AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article
*Corresponding Author: Buhari Samaila, Department of Physics with Electronics, Federal University Birnin Kebbi, Nigeria.
Citation: Buhari Samaila, Sanusi Aliyu, Hussaini Ahmed, Muhammad N. Yahaya, (2024), Sensitive Organ Doses and Cancer Implication Due to Background Radiation Exposure in Federal University Birnin Kebbi, Kebbi State, Nigeria, J. Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics, 8(3); DOI:10.31579/2640-1053/196
Copyright: © 2024, Buhari Samaila. this is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 07 May 2024 | Accepted: 20 May 2024 | Published: 28 May 2024
Keywords: organs; cancer; radiation exposure; federal university birnin kebbi
Due to its detrimental impact on human health, environmental background ionizing radiation contamination and degradation are a major concern worldwide. Risk to public health is one of Nigeria's top environmental and societal concerns. The public's exposure to the environment was significantly influenced by the natural background radiation emissions from the earth's crust, food, water, and building materials. 82% of the population's background radiation exposure comes from sources that are out of control, including internal, cosmic, and external radiation. The current work aimed to conduct an investigational study of the background radiation exposure to sensitive organs from both indoor and outdoor sources, identify areas with high or low BIR, and evaluate the cancer risk to sensitive organs among residents of Federal University Birnin Kebbi based on absorbed dose rate, annual effective dose equivalent, and excess life cancer risk to sensitive organs. Using a nuclear radiation detector, background radiation exposure indoors and outside was determined. One meter was maintained between the detector and the ground. The Overall average radiation dose rate, annual effective dose rate, and cancer risks of all the locations within FUBK were found to be 0.118µSv/hr, 0.828mSv/yr, and 2.898×10-4. The mean sensitive organ dose was found to be 0.681 mSv/yr, 0.617 mSv/yr, 0.734 mSv/yr, 0.872 mSv/yr, 0.489 mSv/yr, and 0.723mSv/yr for Lung, Ovaries, Bone Marrow, Tests, Kidney, and Whole Body respectively, while the mean cancer risks to each organ were 2.382×10-4, 2.159×10-4, 2.568×10-4, 3.052×10-4, 1.712×10-4, and 2.531×10-4 for Lung, Ovaries, Bone Marrow, Tests, Kidney and Whole Body respectively. The faculty of education has the greatest dose rate, annual effective dose rate, and ELCR, according to the findings that were presented. Because the buildings were recently built and are not occupied by staff or students, no radon emission could escape due to inadequate ventilation, which may be the cause of the rise in radiation exposure. Due to the sensitivity of test organs to radiation than other organs, they have the greatest Dose rate, annual effective dose rate, and ECLR. Based on the results, it can be said that neither University staff nor students need to be concerned about the radiation levels in various FUBK buildings since the average values of annual effective dose and cancer risks were remarkably in line with the acceptable limits of 1.0mSv/yr and 2.93×10-4 except for the test organ cancer risk. Moreover, the management of FUBK is encouraged to thoroughly evaluate the building materials and select one with lower radon emission in collaboration with contractors and the government. The amounts of exposure to radioactive elements in buildings should be determined by taking samples of construction materials such as cement, soil, paint, water, etc. for radioactive elemental analysis.
Natural radiation, often known as background radiation, is the radiation that results from the natural surroundings of humans and is divided into three types: primordial, cosmogenic, and anthropogenic. Primordial sources can be discovered in the earth's crust and the surrounding environment. Cosmogenic sources are formed when cosmic rays interact with atmospheric elements and deposit materials on both wet and dry depositions. As a result of their ubiquitous presence, anthropogenic sources are characterized as background sources (Abubakar et al., 2017). According to estimates, 82–85% of a person's ionizing radiation exposure comes from natural sources, and depending on factors like geology, altitude, the type of building material used, and food, a person's average annual dose is between 1-3 mSv (Samaila et al., 2020 and Samaila et al., 2022). The interaction of radiation with matter can result in a biological risk that could later manifest clinical signs. Radiation Safety is concerned about cellular impacts that could harm chromosomes and their constituent parts, such as genes and DNA. When radiation interacts with the body, it causes small, subcellular impacts that may cause cellular reactions to change and, over time, result in macro-observable health effects on particular organs or tissues. Tissue radiation may induce cellular damage, which could subsequently result in damage to the organ and the organism. A living organism's response to a fixed dose can be altered by several variables. There are two ways that molecular impacts, such as changes in DNA, might result from radiation exposure. First of all, radiation and DNA can interact directly, leading to bonded pairs or single or double-strand DNA breakage. Secondly, radiations can interact directly with nearby molecules inside or outside of the cell, like water, to create free radicals and active oxygen species. When these reactive chemicals interact with DNA and/or other cell components including membranes, mitochondria, lipids, proteins, etc., they can have a variety of negative effects on the health of cells and tissue tissues (Samaila et al., 2022).
The impact of radiation is further influenced by biological elements such as species, age, sex, the percentage of exposed tissues, various radio sensitivities, and repair processes. The more subtle DNA modifications might also manifest later on as mutations and/or cancers if the cells are sufficiently healed and their function is restored (Rilwan et al., 2022). This study aims to assess the level of indoor and outdoor background ionizing radiation at the Federal University Birnin Kebbi, reveal the various factors that lead to the variation in radiation effects in the university, and highlight the dangers of man's ongoing exposure to radiation through different radiation emitters. Several studies have been conducted in different parts of Nigeria to ascertain levels of environmental ionizing radiation and its potential health effects on the public.
The medological flow chart depict various steps involved in this research
Figure 1: Methodological flow chart
Materials
The Geiger muller counter (BR 6), a scientific calculator, a laptop computer, a pen, and an exercise book were the tools utilized to carry out this investigation. The following methodological chart was adopted in this research.
Study Area
The study was carried out at the federal university Birnin Kebbi (Permanent site). It is located along Kalgo Bunza Road 4 km drive from Kalgo local government area in Kebbi state. The university lies on latitude 12oN and longitude 4oE as it maintains two campuses such as take-off and permanent sites. The take-off campus maintains the school of postgraduate studies, the female hostel as well as the school of remedial studies while the permanent site is the major campus capacity building at Unguwar Jeji village 4km away from Kalgo. Table (1) below shows the location of the sample point, code, and the coordinates of the location where indoor and outdoor radiation measurement was carried out.
| S/N | LOCATION | CODE | Indoor coordinate | Outdoor coordinate |
| 1 | Faculty of Science Offices | FSO | N12 ̊ 19’53.58324” E4 ̊9’3.07368’’ | N12 ̊ 19’53.3224” E4 ̊9’306936” |
| 2 | Faculty of Science Laboratories | FSL | N12 ̊19’49.21104” E4 ̊9’5.75176’’ | N12 ̊ 19’47.08308” E4 ̊9’5.37948’’ |
| 3 | Faculty of Science Halls | FSH | N12 ̊ 19’11.42688” E4 ̊8’ 56.31792’’ | N12 ̊ 19’52.44528” |
| 4 | Faculty of Environmental Offices | FEO | N12 ̊ 200’29976.” E4 ̊9’4.35204” | N12 ̊ 19’56’.0678” E4 ̊9’2.24856” |
| 5 | Faculty of Environment Lecture Halls | FEL | N12 ̊ 19’57’.21096” E4 ̊9’4.5486” | N12 ̊ 19’57.47988” E4 ̊9’8.0802” |
| 6 | Faculty of Arts | FAS | N12 ̊ 19’47.7264” E4 ̊9’15.29352” | N12 ̊ 19’47.94384” E4 ̊9’15.96808” |
| 7 | Faculty of Arts Lectures Halls | FAL | N12 ̊ 19’44.46948” E4 ̊9’21.65472’’ | N12 ̊ 19’4676592” E4 ̊9’13.33188’’ |
| 8 | Faculty of Management Science | FMS | N12 ̊ 19’’46.93584” E4 ̊9’28.50528” | N12 ̊ 19’’46.45701” E4 ̊9’28.21036” |
| 9 | Faculty of Management Science Lecture Halls | FML | N12 ̊ 19’’47.93547” E4 ̊9’25.50652” | N12 ̊ 19’’46.8454” E4 ̊9’28.50018” |
| 10 | Faculty of Education | FED | N12 ̊ 19’42.0276” E4 ̊9’9.42624” | N12 ̊ 19’42.1518” E4 ̊9’9.0216” |
| 11 | Senate Building | SEB | N12 ̊ 19’55.60572” E4 ̊9’18.63352” | N12 ̊ 19’55.82728” E4 ̊9’11.2763108” |
| 12 | School Library | SLB | N12 ̊ 19’’59.60613” E4 ̊9’10.33124” | N12 ̊ 19’’59.33553” E4 ̊9’10.7173” |
| 13 | School Clinic | SCL | N12 ̊ 19’44.35104” E4 ̊9’5.80716” | N12 ̊ 19’42.86352” E4 ̊9’5.66388” |
| 14 | Students Centre | STC | N12 ̊ 19’55.85484” E4 ̊9’18.69084” | N12 ̊ 19’56.62956” E4 ̊9’18.74772” |
| 15 | ICT/Data Centre | ICT | N12 ̊ 19’49.2834” E4 ̊9’11.43396” | N12 ̊ 19’49.25939” E4 ̊9’11.30016” |
| 16 | Male Hostel Block A | BLA | N12 ̊ 19’’4793583” E4 ̊9’28.1568” | N12 ̊ 19’’48.5245” E4 ̊9’24.1422” |
| 17 | Male Hostel Block B | BLB | N12 ̊ 19’20’7.33552” E4 ̊9’5.15154” | N12 ̊ 19’20’7.50142” E4 ̊9’5.47455” |
| 18 | Old VC Complex | OVC | N12 ̊ 19’59.61612” E4 ̊9’9.37188” | N12 ̊ 19’58.57716” E4 ̊9’12.6612” |
| 19 | Entrepreneurship Complex | ENT | N12 ̊ 20’5.5118” E4 ̊8’50.56008” | N12 ̊ 19’53.71644” E4 ̊9’15.44184” |
| 20 | Arc studio classes | AST | N12 ̊ 19’57.47988” E4 ̊9’8.0802” | N12 ̊ 19’56.75772” E4 ̊9’6.01776” |
Table 1: location of the sample point with code and the coordinates
Method of Measurement
