Uranium Toxicity in the State of Punjab in North-Western India - Management of Natural Resources in a Changing Environment - page 262

Table 1 Uranium concentrations in top soil samples from different locations
Sample U (Bq/kg) Standard deviation U (ppm) Standard deviation
PUH1 27.2 1.3 2.20 0.11
PUH2 17.4 0.8 1.41 0.07
PUH3 27.3 1.7 2.21 0.14
PUT1 21.1 1.0 1.71 0.08
PUT2 20.0 1.0 1.62 0.08
PUT3 25.9 1.7 2.10 0.14
PUN1 12.8 0.9 1.04 0.08
PUN2 11.1 0.7 0.91 0.06
UPN1 32.9 1.7 2.66 0.14
UPN2 7.9 1.0 0.64 0.08
Origin of samples: PUH1-3: Punjab regions with low level of uranium in ground water; PUT1-3:
Punjab regions with around 15 ppb U in ground water; PUN1-3: Punjab regions and UPN1-2: Uttar
Pradesh regions without reported U toxicity so far
This leads us to assume that uranium toxicity in Punjab could be related to the
geogenic factors of the region. A geological view on the Indo Gangetic Plain situ-
ated between the two rivers Indus and Ganges shows that the soil in this region is
mainly derived from new and old alluvial sediments. The affected Malwa region of
Punjab in the catchment area of River Indus lies in the proximity (200-300 km) of
the Shivalik Hills (younger Himalayas) whereas the comparator region is located in
the catchment area of River Ganges nearly 1,000 km away. The Shivalik sediment
group, namely their sandstones have been shown (Swarnkar et al. 2002 ) to host
uranium mineralizations. Several locations in the Shivaliks (Una 31.48° N and
76.28° E and Kulu 31.96° N and 77.15° E) have been reported to have elevated level
( Srivastava 2004 ) of indoor radon. The Shivalik sedimentary group crops out north
of the Indo-Ganges Plains, dips in to the south and underlies parts of the alluvion
complex. It is probable that there are hydrogeological links transporting geogenic
uranium from the deep-lying Shivalik sediments up to the shallow groundwater
horizon. This would be a sound explanation of the linear or scattered uranium hot
spots in the ground water reported by several authors.
Conclusions
It can be concluded from the present work that fertilizer derived uranium may per-
haps not be the cause for contamination of the ground water of this region. It is quite
likely that geogenic sources may be playing a more signifi cant role. The body of
data is still small so it would be interesting to carry out further studies to make
defi nitive conclusion.