The Pisciarelli main fumarole mechanisms reconstructed by electrical resistivity and induced polarization imaging

Pisciarelli, together with the adjacent Solfatara maar-diatreme, represents the most active structure of the Campi Flegrei caldera (Italy) in terms of degassing and seismic activity. This paper aims to define the structure of the Pisciarelli hydrothermal system (down to a 20 m depth) through electrical resistivity and time-domain-induced polarization tomography and self-potential mapping. The retrieved 3D image of the area helps reconstruct the Pisciarelli subsurface in its area of maximum degassing, containing the main fumarole ("soffione") and the mud pool. In particular, a channel has been identified in which fluids stored in a deeper reservoir rise toward the surface. Such a structure seems to be surmounted by a clay-cap formation that could govern the circulation of fluids and the abundance of gases/vapors emitted by the soffione. Based on this new reconstruction of the Pisciarelli fumarolic field structural setting, the first conceptual model has been suggested that is capable of simultaneously explaining the mechanisms governing soffione activity and elucidating the role played by the fluid/gas of deeper origin in the shallow fluid circulation system. The proposed model can potentially help to better monitor the processes occurring throughout the Pisciarelli fumarolic field and provide an evaluation of the associated hazards.

1. Bevilacqua, A. et al. Radial interpolation of GPS and leveling data of ground deformation in a resurgent caldera: Application to
Campi Flegrei (Italy). J. Geod. 94, 1–27 (2020).
2. Cardellini, C. et al. Monitoring diffuse volcanic degassing during volcanic unrests: The case of Campi Flegrei (Italy). Sci. Rep. 7,
1–15 (2017).
3. INGV. Bollettini di sorveglianza dei vulcani campani. http:// www. ov. ingv. it/ ov/ bolle ttini- campi- flegr ei/ (2021).
4. Chiodini, G. et al. Clues on the origin of post-2000 earthquakes at Campi Flegrei caldera (Italy). Sci. Rep. 7, 1–10 (2017).
5. Isaia, R. et al. Stratigraphy, structure, and volcano-tectonic evolution of Solfatara maar-diatreme (Campi Flegrei, Italy). Bull. Geol.
Soc. Am. 127, 1485–1504 (2015).
6. Pistolesi, M. et al. Simultaneous eruptions from multiple vents at Campi Flegrei (Italy) highlight new eruption processes at calderas.
Geology 44, 487–490 (2016).
7. Di Giuseppe, M. G. G. & Troiano, A. Monitoring active fumaroles through time-lapse electrical resistivity tomograms: An application
to the Pisciarelli fumarolic field (Campi Flegrei, Italy). J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 375, 32–42 (2019).
8. Fedele, A. et al. Time-lapse landform monitoring in the Pisciarelli (Campi Flegrei-Italy) fumarole field using UAV photogrammetry.
Remote Sens. 13, 118 (2020).
9. Isaia, R. et al. Volcano-tectonic setting of the Pisciarelli Fumarole Field, Campi Flegrei caldera, southern Italy: Insights into fluid
circulation patterns and hazard scenarios. Tectonics https:// doi. org/ 10. 1029/ 2020t c0062 27 (2021).
10. Pedone, M. et al. Volcanic CO2
flux measurement at Campi Flegrei by tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy. Bull. Volcanol.
76, 1–13 (2014).
11. Aiuppa, A. et al. First observations of the fumarolic gas output from a restless caldera: Implications for the current period of unrest
(2005–2013) at Campi Flegrei. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 14, 4153–4169 (2013).
12. Aiuppa, A. et al. New ground-based lidar enables volcanic CO2
flux measurements. Sci. Rep. 5, 1–12 (2015).
13. Queißer, M. et al. Increasing CO2
flux at Pisciarelli, Campi Flegrei, Italy. Solid Earth 8, 1017–1024 (2017).
14. Queißer, M., Granieri, D. & Burton, M. 2-D tomography of volcanic CO2
from scanning hard-target differential absorption lidar:
The case of Solfatara, Campi Flegrei (Italy). Atmos. Meas. Tech. 9, 5721–5734 (2016).
15. Tamburello, G. et al. Escalating CO2
degassing at the Pisciarelli fumarolic system, and implications for the ongoing Campi Flegrei
unrest. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jvolg eores. 2019. 07. 005 (2019).
16. Giudicepietro, F. et al. Insight into Campi Flegrei Caldera unrest through seismic tremor measurements at Pisciarelli fumarolic
field. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1029/ 2019G C0086 10 (2019).
17. Chiodini, G. et al. Fumarolic tremor and geochemical signals during a volcanic unrest. Geology https:// doi. org/ 10. 1130/ G39447.1
(2017).
18. Troiano, A., Isaia, R., Di Giuseppe, M. G., Tramparulo, F. D. A. & Vitale, S. Deep electrical resistivity tomography for a 3D picture
of the most active sector of Campi Flegrei caldera. Sci. Rep. 9, 15124 (2019).
19. Troiano, A., Di Giuseppe, M. G., Patella, D., Troise, C. & De Natale, G. Electromagnetic outline of the Solfatara-Pisciarelli hydrothermal
system, Campi Flegrei (Southern Italy). J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 277, 9–21 (2014).
20. Vitale, S. et al. Seismically induced soft-sediment deformation phenomena during the volcano-tectonic activity of Campi Flegrei
Caldera (Southern Italy) in the last 15 kyr. Tectonics 38, 1999–2018 (2019).
21. Di Giuseppe, M. G. et al. Electrical resistivity tomography imaging of the near-surface structure of the Solfatara crater, Campi
Flegrei (Naples, Italy). Bull. Volcanol. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00445- 015- 0910-6 (2015).
22. Byrdina, S. et al. Relations between electrical resistivity, carbon dioxide flux, and self-potential in the shallow hydrothermal system
of Solfatara (Phlegrean Fields, Italy). J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 283, 172–182 (2014).
23. Gresse, M. et al. Three-dimensional electrical resistivity tomography of the Solfatara Crater (Italy): Implication for the multiphase
flow structure of the shallow hydrothermal system. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 122, 8749–8768 (2017).
24. Gresse, M. et al. Anatomy of a fumarolic system inferred from a multiphysics approach. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–11 (2018).
25. Zlotnicki, J. & Nishida, Y. Review on morphological insights of self-potential anomalies on volcanoes. Surv. Geophys. 24, 291–338
(2003).
26. Aizawa, K., Ogawa, Y. & Ishido, T. Groundwater flow and hydrothermal systems within volcanic edifices: Delineation by electric
self-potential and magnetotellurics. J. Geophys. Res. 114, B01208 (2009).
27. Corwin, R. F. & Hoover, D. B. The self-potential method in geothermal exploration. Geophysics 44, 226–245 (1979).
28. Michel, S. & Zlotnicki, J. Self-potential and magnetic surveying of La Fournaise volcano (Réunion Island): Correlations with
faulting, fluid circulation, and eruption. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 103, 17845–17857 (1998).
29. Murakami, H., Mizutani, H. & Nabetani, S. Self-potential anomalies associated with an active fault. J. Geomagn. Geoelectr. 36,
351–376 (1984).
30. Ball, L. B., Ge, S., Caine, J. S., Revil, A. & Jardani, A. Constraining fault-zone hydrogeology through integrated hydrological and
geoelectrical analysis. Hydrogeol. J. 18, 1057–1067 (2010).
31. Zarif, F., Kessouri, P. & Slater, L. Recommendations for field-scale Induced Polarization (IP) data acquisition and interpretation.
J. Environ. Eng. Geophys. 22, 395–410 (2017).
32. Ghorbani, A. et al. Complex conductivity of volcanic rocks and the geophysical mapping of alteration in volcanoes. J. Volcanol.
Geotherm. Res. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jvolg eores. 2018. 04. 014 (2018).
33. Revil, A. et al. Electrical conductivity and induced polarization investigations at Kilauea volcano, Hawai’i. J. Volcanol. Geotherm.
Res. 368, 31–50 (2018).
34. Mayer, K. et al. Hydrothermal alteration of surficial rocks at Solfatara (Campi Flegrei): Petrophysical properties and implications
for phreatic eruption processes. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 320, 128–143 (2016).
35. Piochi, M., Mormone, A., Strauss, H. & Balassone, G. The acid sulfate zone and the mineral alteration styles of the Roman Puteoli
(Neapolitan area, Italy): Clues on fluid fracturing progression at the Campi Flegrei volcano. Solid Earth 10, 1809–1831 (2019).