Using a radiation monitor with an integrated Geiger Muller tube operating in the Dose Rate mode, the selected Areas spanning FUBK were used as the source of the background ionizing radiation that was detected in this investigation. Ionization results from the electrical current pulse that is produced each time radiation travels through the Geiger-Muller tube. Although each pulse is electronically sensed and registered as a count, the proper method was chosen because Sv/h is the most precise and direct technique to evaluate the background dosage rate. A meter above the ground was maintained for the Geiger-Muller counter (BR 6). After the monitor was turned on, a deep audible sound that indicated the statistical accuracy of the readings on its liquid crystal display (LCD) was heard, and measurements were then taken. At the federal university Birnin Kebbi, a total of 278 sample points from 20 sites (indoors and outdoors) were marked for radiation measurement. The sample points were uniformly chosen to cover the study region. The Inspector Alert Meter was the tool in use. This detector is a reasonably cheap meter that is widely used to conduct assessments of extremely low radiation fields. It can track changes in dosage rate. It has an industrial quality that encourages long-lasting protection. To reflect human measurements in micro-sievert per hour taken at the abdominal level, the meter was held one meter above the ground. For each of the camps that were visited, readings were obtained three times in µSv/hr, following which the average reading was determined. In FUBK, the analysis process lasted for 2 weeks.
The occupancy factor is the proportion of the total time during which an individual is exposed to a radiation field (Samaila et al., 2020). UNSCEAR recommended indoor and outdoor occupancy factors of 0.8 and 0.2 respectively. Eight thousand seven hundred and sixty hours per year (8760hr/yr) were used. The nuclear radiation meter that has reading in count rate per minute (CPM) can be converted to Roentgen per hour (R/H), mathematically as
(1)
In this study, the radiation detector has a reading calibrated into µSv/hr
Annual effective dose (Indoor & outdoor)
The Effective Dose refers to the radiation dose parameter which takes into account the absorbed Dose received by each irradiated organ and the organs' relative sensitivity according to ICRP (Samson, 2015). It is a protection level Dosimetry quantity that could be used as an approximate measure of stochastic effect. Thus, for the public exposed to natural ionizing radiation, the annual effective dose for both indoors and outdoors can be expressed as
IAEDR (mSv/yr) = Y (µSv/hr) × 8760 (hr/yr) × 0.8 ÷ 1000 (2)
OAEDR (mSv/yr) = Z (µSv/hr) × 8760 (hr/yr) × 0.2 ÷ 1000 (3)
Where; Y and Z are the indoor and outdoor meter readings while IAEDR and OEDR are the indoor and outdoor annual effective dose rates respectively (Samaila et al., 2020).
Organ annual effective dose
This is the amount of radiation received by an individual organ of the body such as the lung, ovaries, tests, liver, kidney, etc. Many research papers used in this study did not take into account the organ doses. The organ radiation doses due to the inhalation exposure pathway were computed from the annual effective data extracted using equation (4), to ascertain the amount of natural background radiation received by each organ over one year.
(4)
Where CF is the coefficient of reduction for individual organs in the body which includes 0.64, 0.58, 0.69, 0.82, 0.46, and 0.68 for Lung, Ovaries, Bone Marrow, Tests, Kidney, and Whole Body respectively
Cancer and organ cancer risks
This is concerned with the likelihood of developing cancer throughout a lifetime for a particular degree of exposure. It is expressed as a number representing the number of cancers expected in a specific number of people after exposure to a carcinogen at a particular dose. It's worth mentioning that an increase in the ELCR leads to a corresponding increase in the risk of developing breast, prostate, or even blood cancer. Excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) is determined using the equation.
(5)
Where AEDE is the Annual Equivalent Dose Equivalent, DL is the average duration of life (estimated to 70 years) and RF is the Risk Factor (Sv-1), i.e., fatal cancer risk per Sievert. For stochastic effects, ICRP uses RF as 0.05 for the public 0.05. The cancer risks of individual organs were assessed using equation (6). The excess lifetime cancer risk is used in radiation protection assessment to predict the probability of an individual developing cancer over his lifetime due to low radiation dose exposure if it will occur at all (Samaila et al., 2020)
(6)
In the works of literature, many researchers paid no attention to organ cancer risk which is a vital aspect in determining the health implications of natural background radiation in a region or place. The organ dose calculated earlier was used to assess individual organ cancer risk.
