Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2122/9459
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorallSapia, V.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma2, Roma, Italiaen
dc.contributor.authorallViezzoli, A.; Aarhus Geophysics Apsen
dc.contributor.authorallJørgensen, F.; Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenlanden
dc.contributor.authorallOldenborger, G. A.; Geological Survey of Canadaen
dc.contributor.authorallMarchetti, M.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma2, Roma, Italiaen
dc.date.accessioned2015-04-02T06:39:55Zen
dc.date.available2015-04-02T06:39:55Zen
dc.date.issued2014-03en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2122/9459en
dc.description.abstractIn the past three decades, airborne electromagnetic (AEM) systems have been used for many groundwater exploration purposes. This contribution of airborne geophysics for both groundwater resource mapping and water quality evaluations and management has increased dramatically over the past ten years, proving how these systems are appropriate for large-scale and efficient groundwater surveying. One of the major reasons for its popularity is the time and cost efficiency in producing spatially extensive datasets that can be applied to multiple purposes. In this paper, we carry out a simple, yet rigorous, simulation showing the impact of an AEM dataset towards hydrogeological mapping, comparing it to having only a ground-based transient electromagnetic (TEM) dataset (even if large and dense), and to having only boreholes. We start from an AEM survey and then simulate two different ground TEM datasets: a high resolution survey and a reconnaissance survey. The electrical resistivity model, which is the final geophysical product after data processing and inversion, changes with different levels of data density. We then extend the study to describe the impact on the geological and hydrogeological output models, which can be derived from these different geophysical results, and the potential consequences for groundwater management. Different data density results in significant differences not only in the spatial resolution of the output resistivity model, but also in the model uncertainty, the accuracy of geological interpretations and, in turn, the appropriateness of groundwater management decisions. The AEM dataset provides high resolution results and well-connected geological interpretations, which result in a more detailed and confident description of all of the existing geological structures. In contrast, a low density dataset from a ground-based TEM survey yields low resolution resistivity models, and an uncertain description of the geological setting.en
dc.language.isoEnglishen
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysicsen
dc.relation.ispartofseries1/19 (2014)en
dc.subjectAirborne electromagnetics, Time domain electromagnetics, Hydrogeophysicsen
dc.titleThe Impact on Geological and Hydrogeological Mapping Results of Moving from Ground to Airborne TEMen
dc.typearticleen
dc.description.statusPublisheden
dc.type.QualityControlPeer-revieweden
dc.description.pagenumber53-66en
dc.subject.INGV04. Solid Earth::04.05. Geomagnetism::04.05.08. Instruments and techniquesen
dc.subject.INGV05. General::05.01. Computational geophysics::05.01.01. Data processingen
dc.identifier.doi10.2113/JEEG19.1.53en
dc.description.obiettivoSpecifico7A. Geofisica di esplorazioneen
dc.description.journalTypeJCR Journalen
dc.description.fulltextrestricteden
dc.contributor.authorSapia, V.en
dc.contributor.authorViezzoli, A.en
dc.contributor.authorJørgensen, F.en
dc.contributor.authorOldenborger, G. A.en
dc.contributor.authorMarchetti, M.en
dc.contributor.departmentIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma2, Roma, Italiaen
dc.contributor.departmentAarhus Geophysics Apsen
dc.contributor.departmentGeological Survey of Denmark and Greenlanden
dc.contributor.departmentGeological Survey of Canadaen
dc.contributor.departmentIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma2, Roma, Italiaen
item.openairetypearticle-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.grantfulltextrestricted-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
crisitem.author.deptIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione Roma2, Roma, Italia-
crisitem.author.deptGeological Survey of Denmark and Greenland-
crisitem.author.deptGeological Survey of Canada-
crisitem.author.deptIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione Roma2, Roma, Italia-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0003-1958-2314-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-9476-206X-
crisitem.author.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.author.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.classification.parent04. Solid Earth-
crisitem.classification.parent05. General-
crisitem.department.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.department.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
Appears in Collections:Article published / in press
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat Existing users please Login
Sapia_JEEG_2014.pdfMain article4.53 MBAdobe PDF
Show simple item record

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

9
checked on Feb 10, 2021

Page view(s) 50

289
checked on Apr 24, 2024

Download(s) 50

61
checked on Apr 24, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric