activity concentration of 226Ra was estimated. On the other hand, the characteristic gamma lines 911 keV and 969 keV for 228Ac, were used to determine the 232Th activity concentration [22, 23]. Using 1460 keV and 661 keV gamma line, the radioactivity of 40K and 137Cs were estimated, respectively. The following equation [24] was used to determine each radionuclide’s radioactivity concentration:

Ai=Zε×ργ×w (1)

Where Ai is the specific activity in Bqkg-1, Z is the net count rate per second (cps) = (samples cps- background cps), ε is the HPGe detector’s counting efficiency at the specific gamma-ray energy, ργ represents gamma-ray emission probability, and w is the mass of the sample in kilograms (kg). The minimal detectable activity concentration (MDA) for the gamma-ray measurement system method was calculated using Eq (2) as stated in [25]:

MDA=Kα×Bε×ργ×T×w (2)

where Kα is the statistical coverage factor, with a value of 1.64 (at the 95% confidence level), B is the number of background counts for the relevant radionuclide, T is the counting time, and ργ and w (in kg) have the same usual meaning as in Eq (1). The MDAs for 226Ra, 232Th, and 40K were determined to be 0.35 Bq/kg, 0.64 Bq/kg, and 2.2 Bq/kg, respectively.

Using the uncertainty propagation law of the relevant quantities represented in Eq (2), the uncertainty of the measured radioactivity was determined. Eq (3) expressed the mathematical formulation for calculating the uncertainty of the determined radioactivity [26, 27]

CombinedStandardUncertainty=Ai×(u(N)N)2+(u(T)T)2+(u(ργ)ργ)2+(u(w)w)2+(u(ε)ε)2 (3)

The sample counts, counting time, gamma-ray emission probability, sample weight, and counting efficiency are represented by the letters N, T, ργ, w, and ε, respectively. The calculated uncertainty of the relevant radionuclides varies from 10 to 15%.

2.4 Energy and efficiency calibration

The accuracy of the measured data largely depends on the energy and efficiency calibration of the detector, which must be carried out with extreme care. The detector’s energy calibration was performed using common point sources like 22Na, 57Co, 60Co, 88Y 133Ba, 137Cs, 152Eu, etc. The percentage of radiation quanta (particles or photons) that a detector can detect out of all the radiation quanta that a source emits is known as the detector’s efficiency. The IAEA standards (RGU-1, RGTh-1, and RGK-1) were used to determine the efficiency of the detector, which are Certified Reference Materials (CRM) and contain natural radionuclides from 238U-series, 232Th-series, and 40K, whose certified activity concentrations were 4940 ± 15 Bqkg-1, 3250 ± 45 Bqkg-1,14000 ± 200 Bqkg-1 [28]. Besides, efficiency data was also checked by a standard source which was made by combining 152Eu of known activity (Liquid form, 900 Bq activity) with the Al2O3 matrix and manufactured in the same containers as the samples.

2.5 Radiological hazard parameters

Radium equivalent activity

The external and internal dose from 222Rn and its daughter are correlated by the radium equivalent activity, Raeq (Bqkg-1). The Raeq was determined using Eq (4) to compare the combined radiological effect of 226Ra, 232Th, and 40K in the materials. For safe use, the maximum Raeq value must be lower than 370 Bqkg-1 [29].

Raeq=CRa+1.43CTh+0.077CK (4)

CRa, CTh, and CK represent the activity concentration of 226Ra, 232Th, and 40K in Bqkg-1, respectively.

The absorbed dose rate in air and annual effective dose evaluation

The external absorbed dose rate, Dout, to the public’s exposure due to the released gamma rays from the studied material at 1 m above the ground was calculated using the following Eq (5) [30]

Dout=0.427CRa+0.662CTh+0.0432CK (5)

Dout represents the external absorbed dose rate in (nGy/h) due to gamma-ray exposure. Because human beings spend much more time indoors than outside, indoor exposure becomes more significant. Besides this, earth crust-derived products such as brick, sand, cement, paints, tiles, etc., are widely utilized in the construction of dwellings; therefore, assessing the indoor exposure is critical, and Eq (6) is used to calculate it [31]

Din=1.4Dout (6)

The assessed indoor and outdoor exposures can be used to calculate the annual effective doses of Ein and Eout. To accomplish this, the absorbed dose rate in the air was converted to the effective dose received by an adult using a conversion factor of 0.7 Sv/Gy [25]. Furthermore, because people spend roughly 80% of their time indoors and 20% outdoors, the values 0.8 and 0.2 for the indoor and outdoor occupancy factors are used to calculate the representing dosage. Thus, by using Eqs (7) and (8), the annual effective doses Ein (mS/y) and Eout (mSv/y) were calculated [30, 32].

Ein(mSvy)=Din(nGyh)×(8760hy×0.7SvGy×0.8)×106 (7)
Eout(mSvy)=Dout(nGyh)×(8760hy×0.7SvGy×0.2)×106 (8)

External hazard (Hex) and internal hazard (Hin) indices evaluation

Using the external and internal hazard indices, the permissible equivalent dose should be lined up with a restricted value. Building materials should have a value of Hex that is less than or equal to unity to reduce the radiation dosage [25]. By using Eq (9) external hazard index (Hex) can be calculated [30].

Hex=CRa370+CTh259+CK4810 (9)

Regarding the internal health risk, a quantitative index (Hin) known as the internal hazard index is provided by Eq (10) [33, 34].

Hin=CRa185+CTh259+CK4810 (10)

2.6 Spatial distribution of different parameters

For interpolation of some derived data like radium equivalent activity, absorbed dose rate and annual effective dose in unsampling locations within the study area, interpolation was carried out using ArcGIS 10.2 software. The inverse distance weighting (IDW) technique was applied to interpolate the value of a variable at unmeasured sites from observations of its values at nearby locations according to our previous study [35, 36].

3. Results and discussion

Table 1 lists the activity concentrations in 30 soil samples taken from 15 distinct points in each Karamjal (K) and Harbaria (H) locations:

Table 1. Concentrations of 226Ra, 232Th, and 40K in soil samples collected from Karamjal and Harbaria.

Sample ID Longitude (N) Latitude (E) 226Ra (Bqkg-1) 232Th (Bqkg-1) 40K (Bqkg-1)
K-01 22.4286° 89.59073° 25±3 36±7 420±50
K-02 22.42745° 89.59065° 26±3 35±7 500±60
K-03 22.42628° 89.5908° 35±4 45±9 660±72
K-04 22.42318° 89.59288° 29±3 36±7 490±58
K-05 22.4236° 89.59285° 14±2 36±6 390±46
K-06 22.42342° 89.59305° 23±2 31±6 370±44
K-07 22.42388° 89.59317° 31±4 44±8 530±63
K-08 22.42435° 89.594° 29±3 40±7 510±61
K-09 22.42588° 89.59335° 34±4 39±7 630±69
K-10 22.4276° 89.59262° 26±3 31±5 460±55
K-11 22.4277° 89.59257° 22±3 30±5 500±60
K-12 22.42732° 89.59267° 22±3 34±6 490±58
K-13 22.4269° 89.59283° 26±3 30±5 470±56
K-14 22.42832° 89.5924° 25±3 31±5 490±58
K-15 22.42797° 89.59248° 27±3 34±6 500±60
Average 26±3 33±6 494±25
Range 14–35 30–45 370–660
H-01 22.29905° 89.61578° 26±3 37±7 510±61
H-02 22.2992° 89.6164° 29±3 44±8 560±67
H-03 22.29977° 89.61628° 26±3 41±7 540±64
H-04 22.29995° 89.61587° 22±3 38±5 540±64
H-05 22.29857° 89.61687° 28±3 40±8 530±63
H-06 22.29842° 89.61715° 30±3 43±8 540±64
H-07 22.29898° 89.61762° 28±3 36±5 580±69
H-08 22.30008° 89.61828° 20±2 35±5 520±62
H-09 22.30218° 89.61957° 24±3 34±5 540±64
H-10 22.30263° 89.61858° 22±3 35±5 570±68
H-11 22.30293° 89.61788° 29±3 41±7 530±63
H-12 22.30277° 89.61773° 30±3 38±6 540±64
H-13 22.30182° 89.61713° 26±3 33±5 550±66
H-14 22.301° 89.61658° 31±4 50±9 520±62
H-15 22.30037° 89.61613° 25±3 38±7 530±63
Average 27±3 39±5 540±64
Range 20–31 34–50 510–580

Almost all the values of 40K (except samples 5 and 6 in Karamjal), very few values of 232Th (Sample 3 in Karamjal and Sample 14 in Harbaria), and only one value of 226Ra (Sample 3 in Karamjal) show higher than the population-weighted world average values of 420, 45, 32 for 40K, 232Th and 226Ra respectively [32] in the studied soil samples. No artificial radionuclides were detected in the measured samples. The anthropogenic 137Cs were not found in the soil samples collected from the Sundarbans. The minimum detectable activity (MDA) of 137Cs is 1.54 Bqkg-1. The highest activity of 226Ra, 232Th, and 40K obtained in the present study is 35, 50, and 660 Bqkg-1, respectively, which exceeds the population-weighted world average values of 32, 45, 420 for 226Ra, 232Th, and 40K by 9%, 11%, and 57%. The order of natural radionuclide activity concentration was 40K>232Th>226Ra. In all terrestrial environments of the earth’s crust, 40K is naturally abundant [37] and is a well-known primary weathering product [38]. Due to its high water solubility, 226Ra may experience surface runoff on muddy terrain, whereas 232Th sticks to the soil more due to its limited geochemical mobility [39]. Additionally, the lithosphere naturally contains three times as much thorium as uranium or radium [40]. Each location in the world has different geological and topographical conditions, which affect radioactivity in soils [4143]. Variations in soil activity levels can be attributed to factors such as the soil-to-water ratio, the rate and amount of rainfall, soil drainage, site characteristics, and other environmental variables like meteorological conditions, soil use patterns, fertilizer use, evaporation, etc. [44]. Additionally, the radionuclides’ chemical characteristics have a significant impact on how they migrate. The radioactivity levels of the examined soil are also influenced by the weathered components of the nearby deposited rocks [45]. The specific levels depend on the type of rock the soil is made of. Igneous rocks, like granite, have higher radiation levels, while sedimentary rocks have lower levels [4651]. Low levels of 226Ra in the collected soil are due to the absence of interaction with igneous rocks and uranium-rich minerals such as apatite, zircon, etc. [40]. In soil that contains much monazite, the concentration of 232Th is higher [5254]. Comparatively low values of 232Th in the current study indicate the absence of monazite-bearing minerals.

Large portions of the Sundarbans have been recovered during the past few decades for use in agriculture and settlement [5, 12]. In some circumstances, fertilizers are frequently employed to enhance the nitrogen balance of soil for agronomic growth, which is a source of 40K in the environment [5, 12, 55]. The majority of the soils of the Sundarbans are heavy-textured, brownish/greyish black silty or clayey in composition, with the availability of swampy soils near the sea [21]. The 40K concentration of soils and sediments is typically high since it is indigenous to this coastal region without any such influence from fertilizers [56, 57]. Several cargo catastrophes involving coal fly ash, fertilizer, and oil have recently happened along the Sela and Poshur rivers in Bangladesh’s Sundarbans [15]. There are worries about the ecological catastrophe that occurred in the Sundarbans due to the Sela and Poshur rivers’ connections to the tiny creeks there. The mangrove belt in the Sundarbans estuary is very dynamic, with consistent deposition and erosion of silt and sediment from various interconnected rivers, creeks, channels, etc. [1]. The Mongla port city, which is close to the Sundarbans, is home to a number of oil, petroleum, and cement factories. Therefore, throughout the Sundarbans estuary, there is a substantial risk of buildup from home and agricultural effluents, industrial trash, etc. Overall, it can be concluded that the Sundarbans have a high native 40K content, and factors such as rising salinity, the use of fertilizers to boost crop yields, and the buildup of upstream waste and undesirable effluents along this coastal zone may have contributed to high 40K content.

Table 2 provides a comparative analysis of the mean activity concentrations of 238U, 232Th, and 40K in the present study with those of other studies analyzing soil samples collected from mangrove forests across the world. The 40K levels were found high in some mangrove forests, such as in the Rio Formoso mangrove (RFM) [8] located in Pernambuco, Brazil (Maximum 40K level 1338 Bqkg-1), in Sundarbans Mangrove, India [1] (Maximum 40K level 1043 Bq/kg). This behavior of high 40K in RFM mangroves was linked to the strong marine influence bringing sediments enriched with 40K on the mangroves, as well as the fact that the RFM location is surrounded by granites holding around 7% K2O [8]. Nabanita Naskar et al. [1] explained that the possible reason for the high level of 40K in the Indian Sundarbans is that the tidal mangrove belt in the Indian Sundarbans is highly dynamic due to the constant deposition and erosion of silt, sediment from the many rivers, creeks, channels, etc. that flow into it.

Table 2. Radiological data for 238U, 232Th, and 40K associated with soil samples collected from mangrove forests from different countries.

Sl No Region of Study Mean (Bqkg-1) Methodology Reference
226Ra (238U) 232Th 40K
1 Pernambuco, Brazil The Rio Formoso mangrove 21 43(228Ra) 869 HPGe detector (40% *RE) [8]
The Chico science mangrove 24 41 (228Ra) 414
2 Sundarbans Mangrove, India 48.7 58.5 866.2 HPGe detector (50% RE) [1]
3 Krusadai Island Mangrove, Gulf of Mannar, India BDL BDL to 27.81 ± 8.9 BDL to 413.13 ± 49.6 NaI (Tl) detector [11]
4 Pichavaram Mangroves, South East Coast of India (Sediment) (Post-Tsunami) 12.2±4.2 11.7±5.0 265±133.8 HPGe detector [13]
(Pre-Tsunami) 25.9±15.8 65.1±34.5 190.7±32.5 HPGe detector
5 Petrified wood forest, El-Qattamia, Cairo, Egypt 65.26±12.99 23.66±0.95 146.33±1.5 HPGe detector (50% RE) [9]
6 Norway Fen 126 2737 - HPGe detector [10]
Bolladalen 165 6835 -
Torsnes 11 664 -
7 Bhawalgahr forest, Gazipur district, Bangladesh (0-5cm depth) 63.5 ± 6.8 104.5 ± 8.9 433.9 ± 96.4 HPGe detector (20% RE) [58]
(5–15 cm depth) 58.5 ± 5.6 98.2 ± 8.9 491.7 ± 101.3
(15–30) cm depth 60.8 ± 5.6 97.8 ± 8.6 508.5 ± 100.9
8 Shamnagarupazila, Satkhira, south-west of Sundarbans, Bangladesh Surface soil (5–20 cm depth) 35.59±3.94 37.69±3.92 398.73±24.19 HPGe detector [59]
Deep soil (130–150 cm depth) 40.65±3.92 50.61±2.78 476.62±24.51
9 Sundarbans Mangrove, Bangladesh 23±2 to 50±10 (Range) 34±5 to 79±6 (Range) 248±46 to 561±58 (Range) HPGe detector [14]
10 Sundarbans Mangrove, Bangladesh Karamjal 26±3 33±6 494±25 HPGe detector (30% RE) Current study
Harbaria 27±3 39±5 540±64

*RE = Relative Efficiency

In a fascinating comparison of pre-and post-tsunami radioactivity in sediment samples from the Pichavaram mangroves, Satheeshkumar et al. [13] found that the activity of 238U and 232Th had decreased from pre-tsunami data (25.9± 15.8 Bqkg-1 and 65.1±34.5 Bqkg-1) to post-tsunami data (12.2± 4.2 Bqkg-1 and 11.7±5.0 Bqkg-1). The hydrodynamics of the tsunami waves, which removed vast quantities of decades-old beach sediments, is a crucial factor in the low level of radioactivity in Pichavaram. In addition, it spread a substantial layer of black sand. As a result, background radiation levels in the environment are reduced [13]. In the Krusadai Island Mangrove, Gulf of Mannar, India, low concentrations of 238U, 232Th, and 40K were found due to the low concentration of radiation-bearing minerals in the study area, as well as the coastal geography and the direction of the currents, the concentration of uranium- and thorium-bearing minerals is reduced [11]. The Norwegian sites of Fen and Bolladalen had extremely high 232Th concentrations [48] because the whole Fen Complex was an active volcano suggests that different ores were present at varying depths and that there were heterogeneous rocks present that included mixes of several minerals and different elements. On the other hand, Bolladalens was seen as a representation of legacy NORM and unaltered 232Th-rich sites, respectively, due to its complex mixture of rodbergite and rauhaugite.

The soil samples collected from three different depths (0–55, 5–15, and 15–30 cm) were analyzed to observe the horizontal as well as vertical distribution of the radioactivity concentration in the Bhawalgahr forest, Gazipur district, Bangladesh [58]. The average activity concentrations of 226Ra, 232Th, and 40K for all the samples were higher than those of the worldwide average values, which may be attributed to the area’s geological characteristics. The vertical distribution of 232Th and 40K showed a decreasing tendency of activity concentration with depth, whereas no particular trend with depth was observed for 226Ra in that study. The results of the current study are in close agreement with earlier studies conducted globally due to the close geological coherence, such as in Bhawalgahr forest, Gazipur district, Bangladesh [49]; Shamnagarupazila, Satkhira, south-west of Sundarbans, Bangladesh [50]; Sundarbans mangrove, Bangladesh [14]; and Sundarbans mangrove; India [1].

The radium equivalent activity, absorbed dose rate (outdoor and indoor), external and internal hazard index, and external and internal annual effective dose values are reported in Table 3, and the spatial distribution of different parameters in Harbaria and Karamjal are represented in Figs 2 and 3.

Table 3. Data for different radiological parameters in soil samples of the current study.

Sample ID Radium Equivalent Activity (Raeq) Bqkg-1 Outdoor Absorbed Dose rate (Dout) nGyhr-1 Indoor Absorbed Dose rate (Din) nGyhr-1 External Hazard Index (Hex) Internal Hazard Index (Hin) Outdoor Annual Effective Dose (Eout) mSvy-1 Indoor Annual Effective Dose (Ein) mSv-1 Total Annual Effective Dose (E) mSv-1
K1 108.82 52.65 63.18 0.29 0.36 0.065 0.310 0.375
K2 114.55 55.87 67.05 0.31 0.38 0.069 0.329 0.397
K3 150.17 73.25 87.90 0.41 0.50 0.090 0.431 0.521
K4 118.21 57.38 68.86 0.32 0.40 0.070 0.338 0.408
K5 95.51 46.66 55.99 0.26 0.30 0.057 0.275 0.332
K6 95.82 46.33 55.59 0.26 0.32 0.057 0.273 0.330
K7 134.73 65.26 78.31 0.36 0.45 0.080 0.384 0.464
K8 125.47 60.90 73.07 0.34 0.42 0.075 0.358 0.433
K9 138.28 67.55 81.06 0.37 0.47 0.083 0.398 0.481
K10 105.75 51.50 61.80 0.29 0.36 0.063 0.303 0.366
K11 103.40 50.85 61.02 0.28 0.34 0.062 0.299 0.362
K12 111.21 54.39 65.27 0.30 0.36 0.067 0.320 0.387
K13 105.09 51.27 61.52 0.28 0.35 0.063 0.302 0.365
K14 107.06 52.37 62.84 0.29 0.36 0.064 0.308 0.372
K15 114.12 55.64 66.76 0.31 0.38 0.068 0.328 0.396
Average 115.21 56.12 67.35 0.31 0.38 0.069 0.330 0.399
H1 118.18 57.63 69.15 0.32 0.39 0.071 0.339 0.410
H2 135.04 65.70 78.84 0.36 0.44 0.081 0.387 0.467
H3 126.21 61.57 73.89 0.34 0.41 0.076 0.362 0.438
H4 117.92 57.88 69.45 0.32 0.38 0.071 0.341 0.412
H5 126.01 61.33 73.60 0.34 0.42 0.075 0.361 0.436
H6 133.07 64.60 77.52 0.36 0.44 0.079 0.380 0.460
H7 124.14 60.84 73.01 0.34 0.41 0.075 0.358 0.433
H8 111.52 54.84 65.80 0.30 0.36 0.067 0.323 0.390
H9 114.20 56.08 67.30 0.31 0.37 0.069 0.330 0.399
H10 115.94 57.19 68.63 0.31 0.37 0.070 0.337 0.407
H11 128.44 62.42 74.91 0.35 0.43 0.077 0.367 0.444
H12 125.92 61.29 73.55 0.34 0.42 0.075 0.361 0.436
H13 115.54 56.71 68.05 0.31 0.38 0.070 0.334 0.403
H14 142.54 68.80 82.56 0.38 0.47 0.084 0.405 0.489
H15 120.15 58.73 70.47 0.32 0.39 0.072 0.346 0.418
Average 123.65 60.37 72.45 0.33 0.41 0.074 0.355 0.429

Fig 2. Distribution maps of different parameters in the Harbaria area.