Background ionizing radiations were measured at multiple locations within the study area as presented in Table 2-5. Dose rate level was obtained from the field, after which equations (1) – (5) were used to evaluate the Annual Effective Dose Rate (AEDR), and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (ELCR) for both indoor and outdoor. The organ effective dose and organ cancer risks were evaluated using equation (4) & (6). The raw data for dose rate, Annual effective dose, and excess life cancer risks for both indoor and outdoors were tabulated in Table 2 below:
| S/N | CODE | IDR (µSv/hr) | ODR (µSv/hr) | IAED (mSv/y) | OAED (mSv/y) | IELCR ×10-4 | OELCR ×10-4 |
| 1.0 | FSO | 0.121 | 0.108 | 0.851 | 0.188 | 2.977 | 0.659 |
| 2.0 | FSL | 0.130 | 0.111 | 0.908 | 0.194 | 3.177 | 0.680 |
| 3.0 | FSH | 0.141 | 0.113 | 0.989 | 0.199 | 3.461 | 0.695 |
| 4.0 | FEO | 0.126 | 0.106 | 0.884 | 0.186 | 3.094 | 0.652 |
| 5.0 | FEL | 0.126 | 0.108 | 0.883 | 0.189 | 3.091 | 0.662 |
| 6.0 | FAS | 0.127 | 0.110 | 0.891 | 0.193 | 3.119 | 0.675 |
| 7.0 | FAL | 0.124 | 0.112 | 0.869 | 0.196 | 3.041 | 0.687 |
| 8.0 | FMS | 0.125 | 0.107 | 0.873 | 0.188 | 3.055 | 0.658 |
| 9.0 | FML | 0.125 | 0.106 | 0.876 | 0.186 | 3.066 | 0.652 |
| 10.0 | FED | 0.147 | 0.114 | 1.030 | 0.199 | 3.604 | 0.698 |
| 11.0 | SEB | 0.128 | 0.113 | 0.898 | 0.197 | 3.144 | 0.691 |
| 12.0 | SLB | 0.128 | 0.108 | 0.898 | 0.190 | 3.144 | 0.663 |
| 13.0 | SCL | 0.121 | 0.105 | 0.846 | 0.184 | 2.961 | 0.644 |
| 14.0 | STC | 0.128 | 0.109 | 0.895 | 0.191 | 3.134 | 0.667 |
| 15.0 | ICT | 0.128 | 0.103 | 0.934 | 0.181 | 3.270 | 0.634 |
| 16.0 | BLA | 0.128 | 0.108 | 0.897 | 0.190 | 3.140 | 0.665 |
| 17.0 | BLB | 0.132 | 0.108 | 0.928 | 0.189 | 3.247 | 0.662 |
| 18.0 | OVC | 0.118 | 0.106 | 0.828 | 0.186 | 2.897 | 0.651 |
| 19.0 | ENT | 0.134 | 0.100 | 0.936 | 0.175 | 3.277 | 0.613 |
| 20.0 | AST | 0.126 | 0.109 | 0.881 | 0.190 | 3.083 | 0.665 |
| MEAN | 0.128 | 0.108 | 0.900 | 0.190 | 3.149 | 0.664 | |
Table 2: Effective dose rate (µSv/hr) and annual effective dose (mSv/y)
Table 2 presents the summary of the raw data obtained for the effective dose rate and annual effective dose rate at different points in Federal University Birnin Kebbi. Based on the data presented, FUBK has the mean indoor dose rate of 0.128µSv/hr with faculty of education (FED) buildings having the highest value of 0.147 µSv/hr followed by faculty of science lecture halls (FSH) with 0.141 µSv/hr then Old VC complex having the lowest value of 0.118 µSv/hr. Meanwhile, FUBK has the mean outdoor dose rate of 0.108 µSv/hr with FED having the highest value of 0.114µSv/hr followed by FSH and Senate Building (SEB) with 0.113µSv/hr then Entrepreneurship Centre (ENT) having the lowest value of 0.100 µSv/hr. On exposure annual effective dose rate, FUBK has the mean indoor & outdoor annual effective dose rate of 0.900 µSv/hr & 0.190 µSv/hr with FED having the highest value of 1.030 µSv/hr & 0.199 µSv/hr followed by FSH 0.989 µSv/hr & 0.199 µSv/hr, then faculty of science offices (FSO) and ENT having the lowest value of 0.851& 0.175 µSv/hr for indoor and outdoor. The mean value of excess life cancer risk in FUBK was found to be 3.149×10-4 and 0.664×10-4 for indoor and outdoor with FED having the highest of 3.604×10-4 & 0.698×10-4 (indoor & outdoor), followed by FSH with 3.461×10-4 & 0.695×10-4 (indoor & outdoor), then OVC having the lowest value of 2.897×10-4 indoor followed by ENT with outdoor value of 0.613×10-4
| S/N | CODE | Location | Dose rate (µSv/hr) | AED (mSv/y) | ELCR (×10-4) |
| 1.0 | FSO | Faculty of Science Offices | 0.114 | 0.802 | 2.806 |
| 2.0 | FSL | Faculty of Science Laboratories | 0.120 | 0.842 | 2.948 |
| 3.0 | FSH | Faculty of Science Lectures Halls | 0.127 | 0.891 | 3.120 |
| 4.0 | FEO | Faculty of Environmental Offices | 0.116 | 0.814 | 2.850 |
| 5.0 | FEL | Faculty of Environment Lecture Halls | 0.117 | 0.820 | 2.870 |
| 6.0 | FAS | Faculty of Arts | 0.119 | 0.831 | 2.908 |
| 7.0 | FAL | Faculty of Arts Lectures Halls | 0.118 | 0.827 | 2.894 |
| 8.0 | FMS | Faculty of Management Science | 0.116 | 0.812 | 2.842 |
| 9.0 | FML | Faculty of Management Science Halls | 0.116 | 0.811 | 2.838 |
| 10.0 | FED | Faculty of Education | 0.130 | 0.913 | 3.197 |
| 11.0 | SEB | Senate Building | 0.120 | 0.844 | 2.953 |
| 12.0 | SLB | School Library | 0.118 | 0.828 | 2.897 |
| 13.0 | SCL | School Clinic | 0.113 | 0.791 | 2.768 |
| 14.0 | STC | Students Centre | 0.118 | 0.829 | 2.900 |
| 15.0 | ICT | ICT/Data Centre | 0.116 | 0.809 | 2.833 |
| 16.0 | BLA | Male Hostel Block A | 0.118 | 0.828 | 2.899 |
| 17.0 | BLB | Male Hostel Block B | 0.120 | 0.842 | 2.948 |
| 18.0 | OVC | Old VC Complex | 0.112 | 0.786 | 2.751 |
| 19.0 | ENT | Entrepreneurship Complex | 0.117 | 0.819 | 2.865 |
| 20.0 | AST | Arc studio classes | 0.117 | 0.821 | 2.872 |
| MEAN | 0.118 | 0.828 | 2.898 | ||
| Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NNRA) limit | 1.0 | 2.903 | |||
Table 3: Overall results of FUBK
Table 3 presents the summary of the overall results obtained for the effective dose rate annual effective dose rate and excess life cancer risks at different points in Federal University Birnin Kebbi. Based on the results presented, the mean dose rate was found to be 0.118µSv/h with FED having the highest value of 0.130 µSv/h followed by FSH with 0.127 µSv/h then OVC having the lowest dose rate value of 0.112 µSv/h. Similarly, for AED and ECLR, the mean values were 0.828 mSv/hr and 2.898×10-4 with FED having the highest value of 0.913mSv/yr and 3.197×10-4, followed by FSH with 0.891mSv/yr and 3.120×10-4 then OVC having the lowest AED and ECLCR with 0.786mSv/yr and 2.751×10-4
| S/N | CODE | Lung | Ovaries | Bone Marrow | Tests | Kidney | Whole Body |
| 1.0 | FSO | 0.332 | 0.301 | 0.358 | 0.426 | 0.239 | 0.353 |
| 2.0 | FSL | 0.705 | 0.639 | 0.760 | 0.904 | 0.507 | 0.749 |
| 3.0 | FSH | 0.760 | 0.689 | 0.819 | 0.974 | 0.546 | 0.807 |
| 4.0 | FEO | 0.685 | 0.621 | 0.738 | 0.877 | 0.492 | 0.728 |
| 5.0 | FEL | 0.686 | 0.622 | 0.740 | 0.879 | 0.493 | 0.729 |
| 6.0 | FAS | 0.694 | 0.629 | 0.748 | 0.889 | 0.499 | 0.737 |
| 7.0 | FAL | 0.682 | 0.618 | 0.735 | 0.873 | 0.490 | 0.724 |
| 8.0 | FMS | 0.679 | 0.615 | 0.732 | 0.870 | 0.488 | 0.721 |
| 9.0 | FML | 0.680 | 0.616 | 0.733 | 0.871 | 0.489 | 0.722 |
| 10.0 | FED | 0.787 | 0.713 | 0.848 | 1.008 | 0.565 | 0.836 |
| 11.0 | SEB | 0.701 | 0.635 | 0.756 | 0.898 | 0.504 | 0.745 |
| 12.0 | SLB | 0.696 | 0.631 | 0.751 | 0.892 | 0.500 | 0.740 |
| 13.0 | SCL | 0.659 | 0.597 | 0.711 | 0.844 | 0.474 | 0.700 |
| 14.0 | STC | 0.695 | 0.630 | 0.749 | 0.891 | 0.500 | 0.739 |
| 15.0 | ICT | 0.714 | 0.647 | 0.770 | 0.915 | 0.513 | 0.758 |
| 16.0 | BLA | 0.696 | 0.630 | 0.750 | 0.891 | 0.500 | 0.739 |
| 17.0 | BLB | 0.715 | 0.648 | 0.771 | 0.916 | 0.514 | 0.760 |
| 18.0 | OVC | 0.649 | 0.588 | 0.700 | 0.831 | 0.466 | 0.689 |
| 19.0 | ENT | 0.711 | 0.645 | 0.767 | 0.911 | 0.511 | 0.756 |
| 20.0 | AST | 0.685 | 0.621 | 0.739 | 0.878 | 0.493 | 0.728 |
| Mean | 0.681 | 0.617 | 0.734 | 0.872 | 0.489 | 0.723 | |
| NNRA value | 1.0 mSv/year | ||||||
Table 4: Organs effective dose rate (mSv/y)
Table 4 presents the summary of the evaluated results for organ dose values for the lungs, ovaries, bone marrow, testes, kidney, liver, and whole body due to radiation exposure in different locations. Based on the findings presented, FUBK has the mean effective dose to lungs of 0.681 mSv/y with FED having the highest value of 0.787 mSv/y followed by FSH with 0.760 mSv/y, then FSO having the lowest value of 0.332 mSv/y.
The mean effective ovaries, Bone Marrow, Tests, Kidney, and Whole-Body doses were 0.617 mSv/y, 0.734 mSv/y, 0.872 mSv/y, 0.489 mSv/y and 0.723 mSv/y with FED having the highest values of 0.713 mSv/y, 0.848 mSv/y, 1.008 mSv/y, 0.565 mSv/y, and 0.836 mSv/y for ovaries, Bone Marrow, Tests, Kidney, and Whole-Body then FSO having the lowest value of 0.301mSv/y, 0.358 mSv/y, 0.426 mSv/y, 0.239 mSv/y and 0.353 mSv/y
| S/N | CODE | Lung | Ovary | Bone marrow | Tests | Kidney | Whole body |
| 1.0 | FSO | 1.164 | 1.055 | 1.255 | 1.491 | 0.836 | 1.236 |
| 2.0 | FSL | 2.468 | 2.237 | 2.661 | 3.163 | 1.774 | 2.623 |
| 3.0 | FSH | 2.660 | 2.410 | 2.868 | 3.408 | 1.912 | 2.826 |
| 4.0 | FEO | 2.397 | 2.172 | 2.584 | 3.071 | 1.723 | 2.547 |
| 5.0 | FEL | 2.402 | 2.177 | 2.589 | 3.077 | 1.726 | 2.552 |
| 6.0 | FAS | 2.428 | 2.200 | 2.617 | 3.110 | 1.745 | 2.579 |
| 7.0 | FAL | 2.386 | 2.162 | 2.572 | 3.057 | 1.715 | 2.535 |
| 8.0 | FMS | 2.376 | 2.153 | 2.562 | 3.044 | 1.708 | 2.524 |
| 9.0 | FML | 2.380 | 2.157 | 2.566 | 3.049 | 1.710 | 2.529 |
| 10.0 | FED | 2.753 | 2.495 | 2.968 | 3.527 | 1.979 | 2.925 |
| 11.0 | SEB | 2.454 | 2.224 | 2.646 | 3.144 | 1.764 | 2.608 |
| 12.0 | SLB | 2.436 | 2.208 | 2.627 | 3.122 | 1.751 | 2.589 |
| 13.0 | SCL | 2.307 | 2.090 | 2.487 | 2.956 | 1.658 | 2.451 |
| 14.0 | STC | 2.433 | 2.205 | 2.623 | 3.117 | 1.749 | 2.585 |
| 15.0 | ICT | 2.498 | 2.264 | 2.694 | 3.201 | 1.796 | 2.655 |
| 16.0 | BLA | 2.435 | 2.206 | 2.625 | 3.119 | 1.750 | 2.587 |
| 17.0 | BLB | 2.502 | 2.268 | 2.698 | 3.206 | 1.798 | 2.658 |
| 18.0 | OVC | 2.271 | 2.058 | 2.448 | 2.910 | 1.632 | 2.413 |
| 19.0 | ENT | 2.490 | 2.256 | 2.684 | 3.190 | 1.789 | 2.645 |
| 20.0 | AST | 2.399 | 2.174 | 2.586 | 3.073 | 1.724 | 2.549 |
| Mean | 2.382 | 2.159 | 2.568 | 3.052 | 1.712 | 2.531 | |
| Acceptable limit | 2.9×10-4 | ||||||
Table 5: Organs Cancer Risks
Based on the findings presented in Table 5, FUBK has the mean excess life cancer risks of 2.382×10-4, 2.159×10-4, 2.568×10-4, 3.052×10-4, 1.712×10-4 and 2.531×10-4 for Lung, Ovary, Bone marrow, Tests, Kidney, and Whole-body respectively with Faculty of education having the highest value for tests 3.527×10-4, 2.968×10-4 for Bone marrow, 2.925×10-4 for whole body, 2.753×10-4 for lungs, 2.495×10-4 for ovary,
and 1.979×10-4 for kidney and followed by Faculty of Science Lectures Halls, 3.408×10-4for tests, 2.868×10-4 Bone marrow, 2.826×10-4 whole body, 2.660×10-4 for lung and 2.410×10-4 for ovary, and 1.912×10-4 for kidney, then the lowest value were found to be 1.164×10-4, 1.055×10-4, 1.255×10-4, 1.491 ×10-4, 0.836×10-4 and 1.236×10-4 for Lung, Ovary, Bone marrow, Tests, Kidney and Whole body respective
| Studies | IDR µSv/hr | ODR µSv/hr | IAED [msv/y] | OAED [msv/y] | Overall Dose rate µSv/hr | Overall AED msv/y | ELCR ×10-4 |
| This study | 0.128 | 0.108 | 0.900 | 0.190 | 0.118 | 0.828 | 2.898 |
| Felix et al., 2015 | 0.256 | 0.249 | 1.54 | 0.44 | 0.25 | 0.99 | 1.54 |
| Bello et al., 2021 | 0.13 | 0.10 | 0.91 | 0.18 | 0.12 | 0.545 | 0.63 |
| Akintunde et al., 2021 | 0.25 | 0.22 | - | - | 0.24 | 2.40 | 8.40 |
| James et al., 2020 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.56 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.325 | 1.945 |
| Mahmoud et al., 2020 | 0.14 | 0.15 | - | - | 0.15 | - | - |
| Hamed & Mohammad, 2021 | 0.11 | 0.14 | - | - | 0.13 | - | - |
| Eke & Emelue, 2020 | 0.14 | 0.14 | - | - | 0.14 | - | - |
| Esi et al., 2019 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 1.135 | 0.635 | 0.013 | - | 1.729 |
| Oladele et al., 2018 | 0.21 | 0.24 | - | - | 0.23 | 1.56 | 5.46 |
| Jafaria et al., 2017 | 0.11 | 0.08 | - | - | 0.10 | - | - |
| Ononugbo et al., 2015 | 0.24 | 0.002 | 0.08 | 0.016 | 0.12 | 0.055 | |
| Emumejaye & Daniel et al., 2018 | - | 0.22 | - | - | 0.22 | 1.09 | 0.95 |
| Rilwan et al., 2022 | - | 0.04 | - | - | 0.04 | 0.17 | 0.14 |
Source: Samaila et al., 2023
Table 6: Comparison with other studies
Based on the findings presented in Table 6, the findings of ELCR are in line with the world average threshold value of 2.9×10-4, similarly for the overall annual effective dose, the findings are below 1.0 mSv/yr set by NNRA.
| S/N | Studies | Lung | Ovary | Bone marrow | Tests | Kidney | Liver | Whole body |
| 1 | This study | 2.382 | 2.159 | 2.568 | 3.052 | 1.712 | - | 2.531 |
| 2 | Hyacienth et al., 2022 | 1.810 | 1.636 | 1.946 | 2.313 | 1.298 | 1.298 | 1.918 |
| 3 | Felix et al., 2015 | 3.449 | 3.126 | 3.719 | 4.419 | 2.479 | 2.479 | 3.665 |
| 4 | Omogunloye et al., 2022 | 0.185 | 0.168 | 0.200 | 0.238 | 0.134 | 0.1336 | 0.198 |
| 5 | Galadima et al.,2022 | 0.062 | 0.056 | 0.067 | 0.079 | 0.059 | 0.044 | 0.065 |
| 6 | Bello et al., 2021 | 2.038 | 1.847 | 2.198 | 2.612 | 1.465 | 1.465 | 2.166 |
| 7 | Rilwan et al., 2022 | 0.381 | 0.345 | 0.410 | 0.488 | 0.274 | 0.274 | 0.405 |
Source: Samaila et al., 2023
Table 7: Comparison of Organ cancer risks with other findings
Based on the results presented in Table 7 above, test organs received the highest amount of radiation due to their sensitivity to radiation which led to higher cancer probability with an average value of 3.052, followed by Bone marrow with 2.568.
The overall Effective dose rate finding of this study has revealed that the mean effective dose rate for FUBK was 0.118 µSv/hr, which is lower than the literature findings as shown in Table 6 (Felix et al., 2015; Akintunde et al., 2021; Oladele et al., 2018; and Emumejaye & Daniel et al., 2018), but is in line with the findings of (Bello et al., 2021; Eke & Emelue, 2020; James et al., 2020; Hamed & Mohammad, 2021; Esi et al., 2019; Jafaria et al., 2017; Ononugbo et al., 2015 and Rilwan et al., 2022; Mahmoud et al., 2020;). Similarly, the overall annual effective dose rate result was found to be 0.828 mSv/yr, which is higher than 0.45 mSv/yr as recommended by UNSCEAR, but lower than the findings of (Felix et al., 2015; Akintunde et al., 2021; Oladele et al., 2018 and Emumejaye & Daniel et al., 2018) and may not cause radiological hazard to the students and staff unless on excessive exposure, while other literature findings as indicated in the table 6 above were remarkably lower than the findings of this research.
In comparison of excess lifetime cancer risk, the findings of this study have revealed that the mean excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) for FUBK was found to be 2.898×10-4 which is higher than the findings of (Felix et al., 2015; Bello et al., 2021; James et al., 2020; Esi et al., 2019; Ononugbo et al., 2015; Emumejaye & Daniel et al., 2018 and Rilwan et al., 2022), but lower than the findings of (Oladele et al., 2018 and Akintunde et al., 2021). The finding of ELCR in this study is in line with the world average value of 2.9×10-4 as shown in Table 6. Since the overall findings are in line with a threshold value, there is no cause for radiological risk in FUBK.
The results of this study show that the mean organ dose values for the lungs, ovaries, bone marrow, testes, kidney, and whole body for FUBK are 0.681, 0.617, 0.734, 0.872, 0.489, and 0.723 mSv/year, respectively (table 4). This is less than the value recommended for sensitive organs by the NNRA limits of 1.0 mSv annually, further emphasizing that the radiation levels do not pose a direct health risk to residents of FUBK. The results of Rilwan et al. (2022) do not align with the present study. The researchers used an Inspector Alert Nuclear Radiation Monitor to conduct research in Keffi and Karu, Nasarawa State. The mean organ doses for the lungs, ovaries, bone marrow, testes, kidney, liver, and entire body were 0.00247, 0.00224, 0.00266, 0.00316, 0.00239, 0.00177, and 0.00262 mSv/yr. For the organ cancer risk, the results were found to be 2.382×10-4, 2.159×10-4, 2.568×10-4, 3.052×10-4, 1.712×10-4, and 2.531×10-4. The findings indicated that the test organ receives the highest radiation dose compared to other organs in the body. The findings were in line with the world average value of 2.9×10-4, except for the test organ, which is sensitive and prone to radiation.
This tends to show how living in classrooms, staff offices, and residence halls at FUBK exposes members of staff and students to radiation exposure and its effects on human organs. From Micro Sivert per Hour (µSv/hr) to Annual Effective Dose Rate in Milli Sivert per Year (mSv/yr), from Annual Effective Dose Rate to Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk in Milli Sivert per Year (mSv/yr), and lastly, from Annual Effective Dose Rate to Organs in Milli Sivert per Year (mSv/yr). Based on the presented findings, it can be concluded that background radiation in the various FUBK buildings is not a health concern unless it is accumulated over an extended period by students and staff, at which point exposure may cause cancer in those individuals after roughly seventy years. As a result, it is advised that the government, contractors, and school administration, among others, carefully choose building materials with extremely low concentrations of radioactive and radon materials, as radon and its offspring account for the majority of the natural background radiation emission. To easily regulate radiation impacts through indoor and outdoor exposure, it is also advised that samples of water, soil, paints, and cement be taken for elemental analysis to determine the existence of radioactive elements before being utilized in building construction in FUBK.
The ethical approval was obtained from the FUBK research committee through the Physics with Electronics department committed on research.
Conflict of Interest
NO conflict of interest
Acknowledgment
All those who contributed directly or indirectly toward the completion of this work are hereby acknowledged for their efforts. All the authors whose work contributed toward the building of strong discussion are also hereby acknowledged.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, we deeply appreciate the interest shown in our work and its publication. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you. The peer review process, as well as the support provided by the editorial office, have been exceptional, and the quality of the journal is very high, which was a determining factor in our decision to publish with you.
The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews journal clinically in the future time.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for the trust placed in our team for the publication in your journal. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you on this project. I am pleased to inform you that both the peer review process and the attention from the editorial coordination have been excellent. Your team has worked with dedication and professionalism to ensure that your publication meets the highest standards of quality. We are confident that this collaboration will result in mutual success, and we are eager to see the fruits of this shared effort.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I hope this message finds you well. I want to express my utmost gratitude for your excellent work and for the dedication and speed in the publication process of my article titled "Navigating Innovation: Qualitative Insights on Using Technology for Health Education in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients." I am very satisfied with the peer review process, the support from the editorial office, and the quality of the journal. I hope we can maintain our scientific relationship in the long term.
Dear Monica Gissare, - Editorial Coordinator of Nutrition and Food Processing. ¨My testimony with you is truly professional, with a positive response regarding the follow-up of the article and its review, you took into account my qualities and the importance of the topic¨.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, The review process for the article “The Handling of Anti-aggregants and Anticoagulants in the Oncologic Heart Patient Submitted to Surgery” was extremely rigorous and detailed. From the initial submission to the final acceptance, the editorial team at the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” demonstrated a high level of professionalism and dedication. The reviewers provided constructive and detailed feedback, which was essential for improving the quality of our work. Communication was always clear and efficient, ensuring that all our questions were promptly addressed. The quality of the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” is undeniable. It is a peer-reviewed, open-access publication dedicated exclusively to disseminating high-quality research in the field of clinical cardiology and cardiovascular interventions. The journal's impact factor is currently under evaluation, and it is indexed in reputable databases, which further reinforces its credibility and relevance in the scientific field. I highly recommend this journal to researchers looking for a reputable platform to publish their studies.
Dear Editorial Coordinator of the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing! "I would like to thank the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing for including and publishing my article. The peer review process was very quick, movement and precise. The Editorial Board has done an extremely conscientious job with much help, valuable comments and advices. I find the journal very valuable from a professional point of view, thank you very much for allowing me to be part of it and I would like to participate in the future!”
Dealing with The Journal of Neurology and Neurological Surgery was very smooth and comprehensive. The office staff took time to address my needs and the response from editors and the office was prompt and fair. I certainly hope to publish with this journal again.Their professionalism is apparent and more than satisfactory. Susan Weiner