36. Grobbe, N. & Barde-Cabusson, S. Self-potential studies in volcanic environments: A cheap and efficient method for multiscale
fluid-flow investigations. Int. J. Geophys. 2019, 2985824 (2019).
37. Byrdina, S. et al. Structure of the acid hydrothermal system of Papandayan volcano, Indonesia, investigated by geophysical methods.
J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 358, 77–86 (2018).
38. Mao, D., Revil, A. & Hinton, J. Induced polarization response of porous media with metallic particles—Part 4: Detection of metallic
and nonmetallic targets in time-domain-induced polarization tomography. Geophysics https:// doi. org/ 10. 1190/ GEO20 15- 0480.1
(2016).
39. Miller, C. A. et al. Snapshot of a magmatic/hydrothermal system from electrical resistivity tomography and fumarolic composition,
Whakaari/White Island, New Zealand. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 400, 106909 (2020).
40. Mannen, K. et al. Source constraints for the 2015 phreatic eruption of Hakone volcano, Japan, based on geological analysis and
resistivity structure. Earth Planets Space 71, 1–20 (2019).
41. Ingebritsen, S. E. & Sorey, M. L. Vapor-dominated zones within hydrothermal systems: Evolution and natural state. J. Geophys.
Res. Solid Earth 93, 13635–13655 (1988).
42. Duan, Q., Yang, X. & Chen, J. Experimental study on the difference between gas and water permeability of clay-rich fault rocks.
Geophysical Research Abstracts vol. 19. https:// ui. adsabs. harva rd. edu/ abs/ 2017E GUGA. 19. 6189D/ abstr act (2017).
43. Revil, A. et al. Electrical conductivity and induced polarization investigations at Krafla volcano. Iceland. J. Volcanol. Geotherm.
Res. 368, 73–90 (2018).
44. Ward, S. H. & Sill, W. R. Resistivity, induced polarization, and self-potential methods in geothermal exploration. http:// www. osti.
gov/ servl ets/ purl/ 69900 45- Rqgtyh/ native/. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2172/ 69900 45 (1982).
45. Revil, A. et al. Complex conductivity of soils. Water Resour. Res. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 2017W R0206 55 (2017).
46. Revil, A. & Florsch, N. Determination of permeability from spectral induced polarization in granular media. Geophys. J. Int. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1365- 246X. 2010. 04573.x (2010).
47. Soueid Ahmed, A. et al. 3D electrical conductivity tomography of volcanoes. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 356, 243–263 (2018).
48. Mao, D., Revil, A. & Hinton, J. Induced polarization response of porous media with metallic particles—Part 4: Detection of metallic
and nonmetallic targets in time-domain-induced polarization tomography. Geophysics 81, D345–D361 (2016).
49. Cole, K. S. & Cole, R. H. Dispersion and absorption in dielectrics I. Alternating current characteristics. J. Chem. Phys. 9, 341–351
(1941).
50. LaBrecque, D. J., Morelli, G., Daily, W., Ramirez, A. & Lundegard, P. 37. Occam’s Inversion of 3-D Electrical Resistivity Tomography.
in Three-Dimensional Electromagnetics 575–590 (Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 1999). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1190/1. 97815
60802 154. ch37.
51. Vilardo, G., Ventura, G., Sessa, E. B. & Terranova, C. Morphometry of the Campi Flegrei caldera (Southern Italy). J. Maps 9,
635–640. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17445 647. 2013. 842508 (2013).
52. LaBrecque, D. J., Miletto, M., Daily, W., Ramirez, A. & Owen, E. The effects of noise on Occam’s inversion of resistivity tomography
data. Geophysics 61, 538–548 (1996).
53. Kemna, A. Tomographic Inversion of Complex Resistivity: Theory and Application (Der Andere Verlag, 2000).
54. Sapia, V. et al. 3-D deep electrical resistivity tomography of the major basin related to the 2016 Mw 6.5 central Italy earthquake
fault. Tectonics 40, e2020TC006628 (2021).
55. Revil, A. & Jardani, A. The Self-Potential Method: Theory and Applications in Environmental Geosciences (Cambridge University
Press, 2013).
56. Barde-Cabusson, S., Finizola, A. & Grobbe, N. A practical approach for self-potential data acquisition, processing, and visualization.
Interpretation 9, T123–T143 (2021).
57. Isaaks, E. H. & Srivastava, M. R. Applied Geostatistics (Oxford University Press, 1989).