Fig 2

Fig 3. Distribution maps of different parameters in the Karamjal area.

Fig 3

All values of radium equivalent activity are far below the recommended limit of 370 Bqkg-1 [60]. Some of the values of the outdoor absorbed dose rate in Karamjal (Samples 3,7–9) and most of the values of the outdoor absorbed dose rate in Harbaria (Samples 2,3,5–7,11–12,14) exceeded the population-weighted average outdoor absorbed dose rate in air in the world which is 59 nGyh-1 [32]. In the case of indoor absorbed dose rate, almost all the values are within the population-weighted average indoor absorbed dose rate in air in the world, which is 84 nGyh-1 [32]. The values of external and internal hazard index are less than unity in all the samples that indicate the non-hazardous for human beings [32]. Some of the values (3–4,7–9) of the outdoor annual effective dose in Karamjal and almost all (except Samples 8,9) of the outdoor annual effective dose in Harbaria exceed the worldwide average outdoor annual effective dose due to terrestrial radiation, which is 0.07 mSvy-1 [32]. Almost all the values (except Sample 3 in Karamjal) of the indoor annual effective dose are within the worldwide average indoor annual effective dose, which is 0.41mSvy-1 [32]. As almost all the values of 40K and most of the outdoor absorbed dose rate in air and outdoor annual effective dose exceeds the corresponding population-weighted world average values, we can conclude that the study area is safe for short-term stay by the visitors but not radiologically safe (specially Harbaria) for long-term residence because the presence of such radionuclides at high concentrations can potentially result not only in harmful health effects, such as chronic lung diseases, anemia, and different cancers but also in genetic mutations that affect not only humans but also the entire biota [43, 61].

4. Conclusions

This study was carried out to evaluate the distribution of naturally occurring radioactive materials (226Ra, 232Th, and 40K), as well as artificial radionuclides, and to calculate the associated radiological hazard parameters at Karamjal and Harbaria, the two primary tourist spots in the world’s largest mangrove forest, Sundarbans.

The range of activity concentration of 226Ra, 232Th, and 40K in Karamjal was 14–35 Bqkg-1, 30–45 Bqkg-1, and 370–660 Bqkg-1, respectively. In the Harbaria region, the values were 20–31 Bqkg-1, 34–50 Bqkg-1, and 510–580 Bqkg-1 for 226Ra, 232Th, and 40K, respectively. Most samples contain a higher 40K concentration than the population-weighted world average values, which is attributed to the natural abundance of potassium-bearing minerals, weathering process, fertilizer use, etc. In regard to anthropogenic activity, no radioactivity of 137Cs was detected in the collected soil samples.

Most of the hazard parameters are within the recommended safety limits, so the research areas are not posing a considerable hazard for short-term stay by visitors.

A few recommendations are proposed by this current research:

  • A detailed survey is necessary for mapping the distribution of NORMs in the world’s largest mangrove forest, Sundarbans, which will be essential reference data.

  • Frequent monitoring is needed to evaluate the effect of the soon-to-be commissioned Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant in Bangladesh.

  • The greater activity concentration of 40K indicates the existence of potassium-bearing mineral resources in the nearby areas.

  • The outdoor effective dose in some regions is higher than the population-weighted average value, a significant concern for the local inhabitants; appropriate knowledge and mitigation strategies may need to be introduced.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Naskar N., Lahiri S., and Chaudhuri P., “Estimation of radiological indices in Indian Sundarbans: a mangrove habitat,” J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., vol. 322, no. 1, pp. 213–223, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10967-019-06597-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.IUCN, “Sundarban Wildlife Sanctuaries Bangladesh,” World Herit. Nomin., vol. IUCN Techn, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.“Sundarbans, The—Banglapedia.” https://en.banglapedia.org/index.php/Sundarbans,_The (accessed Aug. 19, 2022). [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rahaman S. M. B. et al. , “Nutrient dynamics in the Sundarbans mangrove estuarine system of Bangladesh under different weather and tidal cycles,” Ecol. Process., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2013, doi: 10.1186/2192-1709-2-29 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Naskar N., Lahiri S., and Chaudhuri P., “Quantitative estimation of total potassium and 40K in surface soil samples of Indian Sundarbans,” J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., vol. 322, no. 1, pp. 11–17, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10967-019-06472-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.W. H. Centre, “World Heritage Patrimoine mondial,” no. October 2012, pp. 8–12, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mahmood H., Ahmed M., Islam T., Uddin M. Z., Ahmed Z. U., and Saha C., “Paradigm shift in the management of the Sundarbans mangrove forest of Bangladesh: Issues and challenges,” Trees, For. People, vol. 5, no. May, p. 100094, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100094 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.de Paiva J. D. S., Sousa E. E., de Farias E. E. G., Carmo A. M., Souza E. M., and De França E. J., “Natural radionuclides in mangrove soils from the State of Pernambuco, Brazil,” J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., vol. 307, no. 2, pp. 883–889, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s10967-015-4446-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nada A., Abd-El Maksoud T. M., Abu-Zeid Hosnia M., El-Nagar T., and Awad S., “Distribution of radionuclides in soil samples from a petrified wood forest in El-Qattamia, Cairo, Egypt,” Appl. Radiat. Isot., vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 643–649, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2008.11.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mrdakovic Popic J., Oughton D. H., Salbu B., and Skipperud L., “Transfer of naturally occurring radionuclides from soil to wild forest flora in an area with enhanced legacy and natural radioactivity in Norway,” Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 350–363, 2020, doi: 10.1039/c9em00408d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Valan I. I., Mathiyarasu R., Sridhar S. G. D., Narayanan V., and Stephen A., “Investigation of background radiation level in Krusadai Island Mangrove, Gulf of Mannar, India,” J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., vol. 304, no. 2, pp. 735–744, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s10967-014-3864-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Chaudhuri P., Naskar N., and Lahiri S., “Measurement of background radioactivity in surface soil of Indian Sundarban,” J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., vol. 311, no. 3, pp. 1947–1952, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s10967-016-5158-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Satheeshkumar G., Hameed P. S., Meeramaideen M., and Kannan V., “a Post-Tsunami Study on the Distribution and Bioaccumulation of Natural Radionuclides in Pichavaram Mangrove Environment (South East Coast of India) and Dose To Local Human Population,” vol. 210, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ahmed B., Roy M.F, Miah S, Alam F.K, “Distribution of natural radionuclides in sediment samples in some areas of Sundarban mangrove forest,” Radiat. Prot. Environ., vol. 23(3), pp. 157–163, 2000, doi: 32013011 [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Islam M. A. et al. , “Contamination and ecological risk assessment of trace elements in sediments of the rivers of Sundarban mangrove forest, Bangladesh,” Mar. Pollut. Bull., vol. 124, no. 1, pp. 356–366, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.07.059 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rashid H. R., “Geography of Bangladesh. University Press Ltd., Dhaka, Bangladesh.” 1991. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Alam M. K., Hasan A. K. M. S., Khan M. R., Whitney J. W., Abdullah S. K. M., and Queen J. E., Geological map of Bangladesh. Geological Survey of Bangladesh, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Rashid M. B. and Habib M. A., “Channel bar development, braiding and bankline migration of the Brahmaputra-Jamuna river, Bangladesh through RS and GIS techniques,” Int. J. River Basin Manag., pp. 1–13, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1080/15715124.2022.2118281 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rashid M. B., “Channel bar development and bankline migration of the Lower Padma River of Bangladesh,” Arab. J. Geosci., vol. 13, no. 14, p. 612, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s12517-020-05628-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Rashid B. and Islam B., “Physiography of the Barind Tract and Its Surrounding Areas Bengal Basin, Physiography of the Barind Tract and Its Surrounding Areas Bengal Basin, Bangladesh,” vol. 5, no. May, pp. 1–9, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Barnekow U. et al. , Guidelines on soil and vegetation sampling for radiological monitoring Technical Reports Series No. 486, no. 486. Vienna, Austria: IAEA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.IAEA, Measurement of radionuclides in food and the environment. Technical Reports Series No. 295 (Vienna: IAEA). 1989. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sarker M. S. D., Rahman R., Siraz M. M. M., Khandaker M. U., and Yeasmin S., “The presence of primordial radionuclides in powdered milk and estimation of the concomitant ingestion dose,” Radiat. Phys. Chem., vol. 188, no. March, p. 109597, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2021.109597 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Khandaker M. U., Uwatse O. B., Bin Shamsul Khairi K. A., Faruque M. R. I., and Bradley D. A., “Terrestrial radionuclides in surface (dam) water and concomitant dose in metropolitan Kuala Lumpur,” Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry, vol. 185, no. 3, pp. 343–350, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1093/RPD/NCZ018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Amatullah S., Rahman R., Ferdous J., Siraz M. M. M., Khandaker M. U., and Mahal S. F., “Assessment of radiometric standard and potential health risks from building materials used in Bangladeshi dwellings,” Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem., pp. 1–13, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1080/03067319.2021.1907361 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Asaduzzaman K. et al. , “Assessment of Natural Radioactivity Levels and Potential Radiological Risks of Common Building Materials Used in Bangladeshi Dwellings,” PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 10, p. 140667, 2015, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140667 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Khandaker M. U., Heffny N. ‘Adillah B, Amin Y. M, and Bradley D. A, “Elevated concentration of radioactive potassium in edible algae cultivated in Malaysian seas and estimation of ingestion dose to humans,” Algal Res., vol. 38, p. 101386, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.algal.2018.101386 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.IAEA, “Preparation and certification of IAEA gamma-ray spectrometry reference materials RGU-1, RGTh-1 and RGK-1,” Iaea-Rl-148, no. August, p. 48, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.OECD, “Exposure to Radiation from Natural Radioactivity in Building Materials,” 1979. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Roy D. et al. , “Assessment of terrestrial radionuclides in the sandy soil from Guliakhali beach area of Chattogram, Bangladesh,” J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., vol. 331, no. 3, pp. 1299–1307, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10967-022-08196-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Madhurja Sarker, Siraz M. M. M., Jafor Dewan Md1, Pervin S., Mizanur Rahman A.F.M, and Yeasmin S, “Measurement of Radioactivity for the Assessment of Radiological Risk in Sand Sample Collected From Kuakata and Cox ‘ s Bazar Sea Beach Located in Measurement of Radioactivity for the Assessment of Radiological Risk in Sand Sample Collected From Kuakata an,” no. January, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Fujiwara K., Mochida S., Matsui A., Nakayama N., Nagoshi S., and Toda G., “Fulminant hepatitis and late onset hepatic failure in Japan,” Hepatol. Res., vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 646–657, 2008, doi: 10.1111/j.1872-034X.2008.00322.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kobeissi M. A., El-Samad O., and Rachidi I., “Health assessment of natural radioactivity and radon exhalation rate in granites used as buildingmaterials in Lebanon,” Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry, vol. 153, no. 3, pp. 342–351, Mar. 2013, doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncs110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sultana A., Siraz M. M., Pervin S., Rahman A. M., Das S. K., and Yeasmin S., “Assessment of Radioactivity and Radiological Hazard of Different Food Items Collected from Local Market in Bangladesh,” J. Bangladesh Acad. Sci., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 141–148, 2020, doi: 10.3329/jbas.v43i2.45735 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Habib M. A. et al. , “Distribution of naturally occurring radionuclides in soil around a coal-based power plant and their potential radiological risk assessment,” Radiochim. Acta, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 243–259, 2019, doi: 10.1515/ract-2018-3044 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Khan R. et al. , “Distribution, sources and ecological risk of trace elements and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediments from a polluted urban river in central Bangladesh,” Environ. Nanotechnology, Monit. Manag., vol. 14, no. May, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.enmm.2020.100318 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kaur S. and Mehra R., “Dosimetric impact of natural terrestrial radioactivity on residents of lower Himalayas, India,” Environ. Geochem. Health, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 603–629, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10653-020-00748-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Guagliardi I. et al. , “Effects of source rocks, soil features and climate on natural gamma radioactivity in the Crati valley (Calabria, Southern Italy),” Chemosphere, vol. 150, pp. 97–108, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.02.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Suresh G., Ramasamy V., Meenakshisundaram V., Venkatachalapathy R., and Ponnusamy V., “Influence of mineralogical and heavy metal composition on natural radionuclide concentrations in the river sediments,” Appl. Radiat. Isot., vol. 69, no. 10, pp. 1466–1474, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2011.05.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Haydar M. A. et al. , “The status of NORMs in natural environment adjacent to the Rooppur nuclear power plant of Bangladesh,” Nucl. Eng. Technol., vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 4114–4121, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.net.2021.06.025 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.dos Santos Júnior J. A. et al. , “Radioactive Disequilibrium and Dynamic of Natural Radionuclides in Soils in the State of Pernambuco—Brazil,” Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry, vol. 182, no. 4, pp. 448–458, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncy101 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Tanha M. et al. , “Environmental radioactivity studies in Kabul and northern Afghanistan,” J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., vol. 318, no. 3, pp. 2425–2433, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s10967-018-6242-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bui V. L. et al. , “Natural radioactivity and radiological hazards in soil samples in Savannakhet province, Laos,” J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., vol. 323, no. 1, pp. 303–315, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10967-019-06965-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Uosif M. A. M., Alrowaili Z. A., Elsaman R., and Mostafa A. M. A., “Soil–Soybean Transfer Factor of Natural Radionuclides in Different Soil Textures and the Assessment of Committed Effective Dose,” Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry, vol. 188, no. 4, pp. 529–535, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncaa005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ugbede F. O., Okoye O. N. N., Akpolile A. F., and Oladele B. B., “Baseline Radioactivity in the Soil of Evangel Take-Off Campus, Evangel University, Nigeria, and Its Associated Health Risks,” Chem. Africa, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 703–713, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s42250-021-00254-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Alonso-Hernández C. M., Toledo-Sibello A. L., Guillén-Arruebarrena A., Sibello-Hernández R., Morera-Gómez Y., and Cartas-Águila H. A., “NATURAL RADIOACTIVITY and EVALUATION of RADIATION HAZARDS in SOILS from GRANITOIDE-GRANITE GEOLOGICAL FORMATION in Cuba,” Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry, vol. 184, no. 1, pp. 5–11, 2019, doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncy178 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kapdan E., Altinsoy N., Karahan G., and Yuksel A., “Outdoor radioactivity and health risk assessment for capital city Ankara, Turkey,” J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., vol. 318, no. 2, pp. 1033–1042, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s10967-018-6060-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Manisa K. et al. , “Assessment of natural radioactivity level of soil and water in the region of Çorlu (Turkey),” J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., vol. 329, no. 3, pp. 1213–1221, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10967-021-07906-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Faanu A. et al. , “Natural radioactivity levels in soils, rocks and water at a mining concession of Perseus gold mine and surrounding towns in Central Region of Ghana,” Springerplus, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2016, doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-1716-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Reddy K. U., Ningappa C., and Sannappa J., “Natural radioactivity level in soils around Kolar Gold Fields, Kolar district, Karnataka, India,” J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., vol. 314, no. 3, pp. 2037–2045, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s10967-017-5545-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Sankaran Pillai G., Shahul Hameed P., and Mazhar Nazeeb Khan S. M., “Natural radioactivity levels in the soils and human risk assessment in Tiruchirappalli district (Tamil Nadu, India),” J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., vol. 307, no. 2, pp. 1265–1277, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s10967-015-4367-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Islam A., Sultana M. S., Begum A., and Yeasmin S., “Radioactivity level in soil of a palaeo beach in the south-eastern part of Bangladesh and evaluation of radiation hazard,” Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry, vol. 157, no. 2, pp. 255–264, 2013, doi: 10.1093/rpd/nct135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Bala Sundar S. et al. , “Soil radioactivity measurements and estimation of radon/thoron exhalation rate in soil samples from Kalpakkam residential complex,” Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry, vol. 164, no. 4, pp. 569–574, 2015, doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncv313 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kannan V., Rajan M. P., Iyengar M. A. R., and Ramesh R., “Distribution of natural and anthropogenic radionuclides in soil and beach sand samples of Kalpakkam (India) using hyper pure germanium (HPGe) gamma ray spectrometry,” Appl. Radiat. Isot., vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 109–119, 2002, doi: 10.1016/S0969-8043(01)00262-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Savci S., “An agricultural pollutant: chemical fertilizer,” Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev., vol. 3, no. 1, p. 73, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Haldar A. and Debnath A., “Assessment of Climate Induced Soil Salinity Conditions of Gosaba Island, West Bengal and Its Influence on Local Livelihood,” vol. 1, pp. 27–44, 2014, doi: 10.1007/978-4-431-54838-6_3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Mitran T., Kumar Mani P., Basak N., Mandal B., and Mukhopadhyay S. K., “Soil Fertility Constraint Assessment Using Spatial Nutrient Map at Three Selected Villages of Coastal Sundarbans,” vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Islam S. et al. , “Background gamma radiation mapping in forest ecosystem of Bangladesh: A study on the radioactivity distribution in the national reserve forest of Gazipur,” Radiat. Prot. Environ., vol. 40, no. 2, p. 73, 2017, doi: 10.4103/rpe.rpe_17_17 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Arafin S. A. K., El-Taher A., Fazlul Hoque A. K. M., Ashraful Hoque M., Ferdous J., and Joynal Abedin M., “Natural gamma radiation level detection in agriculture soil after Aila disaster and comparison with deep soil gamma activity in a specific area of Sundarban region, Satkhira, Banglsdesh,” Int. J. Radiat. Res., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 397–404, 2020, doi: 10.18869/acadpub.ijrr.18.3.397 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Nuclear Energy Agency-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Exposure to Radiation From The Natural Radioactivity in Building Materials. Report By An NEA Group of Experts.” p. 40, 1979. [Online]. Available: https://www.oecd-nea.org/rp/reports/1979/exposure-to-radiation-1979.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Almayahi B. A., Tajuddin A. A., and Jaafar M. S., “Effect of the natural radioactivity concentrations and 226Ra/ 238U disequilibrium on cancer diseases in Penang, Malaysia,” Radiat. Phys. Chem., vol. 81, no. 10, pp. 1547–1558, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2012.03.018 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mohamad Syazwan Mohd Sanusi

17 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-26012

Elevated Levels of 40K in the tourist-captivating Karamjal and Harbaria sites of the World’s largest mangrove forest Sundarbans

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Siraz,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 31 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohamad Syazwan Mohd Sanusi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

7. We note that Figure 2 includes an image of a participant in the study. 

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”. 

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors, after careful evaluations, we would like to invite you to revise the submitted manuscript based on the attached comments

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

The manuscript entitled Elevated Levels of 40K in the tourist-captivating Karamjal and Harbaria sites of the World’s largest mangrove forest Sundarbans is an interesting and well descried work. The aim is properly presented and motivated. Your results are important and potentially interesting for the international scientific community, especially as the described issue has an interdisciplinary manner.

The abstract suits well the manuscript content. The tables and figures are informative and well readable. Results dissuasion is properly described and justified with adequate literature references.

Nevertheless, there are some serious problems that need to be issued.

(order according to occurrence in the text)

1. Your work deal mostly with radiological issues (radiological hazard, dosimetry), not geology. That is why there is no need to give so much geological information in the methodology section, like detailed soils description. Especially you have not used these data in the results discussion and interpretation.

2. What about gamma radiation background influence? You have not mentioned anything that you extract background from the cps or N of your samples. It is crucial for the proper calculation of the results. Especially for 40K, it is always present in the background to the great extent. Did you do the background extraction? If yes, it definitely needs to be described in the text. Give all details like: way of measurements (empty detector, empty container), time of a single measurement, if time of background measurement was comparable with sample measurement time (btw. which you did not provide in the text), and level of the background. If background extraction has not been done it is necessary to do it! Otherwise, such results cannot be accepted for publication.

3. You have mentioned that there is no 137Cs in your samples. It means that you did a research on 137Cs. Meanwhile there is no description how it was done. No energy line or detection limit of 137Cs is provided.

4. Description of the detector efficiency determination is given but no information on the results. At least relative efficiency of the detector should be presented.

5. The number of decimal places in the results must be ordered. It is inconsistent and partially incorrect in the results. The result and the uncertainty of the result should have the same number of digits. If the result is in the hundreds, there is no need to give two decimal places; they are less than 1% of the result. General rule is that: two or three significant digits are enough.

6. In the discussion of the results, it is stated many times that the obtained results exceed the limits. But the degree of this excess is not specified. The reader must analyze the whole tables with results and look for reference values in the text. You can specify the percentage range by which the results exceed the accepted limits. As it currently stands, it is not clear whether these are serious surpluses or just a few percent. This can only be guessed on the basis of the recommendations given by the authors at the end of the text.

My other minor remarks are given as the comments in the text in attached pdf file.

Reviewer #2: The papers presents results of measurements of natural radioactivity (by means of HPGe gamma spectrometry) in some mangrove forest soil in Bangladesh. The studied area is not subject of many papers therefore I suggest to publish the results. However I have some objection regarding the methodology, the possible lack of secular equilibrium in Th series is not enough addressed. Also the calibration done using Eu-152 is not the state of the art method. I would not call any of result obtained in paper as “the elevated levels”. Typical levels for K-40 are in range of 140-800 Bq/kg, so all presented here results are in this range. This implies the reconsideration of discussion of results. Therefore my general recommendation is “major revision”.

My particular comments:

Row 19 and rows 171-171. One cannot measure directly Th-232 via gamma radiation. What is measured are Th series progenies (Ac-228 and Tl-208, depending which lines you took under consideration). Due to high risk of lack of equilibrium in open environment they might reflect the activities of Ra-228 (case of Ac-228 lines) or Th-228 (case of Tl-206 lines). The Th-228 and Ra-228 in fresh sediment samples could not be in equilibrium, so one should present the results from Ac-228 (which could be named “Ra-228”) and Tl-208 (which could be named “Th-228”) separately.

Row 28. Space between “etc.” and “Elevated”. The lack of space after dot or between the number and unit (for instance row. 66) repeats in many places in text, please check and correct all. BTW – there is no really elevated levels among the results.

Row. 153. Ra-226 and Ra-224 are parents, not daughters of mentioned Rn-222 and Rn-220, respectively. You cannot call them also “elements”, since the mass number is specified (nuclide, radionuclide, radioisotope or isotope are far more proper) .

Row. 154. The way how the equation 1 is written could be misleading. When I have looked on denominator I’ve seen “exp”, what is nonsense. With more careful look I realized, that “x” here is multiplication symbol. The “cps” in numerator is also not sure, if it is a product of three values or three character symbol. I suggest to re-write this formula avoiding many character symbols (instead pleas use the single character symbols with indexes) and please replace the “x” by dots. Please use the same style (italic) for symbols in all equations and in all description of them (incl. eq. 4 and 5). Please also note, that “mass” and “weight” are not the same things in physics, the proper term here is “mass”. Please correct this way all equations. The Eq. 3 is correct is you do not take into consideration any background, otherwise it is more complex and in case of K-40 you have to take into account the correction for spectrometer background.

Row 201. The usage of Eu-152 for efficiency calibration is not proper due to cascade transitions in decay of this isotope. One can do corrections for it using one of several methods. It looks that you have not done that correction. Without a cascade correction some of your results could by biased for even 10%.

Table 1. – the presentation of results is not proper. The data for Th series should be presented separately for Ac-228 and Tl-208 lines. In general the results should be presented in way: xab.c±y.z or xab±vw but never xab±fg.h. The rule is: present the uncertainty only in two meaning digits. The way of presentation of main part of result is driven by the precision of uncertainty. In particular 500±60 is OK, but 490±58.8 is not OK. The 33±3.63 is not OK as well. But 40±6 can be accepted.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-26012_1reviewer.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Oct 19;18(10):e0289113. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289113.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


22 Dec 2022

Response to academic editor and reviewer(s)

Respected Academic Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you so much for your comments. We are very grateful to you for the time and intelligence that you have shared with us. It is a great learning opportunity for us through these reviews. Our responses to the comments are highlighted in red colour in the revised manuscript.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

Academic Editor

Academic editor comment 1: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: Thank you so much for your kind comments and appreciation of our study. All of your comments are carefully evaluated and revised in our revision accordingly. The revised manuscript has been prepared according to Plos One style.

Academic editor comment 2: In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

Response: We thank the editor for this comment. The authors are from Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission, a government organization in Bangladesh. As the main and relevant government institution, we have the responsibility to obtain the baseline radioactivity prior to the operation of the country’s first nuclear power plant. On the other hand, no written permission is needed from any other authority since the studied soil samples were collected from a large area which is not a restricted area.

Academic editor comment 3: In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found…

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback. All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Academic editor comment 4: We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter, and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this opportunity to clarify this issue. All relevant data are within the manuscript. We will write a cover letter regarding this issue.

Academic editor comment 5: Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Response: Figure 2 has been deleted from the revised manuscript.

Academic editor comment 6: We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer giving us a chance to explain this matter.

Reference has been provided in the Figure caption like this, "Figure 1: a) Map representing Bangladesh and its surrounding areas, coastal area of Bangladesh, Sundarbans Mangrove forest (modified after (19))".

In the text, a separate section has been provided with appropriate reference (Page No. 5, Line No. 116), "2.2 Geomorphological map preparation: Landsat satellite image of 2014 was downloaded from the website http://glovis.usgs.gov and modified for use in this study. The layer stack of the image was performed by Erdas Imagine 2014 software. The visual image interpretation was carried out by ArcMap 10.2 to delineate the different geomorphic units of the area (Figure 1 b,c,d) as well as subsequent field checking according to our previous research [18]–[20].

For Figures 2 and 3, a separate section has been added in the revised manuscript(Page No. 9, Line No. 229), "2.7 Spatial distribution of different parameters: To examine the spatial distribution of different parameters, GIS (Geographic Information System) mapping and interpolation were carried out using ArcGIS 10.2 software and modified for use in this study. The inverse distance weighting (IDW) technique was applied to interpolate the value of a variable at unmeasured sites from observations of its values at nearby locations according to our previous study [37], [38]."

Academic editor comment 7: We note that Figure 2 includes an image of a participant in the study. …..

Response: Figure 2 has been deleted from the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #1 comment:

Reviewer 1, comment 1: Your work deal mostly with radiological issues (radiological hazard, dosimetry), not geology. That is why there is no need to give so much geological information in the methodology section, like detailed soils description. Especially you have not used these data in the results discussion and interpretation.

Response: We appreciate the opportunity to explain this matter to the reviewer. We fully agree with you. We have shortened 2.1: Study Area (Page No.4, Line No. 99) and the detailed soil description has been deleted from the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 1, comment 2: What about gamma radiation background influence? You have not mentioned anything that you extract background from the cps or N of your samples. It is crucial for the proper calculation of the results. Especially for 40K, it is always present in the background to the great extent. Did you do the background extraction? If yes, it definitely needs to be described in the text. Give all details like: way of measurements (empty detector, empty container), time of a single measurement, if time of background measurement was comparable with sample measurement time (btw. which you did not provide in the text), and level of the background. If background extraction has not been done it is necessary to do it! Otherwise, such results cannot be accepted for publication.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this opportunity to clarify this issue. Yes, the background was measured during the experiment, and a detailed description of the background has been added in the revised manuscript (Page No.6, Line No. 147) like this, “An empty sealed beaker was counted in the same way and with the same geometry as the samples before the sample measurement to figure out the background distribution in the area surrounding the detector. To reduce the degree of uncertainty in the net counts, an equal counting duration of 30000s for background and sample measurement was selected. "

Reviewer1, comment 3: You have mentioned that there is no 137Cs in your samples. It means that you did a research on 137Cs. Meanwhile there is no description how it was done. No energy line or detection limit of 137Cs is provided.

Response: We are grateful that the reviewer gave us the opportunity to address this. The energy line of Cs-137 has been added in the revised manuscript like this (Page No.6, Line No. 154), “Using the unique 1460 keV and 661 keV gamma line, the radioactivity of 40K and 137Cs was estimated, respectively.”

Reviewer1, comment 4: Description of the detector efficiency determination is given but no information on the results. At least relative Efficiency of the detector should be presented.

Response: We, the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission (BAEC), are responsible for most of Bangladesh's nuclear-related activities. We have many labs throughout Bangladesh. We have many detectors, and many scientists are working in BAEC. We have to characterize all types of imported food samples with many matrices. We have many standard sources since we have to measure different matrix samples. This research study was designed, and we collected soil samples from Sundarbans. In the beginning, we used IAEA reference samples RGU-1, RGTh-1 and RGK-1 for the efficiency calibration for this particular research. Then we also cross-checked with our Eu-152 spiked source. Previously just the Eu-152 standard source was mentioned, now based on both reviewer's comments, the description of the detector efficiency determination has been modified in the revised manuscript like this (Page No. 7, Line No. 185-189), "Efficiency of the detector was determined using IAEA reference samples RGU-1, RGTh-1 and RGK-1[28]. Besides, efficiency data was also checked by a standard source which was made by combining 152Eu of known activity (Liquid form, 900 Bq activity) with the Al2O3 matrix and manufactured in the same containers as the samples."

The relative Efficiency of the detector was already added in the manuscript (Page No.6, Line No. 147).

Reviewer1, comment 5: The number of decimal places in the results must be ordered. It is inconsistent and partially incorrect in the results. The result and the uncertainty of the result should have the same number of digits. If the result is in the hundreds, there is no need to give two decimal places; they are less than 1% of the result. General rule is that: two or three significant digits are enough.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this opportunity to clarify this issue and revised accordingly in Table 1 (Page No. 9, Line No. 239).

Reviewer1, comment 6: In the discussion of the results, it is stated many times that the obtained results exceed the limits. But the degree of this excess is not specified. The reader must analyze the whole tables with results and look for reference values in the text. You can specify the percentage range by which the results exceed the accepted limits. As it currently stands, it is not clear whether these are serious surpluses or just a few percent. This can only be guessed on the basis of the recommendations given by the authors at the end of the text.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this opportunity to clarify this issue. The degree of the obtained results exceeds the population-weighted world average values of 226Ra, 232Th and 40K has been added in the revised manuscript like this (Page No.10, Line No. 244), "The highest activity of 226Ra, 232Th and 40K obtained in the present study is 35, 51 and 660 Bqkg-1 respectively which exceeds the population-weighted world average values of 32, 45,420 for 226Ra, 232Th and 40K by 9%, 11% and 57%."

Reviewer1, comment PDF file:

Page No. , Line No. Comment Response

1, 27 and the. Space is missing.

Corrected

2, 38 space missing

Corrected

2, 43 According to the PLOS guideline references should be numbers in square brackets.

Corrected throughout the manuscript

4, 107 Why capital letter?

Corrected

Is it number of literature reference? If yes it should be in the end of "Peat soils" or in the end of the paragraph. Or is it numbering from the following paragraph. If yes it is inconsistent.

Deleted

4, 110 Are these references only for Acid Sulphate Soils? If so, then the other soils should also have appropriate references. If 17, 18 applies to all the types of soil mentioned, the reference is in the wrong place. It should be at the end of the paragraph.

Reference has been given at the end of the paragraph.

Suggestion: Using the way of citing as an internal numbering system may be confusing. If you change () into [] for literature references, problem will be solved.

You can also add soil type number to the previous paragraph, but keep the proper order between these two paragraphs. Now there is inconsistency.

Corrected, description of the soil type has been deleted.

5-6, 131-134 In picture 2 there is an additional stage of drying in the sun? Why is it omitted in the description? Why were the samples additionally dried in the sun, and not only in the oven? What was the drying temperature? Some nuclides escape with vapors at too high a temperature, therefore information about the drying temperature is very important.

Drying temperature has been included in the revised manuscript

6, 135-136 Keeping such samples one month tightly closed is generally good practice, but at least 30 days is quite imprecise. 1 year is also "at least 30 days" ;). Please, provide more detailed time period.

Corrected, at least word has been deleted.

The statement is very general. What do you mean, that you avoid contamination when sampling or measurements? How contamination during gamma spectrometry with HPGe measurements may be done?

Line deleted

6, 147-152 Please provide energy lines with one equal accuracy. Accuracy down to 1 keV is fine. In practice, an accuracy of 0.01 keV is not needed to nuclide identification.

Corrected, fraction has been deleted

What do you mean by weighting if the secular equilibrium was achieved?

This line has been deleted.

Here you use the same numbering system as literature references and soil types.

Corrected

6, 147-150 What about the background correction? Details about background and background correction has been added in the revised manuscript.

7, 163 Why in the text is MDAC? MDAC is the same as MDA?

Corrected

There is no "I" in both equations.

Corrected

7, 188 Provide the activity of calibration source.

Provided

7, 187 Please, provide a justification for this value i.e. proper reference. Properly cited

8, 197 "specific activity" should be named activity concentration of concentration of activity. Please use consistent terminology. Previously specific activity did not appear.

Corrected

8, 202-204 Please, provide a proper reference for this equation.

Properly cited

If other symbols "have their usual meaning" then dose Dout should be in Bq/kg... not nGy/h. Line deleted

8, 210 If measured quantities can be used, that in your work you cannot calculate annual effective dose. You assessed Din and Dout, not measured. Corrected, used assessed

Hin is about not only radon, in the equation itself there is potassium-40 concentration as well.

Radon deleted

It is inappropriate expression. Use rather radon progeny, or radon decay products, or radon daughters. Radon deleted

7, 175-178 Is it standard deviation? Or standard error of mean? Please explain.

This is the uncertainty of the measured radioactivity which description is given in Equation 3

11, 251-252 Such a statement needs to be justified any proper reference.

Properly Cited

137Cs origin is predominantly global fallout, not only Chernobyl and Fukushima... In your work there is no information on 137Cs research, so where the statement comes from?

Line deleted

12, in Table 2 ? Deleted

Reviewer #2:

Reviewer 2, comment 1:

Row 19 and rows 171-171. One cannot measure directly Th-232 via gamma radiation. What is measured are Th series progenies (Ac-228 and Tl-208, depending which lines you took under consideration). Due to high risk of lack of equilibrium in open environment they might reflect the activities of Ra-228 (case of Ac-228 lines) or Th-228 (case of Tl-206 lines). The Th-228 and Ra-228 in fresh sediment samples could not be in equilibrium, so one should present the results from Ac-228 (which could be named "Ra-228") and Tl-208 (which could be named "Th-228") separately.

Response: To the extent that you have provided feedback, I am grateful. You have been extremely helpful, and we appreciate your time and insight. Based on your suggestion, characteristic gamma lines 911 keV and 969 keV for 228Ac, were used to determine the 232Th activity concentration. As a result, Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 data and associated lines have been revised throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer 2, comment 2: Row 28. Space between "etc." and "Elevated". The lack of space after dot or between the number and unit (for instance row. 66) repeats in many places in text, please check and correct all. BTW – there is no really elevated levels among the results.

Response: Lack of space problem has been corrected in the revised manuscript. The problem may arise because of the use of different ms word versions of the author and the reviewer. One line has been added in the Results and Discussion part like this (Page No.10, Line No. 244-247), “The highest activity of 226Ra, 232Th and 40K obtained in the present study is 35, 50 and 660 Bqkg-1 respectively which exceeds the population-weighted world average values of 32, 45, 420 for 226Ra, 232Th and 40K by 9%, 11% and 57%.”

Reviewer 2, comment 3: Row. 153. Ra-226 and Ra-224 are parents, not daughters of mentioned Rn-222 and Rn-220, respectively. You cannot call them also "elements", since the mass number is specified (nuclide, radionuclide, radioisotope or isotope are far more proper).

Response: We thank the reviewer for this opportunity to clarify this issue. The line has been modified in the revised manuscript like this (Page No.5, Line No. 135-137), “Then they were kept for 30 days to ensure that 226Ra and 232Th were in secular equilibrium with short-lived daughter products.”

Reviewer 2, comment 4: The way how the equation 1 is written could be misleading. When I have looked on denominator I've seen "exp", what is nonsense. With more careful look I realized, that "x" here is multiplication symbol. The "cps" in numerator is also not sure, if it is a product of three values or three character symbol. I suggest to re-write this formula avoiding many character symbols (instead pleas use the single character symbols with indexes) and please replace the "x" by dots. Please use the same style (italic) for symbols in all equations and in all description of them (incl. eq. 4 and 5). Please also note, that "mass" and "weight" are not the same things in physics, the proper term here is "mass". Please correct this way all equations.

Response: We are very sorry for these silly mistakes and revised them accordingly.

Reviewer2, comment 5: Row 201. The usage of Eu-152 for efficiency calibration is not proper due to cascade transitions in decay of this isotope. One can do corrections for it using one of several methods. It looks that you have not done that correction. Without a cascade correction some of your results could by biased for even 10%.

Response: We, the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission (BAEC), are responsible for most of Bangladesh's nuclear-related activities. We have many labs throughout Bangladesh. We have many detectors, and many scientists are working in BAEC. We have to characterize all types of imported food samples with many matrices. We have many standard sources since we have to measure different matrix samples. This research study is designed, and we collected soil samples from Sundarbans. In the beginning, we used IAEA reference samples RGU-1, RGTh-1 and RGK-1 for the efficiency calibration for this particular research. Then we also cross-checked with our Eu-152 spiked source. Previously just the Eu-152 standard source was mentioned, now based on both reviewer's comments, the description of the detector efficiency determination has been modified in the revised manuscript like this (Page 7 , Line 185-189), "Efficiency of the detector was determined using IAEA reference samples RGU-1, RGTh-1 and RGK-1[28]. Besides, efficiency data was also checked by a standard source which was made by combining 152Eu of known activity (Liquid form, 900 Bq activity) with the Al2O3 matrix and manufactured in the same containers as the samples."

Reviewer 2, comment 5: Table 1. – the presentation of results is not proper. The data for Th series should be presented separately for Ac-228 and Tl-208 lines.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback. Based on your suggestion, characteristic gamma lines 911 keV and 969 keV for 228Ac, were used to determine the 232Th activity concentration. Therefore, table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 data and associated lines have been revised throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer 2, comment 6:In general the results should be presented in way: xab.c±y.z or xab±vw but never xab±fg.h. The rule is: present the uncertainty only in two meaning digits. The way of presentation of main part of result is driven by the precision of uncertainty. In particular, 500±60 is OK, but 490±58.8 is not OK. The 33±3.63 is not OK as well. But 40±6 can be accepted.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback and corrected it accordingly.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Mohamad Syazwan Mohd Sanusi

1 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-26012R1Elevated Levels of 40K in the tourist-captivating Karamjal and Harbaria sites of the World’s largest mangrove forest SundarbansPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mahfuz,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 18 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohamad Syazwan Mohd Sanusi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear author, you are invited to revise your manuscript as per commented by the reviewers

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

I was pleased to read your work once again. I fully sustained my opinion about the scientific value of your work, the way of presenting it in the manuscript etc. You have exhaustively addressed my previous comments and corrected and completed the manuscript. I just have only a few more minor remarks:

p. 7 line 167 – in the equation (2) in the denominator there are simple dots, not a multiplication symbol

p. 7 line 175 - In formula (3) there is a collision of symbols. N in formula (1) is net count rate, here ( in 3)it is sample count. If N in formula (1) and (3) means the same, then formula (3) implicitly doubles the time factor. The first time implicitly is in u(N)/N and the second time explicitly u(T)/T. This falsifies the uncertainty value. If N in formula (1) stands for net counts per time and in (3) gross counts (area under the peak in the spectrum), then formula (3) is correct but it is necessary to change the notation to eliminate confusion. Please clarify this issue.

p. 10 Table 1 – you present here Average±?.You have stated that number after “±” “This is the uncertainty of the measured radioactivity which description is given in Equation 3”. If it is the uncertainty of the measured radioactivity, how did you measure the average activity? I can guess how to calculate it, but measure? And how did you determine all the factors in the formula since they relate to the average? Measure of uncertainty of average it is usually standard deviation (if normal distribution is dealt with) or standard error (standard error of mean/standard deviation on mean).

p. 13 line 292 – reference [62] does not appear in the table 2 and is not about Rio Formoso but coastal Karnataka.

p. 17 line 368 – “no radioactivity of 137Cs was detected in the collected soil samples” We only learn about it from the Conclusion. This information should be included in the Results. Especially since you state in the Introduction that: “Therefore, this present study aims […] to check if any artificially occurring 137Cs is present.” You can also provide average MDA for the 137Cs in your measurements, after all we cannot know if there is 137Cs or not, we only know the level of 137Cs was below the MDA.

At the end the suggestion I have missed previously. If you name in the title 40K, and it is the key point result in your work consider adding 40K to the key words of your article.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors. Thank you for your answers, which seems to clarified all my doubt. I think that corrected paper can be accepted for publication in PLOS.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Oct 19;18(10):e0289113. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289113.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


4 Feb 2023

Response to reviewer(s)

Respected Reviewers,

Thank you so much for your comments. We are very grateful to you for the time and intelligence that you have shared with us. It is a great learning opportunity for us through these reviews. Our responses to the comments are highlighted in red color in the revised manuscript.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

Reviewer #1 Comment:

Dear Authors,

I was pleased to read your work once again. I fully sustained my opinion about the scientific value of your work, the way of presenting it in the manuscript etc. You have exhaustively addressed my previous comments and corrected and completed the manuscript. I just have only a few more minor remarks:

Response: We are grateful to the reviewer for this valuable comment.

Reviewer 1, comment 1: p. 7 line 167 – in the equation (2) in the denominator there are simple dots, not a multiplication symbol

Response: We thank the reviewer for indicating this issue. In the revised manuscript, we have changed the dots into multiplication symbol of the denominator in the both Eq (1) (Page No.6, Line No. 160) and Eq (2). (Page No.7, Line No. 167).

Reviewer 1, comment 2: p. 7 line 175 - In formula (3) there is a collision of symbols. N in formula (1) is net count rate, here (in 3) it is sample count. If N in formula (1) and (3) means the same, then formula (3) implicitly doubles the time factor. The first time implicitly is in u(N)/N and the second time explicitly u(T)/T. This falsifies the uncertainty value. If N in formula (1) stands for net counts per time and in (3) gross counts (area under the peak in the spectrum), then formula (3) is correct but it is necessary to change the notation to eliminate confusion. Please clarify this issue.

Response: We appreciate the opportunity to explain this matter to the reviewer. We have changed the net counts per sec in equation (1) from ‘N’ to ‘Z’ to avoid confusion. (Page No.6, Line No. 160-163)

Reviewer 1, comment 3: p. 10 Table 1 – you present here Average±?. You have stated that number after “±” “This is the uncertainty of the measured radioactivity which description is given in Equation 3”. If it is the uncertainty of the measured radioactivity, how did you measure the average activity? I can guess how to calculate it, but measure? And how did you determine all the factors in the formula since they relate to the average? Measure of uncertainty of average it is usually standard deviation (if normal distribution is dealt with) or standard error (standard error of mean/standard deviation on mean).

Response: We thank the reviewer for this opportunity to clarify this issue. In order to calculate the average activity; and the average uncertainty of the measured radioactivity, we simply calculated the mean.

Reviewer 1, comment 4: p. 13 line 292 – reference [62] does not appear in the table 2 and is not about Rio Formoso but coastal Karnataka.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment and revised accordingly (Page No. 13, Line No. 294-295).

Reviewer 1, comment 5: p. 17 line 368 – “no radioactivity of 137Cs was detected in the collected soil samples” We only learn about it from the Conclusion. This information should be included in the Results. Especially since you state in the Introduction that: “Therefore, this present study aims […] to check if any artificially occurring 137Cs is present.” You can also provide average MDA for the 137Cs in your measurements, after all we cannot know if there is 137Cs or not, we only know the level of 137Cs was below the MDA. At the end the suggestion I have missed previously. If you name in the title 40K, and it is the key point result in your work consider adding 40K to the key words of your article.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer for allowing us to clarify this issue. In the revised manuscript, we have replaced the statement in the introduction (Page No. 4, Line No. 93): “… … to check if any artificial radionuclide is present… …” and in the conclusion (Page No. 17, Line No. 370-371): “In regard to anthropogenic activity, no artificial radionuclide was detected in the collected soil samples.” We have added the following lines in the result and discussion of the revised manuscript (Page No. 11, Line No. 267-268): “No artificial radionuclides were detected in the collected samples from the Sundarbans.”

We have also added 40K to the keywords in the revised manuscript (Page No. 2, Line No. 33)

Reviewer #2 Comment:

Dear Authors. Thank you for your answers, which seems to clarified all my doubt. I think that corrected paper can be accepted for publication in PLOS.

Response: We are grateful to the reviewer for this valuable comment.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Mohamad Syazwan Mohd Sanusi

20 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-26012R2Elevated Levels of 40K in the tourist-captivating Karamjal and Harbaria sites of the World’s largest mangrove forest SundarbansPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mahfuz,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 5 April 2023. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohamad Syazwan Mohd Sanusi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Kindly find my full comment for minor revision.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: commented_manuscript_academic_editor.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Oct 19;18(10):e0289113. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289113.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


20 Apr 2023

Response to Editor's Comments

Respected Editor,

We greatly appreciate your time that spent on our manuscript and sharing your knowledge with us to further improve our manuscript. We have an excellent opportunity to learn from these reviews. In the modified manuscript, our responses to the comments are indicated in red color.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Editor comment 1: Please revise the title. The title must reflect the study contents.

1) Measurement of K-40 activity in Karamjal and Harbaria mangrove forest, Sundarbans to investigate the downhill agriculture activities impacts.

Or,

2) Measurement of soil radioactivity in Karamjal and Harbaria mangrove forest, Sundarbans for radiological database establishment

Response: Thank you so much for your kind comments and appreciation of our study. All of your comments are carefully evaluated and revised in our revision accordingly. The title has been revised based on your 2nd recommendation, “Measurement of radioactivity in soils of Karamjal and Harbaria mangrove forest of Sundarbans for establishment of radiological database”

Editor comment 2: The abstract lacks of problem statement and objective, methodology, results, limited discussion.

Response: We thank the editor for this comment. The abstract has been revised according to the guideline of the Editor, “This work presents the first in-depth study of soil radioactivity in the mangrove forest of Bangladesh part of the Sundarbans. It used HPGe gamma-ray spectrometry to measure the amount of natural radioactivity in soil samples from Karamjal and Harbaria sites of the world's largest mangrove forest. The activity concentrations of most of the 226Ra (14±2 Bqkg-1 to 35±4 Bqkg-1) and 232Th (30±5 Bqkg-1 to 50±9 Bqkg-1) lie within the world average values, but the 40K concentration (370± 44 Bqkg-1 to 660±72 Bqkg-1) was found to have exceeded the world average value. The evaluation of radiological hazard parameters revealed that the outdoor absorbed dose rate (maximum 73.25 nGyh-1) and outdoor annual effective dose (maximum 0.09 mSvy-1) for most samples exceeded the corresponding world average values. The elevated concentration of 40K is mainly due to the salinity intrusion, usage of fertilizers and agricultural runoff, and migration of waste effluents along the riverbanks. Being the pioneering comprehensive research on the Bangladesh side of the Sundarbans, this study forms a baseline radioactivity for the Sundarbans before the commissioning of the Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant in Bangladesh.”

Editor comment 3: Do not combine the lines. Please use the active sentence, active voice constructions are usually stronger, clearer, more direct, and often more concise than their passive-voice counterparts like you did.

Response: We appreciate the editor's feedback and changed it accordingly.

Editor comment 4: This should be in the last line before conclusion.

Response: We thank the editor for this opportunity to clarify this issue. This line has been replaced before conclusion.

Editor comment 5: To state such slightly high K-40 is insufficient. To discuss in terms of increased risk of radiation exposure, you need to highlight ICRP 103 recommendations on Existing Exposure Situations and dose levels beyond 100 mSv @ mGy. Please remove the biota, since the author didn’t estimate the biota risk using ICRP and IAEA dose estimator.

Response: We thank the Editor for this opportunity to clarify this issue and respect his comment, so we have deleted the risk issue and revised our abstract. The word “the biota” has been removed.

Editor comment 6: The choice of keywords need to be identified based on potential reader interest.

Response: We appreciate the editors's feedback. We have revised our keywords like this (Page-2, Line 31-32), “Keywords: Mangrove Forest, The Sundarbans, Natural radioactivity, Gamma Spectrometry, Radiological indices, Effective Dose”

Editor comment 7: Please revise. Background radiation pose significant health risk?

Response: We appreciate the editors's feedback and corrected accordingly (Page 2, line 38-39), “Increased use of ionising radiation or anthropogenic radioactivity may pose non-negligible threats to living beings”.

Editor comment 8: Please extend the discussion with results and finding

Response: We appreciate the opportunity to explain this matter with the editor. The discussion has been extended like this (Page 3, Line 61-67), “In the Indian region of the Sundarbans, the average activity of 40K (532 – 1043 Bqkg-1) was reported to be more than twice as high as the global average of 420 Bqkg-1 [5]. The authors hypothesised that the accumulation of upstream wastes and undesirable effluents along this coastal zone, together with rising salinity and the usage of fertilisers to boost crop productivity, may have collectively inficted K content. As the implications are comparable, it is necessary to do a similar radioactivity measurement in the Bangladesh part of the Sundarbans”.

Editor comment 9: The exposure is insignificant due to tourist. The main problem statement to conduct this study is :

1) establish baseline data of environmental radioactivity due to newly proposed Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant in the area.

2) To assess the human activities impact (coal power plant, agriculture, uncontrolled fishimng activities) on the Sundarbands ecossyem by investigate the radioactivity distribution.

Response: We appreciate the editor's feedback. We have deleted the line, “The Sundarbans, being a World Heritage Site, attracts thousands of local and foreign tourists every year [7]. This also raises concerns that the radioactivity that the tourist is exposed to is unknown” and revised the manuscript like this (Page 4-5, line 107-112): “Therefore, this present study aims to measure the prevailing concentration of NORMs in the soils of Sundarbans, the first of its kind, to assess the impact of human activities (coal fired power plant, agriculture, uncontrolled fishing activities) on the Sundarbands ecosystem by investigating the radioactivity distribution. This study also aims to provide baseline data which is important due to the recent commissioning of a nuclear power plant and several thermal power plants surrounding the Sundarbans.”

Editor comment 10: Please report the results and finding from these countries

Response: We respect the Editor's comments. The results and findings from these countries has been added in the revised manuscript like this (Page 3, line 83-105), “A few studies were reported on radiation levels of the mangrove forests in Pernambuco, Brazil, where maximum level of 40K was found to be 1338 Bq kg-1, and the authors concluded that this was due the influence of sediments and presence of granites [8]. Radioactivity studies conducted in the petrified wood forests in Egypt found levels of 238U (65.26±12.99 Bqkg-1) exceeding the world average values, along with the presence of the artificial radionuclide 137Cs arising from the nuclear accident in Chernobyl, and from the deposition from nuclear weapon tests in the neighbouring countries [9]. Very high concentrations of 232Th were found in three Norwegian forests due to their proximity to an active volcano and the complex mixture of heavy mineral salts present there [10]. In the Indian Sundarbans mangrove forest, large amounts of 40K were discovered (maximum 866 Bqkg-1), mostly due to the continuous deposition and erosion of silt, sediment, and other organic matter [1], also low levels of NORMs were discovered in the Krusadai Island Mangrove as a result of the region's low concentration of radiation-bearing minerals [11], and nitrogen fertilisers, a source of 40K in the environment, are widely used to improve soil nitrogen balance for agricultural development [12]. Moreover, it was found that the activity of 238U and 232Th had decreased from pre-tsunami data (25.9± 15.8 Bqkg-1 and 65.1±34.5 Bqkg-1) to post-tsunami data (12.2± 4.2 Bqkg-1 and 11.7±5.0 Bqkg-1 [13]. Although, the conditions are similar in the Sundarbans of Bangladesh only two studies have been found to date in the Sundarbans of Bangladesh site, one of which reported levels of NORMs were below the world average values in sediment samples [14] and the other study assessed the number of trace elements in sediments samples revealing, using various environmental contamination indices, that the sediments of the region have moderate to severely contaminated levels of Cd and moderate to low levels of As, Sb, Th, and U [15].

Editor comment 12: Please clarify does this impact the activity levels of the places?

Response: We respect the Editor's comments and deleted the line.

Editor comment 13: to assess the human activities impact (coal power plant, agriculture, uncontrolled fishimng activities) on the Sundarbands ecosystem by investigate the radioactivity distribution

Response: We have revised the line according to the Editor’s guideline (Page 4-5, Line 107-112), “Therefore, this present study aims to measure the prevailing concentration of NORMs in the soils of Sundarbans, the first of its kind, to assess the impact of human activities (coal fired power plant, agriculture, uncontrolled fishing activities) on the Sundarbands ecosystem by investigating the radioactivity distribution. This study also aims to provide baseline data which is important due to the recent commissioning of a nuclear power plant and several thermal power plants surrounding the Sundarbans."

Editor comment 14: Don’t overclaim the title of this section, the discussion is general..

Response: We thank the editor for this comment. We have deleted the term “Geomorphology, pedology” in the revised manuscript.

Editor comment 15: Remove, merge 2.1 and 2.2 Not related. Th provided map is a topography information.

Response: We thank the editor for this comment. The heading “2.2 Geomorphological map preparation” has been removed and we have merged 2.1 and 2.2. Other numbering of subsections has also been changed accordingly.

Editor comment 16: How do you justify 30 samples? Why? Statistical validation or for normality test? How do you determine on these location, as the Sundarbans area is 10,000 square km, why 2 distinctive locations ? The study aim to investigate the variations across uphill and downhill?

Response: We thank the editor for this comment. For this particular research, we have chosen two tourists spot located at Karamjal and Herbaria in Sundarbans. Because of the safety purpose, the designated area for visitors for these particular tourists’ spots is very limited, so we have collected 15 samples from each of the tourist spot.

Editor comment 17: Criteria of samples? Top soil? Figure 1 shows sampling at Karamjal is situated on the river and riverbank? As the study aim to study the agriculture human impacts etc., thus top soil sampling should be consider.

Response: We thank the editor for this comment. Yes, it is topsoil; so, the quoted sentence has been rephrased as follows (Page 6, Line 136): " A total of 30 topsoil samples were collected from the area around the Sundarbans (15 from Karamjal and 15 from Harbaria) in December 2021,"

Editor comment 18: Systematic or gridded sampling is different to random. Please clarify and revise

Response: We thank the editor for this comment. In IAEA Technical Reports Series No. 486, “Guidelines on Soil and Vegetation Sampling for Radiological Monitoring”, the following sampling methods are described: Simple random sampling; Two-stage sampling; Stratified sampling; Systematic grid sampling; Systematic random sampling; Cluster sampling; Double sampling; Search sampling and Transect sampling. Following the IAEA guideline, we adopted systematic random sampling in this research. According to this IAEA guideline, systematic random sampling is a useful approach in estimating the average concentration within grid cells. The area is divided using a square or triangular grid, and then samples are collected at random locations from within each cell using the same procedures as simple random sampling. This method is useful in delineating the extent of the contamination, confirming cleanup and for field screening. Hope this clarify the raised issue.

Editor comment 19: Explain the line, mixed with what material?

Response: We thank the editor for this comment. Actually, it’s a mistake. No extra thing was mixed, just made the sample homogeneous, with the help of sieve. It should be homogenously mixed, so we revised the line (page 6, line 140-141), “After removing extraneous components like roots, pebbles, and plant matter, along with other impurities, the samples were homogenously mixed.”

Editor comment 20: Marinelli beaker?

Response: We thank the editor for this comment. Yes, it is Marinelli beaker and the line has been revised like this (Page 6, line 146-147): “All samples were then put into radon-impermeable, airtight Marinelli beakers (EG &G, Ortec)”.

Editor comment 21: Use Bq kg-1 consistent with activity in results

Response: We appreciate the editor's feedback and corrected the whole manuscript using

Bqkg-1.

Editor comment 22: Is this in equation 1? How do you obtain the value of the detector efficiency for each of gamma energy line?

Response: We appreciate the editor's comment. Yes, this is ε in Equation 1 which is the detectors counting efficiency. The efficiency of the detector for each of gamma energy line was obtained from the efficiency vs energy curve using IAEA standards (RGU-1, RGTh-1, and RGK-1.)

Editor comment 23: How the high energy gammas are calibrated? The calibration process does not address the instrument's performance at higher energies, namely, K-40 1460keV, Bi-214 1764keV and Tl-208 2614keV. These energies contribute significantly to air kerma rates from NORM.

Response: We thank the editor for this comment. Besides these common point sources 22Na, 57Co, 60Co, 133Ba, 137Cs, we also use 152Eu and 88Y for high energy gamma ray calibration. We have added these point sources in the revised manuscript (Page no. 8, Line no. 195-197): “The detector’s energy calibration was performed using common point sources like 22Na, 57Co, 60Co, 88Y, 133Ba, 137Cs, 152Eu, etc.”

Editor comment 24: How the efficiency calibration was conducted? Give details procedure that benefit the readers. And why need to proceed with secondary validation using standard Eu-152? Generally, only one standard sample need to be used as correction reference for the uncalibrated counting sample

Response: We appreciate the editors's input. The quoted sentence has been rephrased as follows (Page 8, Line 199-202): “The IAEA standards (RGU-1, RGTh-1, and RGK-1) were used to determine the counting efficiency, which are Certified Reference Materials (CRM) and contain natural radionuclides from 238U-series, 232Th-series, and 40K, whose certified activity concentrations were 4940 ± 15 Bqkg-1, 3250 ± 45 Bqkg-1,14000 ± 200 Bqkg-1.”

We, the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission (BAEC), are responsible for most of Bangladesh's nuclear-related activities. We have many labs throughout Bangladesh. We have many detectors, and many scientists are working in BAEC. We have to characterize all types of imported food samples with many matrices. We have many standard sources since we have to measure different matrix samples. This research study was designed, and we collected soil samples from Sundarbans. In the beginning, we used IAEA reference samples RGU-1, RGTh-1 and RGK-1 for the efficiency calibration for this particular research. Then we also cross-checked with our Eu-152 spiked source (152Eu of known activity (Liquid form, 900 Bq activity) with the Al2O3 matrix and manufactured in the same containers as the samples).

Editor comment 25: Please include aim of this? For interpolation on unsampling location or just a representation of small scale sampling. Include the IDW parameters: Power? Neighbors search number? Direction? Angle? 0? Or isotropic

Response: We appreciate the editor's input. Subsection 2.7 has been revised like this (Page 10, Line-245-250), “For interpolation of some derived data like radium equivalent activity, absorbed dose rate and annual effective dose in unsampling locations within the study area, interpolation was carried out using ArcGIS 10.2 software. The inverse distance weighting (IDW) technique was applied to interpolate the value of a variable at unmeasured sites from observations of its values at nearby locations according to our previous study [35], [36].”

Editor comment 26: Any details explanation on this? Solubility with water or simple ionic exchange process with h20?

Response: We thank the editor for this comment. 226Ra readily dissolves in groundwater so that 226Ra may experience surface runoff on muddy terrain.

Editor comment 27: Should be in Line 246

Response: Corrected (Page 11, line 259-262)

Editor comment 28: All the maps required major correction. The only reference is longitude and latitude, please consider the boundary line, river, soil, sampling point, as in Fig 1

Response: We thank the editor for this comment. All the maps have been corrected based on your suggestion.

Editor comment 29: What is the average value reported by UNSCEAR. The effective dose is small and less than 1 mSv, how lot of time they spend outdoor? 12 hours a day? The dose seems at acceptable range. To discuss in term of risk, I suggest the author to use the ICRP discussion on Existing Exposure Situation of 1-20 mSvy-1

Response: We respect the editors’s feedback regarding the issue and we have decided to delete the effective dose issue and revised the manuscript like this (Page 18, line 387-388) “Most of the hazard parameters are within the recommended safety limits, so the research areas are not posing a considerable hazard for short-term stay by visitors.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

Md Naimur Rahman

12 Jul 2023

Measurement of radioactivity in soils of Karamjal and Harbaria mangrove forest of Sundarbans for establishment of radiological database

PONE-D-22-26012R3

Dear Dr. Siraz,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Md. Naimur Rahman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The revision version of the manuscript was satisfactory. The manuscript is accepted. Thank you for your submission.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Md Naimur Rahman

14 Jul 2023

PONE-D-22-26012R3

Measurement of radioactivity in soils of Karamjal and Harbaria mangrove forest of Sundarbans for establishment of radiological database

Dear Dr. Siraz:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Mr Md. Naimur Rahman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-26012_1reviewer.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: commented_manuscript_academic_editor.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES