2021
DOI: 10.1007/s00024-021-02907-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Investigating the Use of Stainless Steel Electrodes with the IP Method: A Metallic Ore Deposit Example

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As the mining sites are located on the flanks and at the foot of the hills, the planning of the geophysical survey carried out in this study is based on the assumption of disseminated mineralization in some of these hills. Although several geophysical methods exist, in this study, the sensitivity of the method (for the detection and location of horizontal and vertical structures or bodies), the type of mineralization sought (metallic sulphides), the depth of the targets (near surface), the geological environment (site constituted by ancient sedimentary deposits) and geomorphological environment (topographic variation), the deposit mode (diffuse or disseminated) and the area of investigation are a set of factors that justify, as in most studies (Gouet et al., 2013; Gündoğdu et al., 2022; Liang et al., 2021; Sağır et al., 2020), the choice of the electrical method as the ideal approach for this study. The choice of using the direct current (DC) and induced polarization (IP) electrical methods over the self‐potential method is not only due to their good accuracy and depth of investigation but also to their affinity in the detection of a particular type of mineralization (clays, metal sulphides, graphite and certain metal oxides such as magnetite) (Chouteau, 2006; Claude et al., 2014; Gouet et al., 2013; Kayode et al., 2022; Lenhare & Moreira, 2020; Martin et al., 2020; Shirazi et al., 2022; Silva et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022).…”
Section: Data Acquisition Used and Processing Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As the mining sites are located on the flanks and at the foot of the hills, the planning of the geophysical survey carried out in this study is based on the assumption of disseminated mineralization in some of these hills. Although several geophysical methods exist, in this study, the sensitivity of the method (for the detection and location of horizontal and vertical structures or bodies), the type of mineralization sought (metallic sulphides), the depth of the targets (near surface), the geological environment (site constituted by ancient sedimentary deposits) and geomorphological environment (topographic variation), the deposit mode (diffuse or disseminated) and the area of investigation are a set of factors that justify, as in most studies (Gouet et al., 2013; Gündoğdu et al., 2022; Liang et al., 2021; Sağır et al., 2020), the choice of the electrical method as the ideal approach for this study. The choice of using the direct current (DC) and induced polarization (IP) electrical methods over the self‐potential method is not only due to their good accuracy and depth of investigation but also to their affinity in the detection of a particular type of mineralization (clays, metal sulphides, graphite and certain metal oxides such as magnetite) (Chouteau, 2006; Claude et al., 2014; Gouet et al., 2013; Kayode et al., 2022; Lenhare & Moreira, 2020; Martin et al., 2020; Shirazi et al., 2022; Silva et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022).…”
Section: Data Acquisition Used and Processing Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The apparent chargeability (mV/V or ms) is then calculated in order to determine the polarization characteristics of the ground through analysis of the attenuating voltage over a specified time interval (Chouteau, 2006; Geotomo, 2018; Marescot, 2008; Sumner, 2012). IP and ERT are commonly used in geological and mining prospecting to indicate the presence of metal sulphides, metal oxides, clays and other old buried mine sites in the ground (Bharti et al., 2016; Bharti et al., 2019; Claude et al., 2014; Das et al., 2017; Gündoğdu et al., 2022; Horo et al., 2020; Kayode et al., 2022; Moreira et al., 2019; Shirazi et al., 2022; Silva et al., 2022; Singh et al., 2019; Zaid et al., 2022). Other studies use these methods for the 3D modelling of geoelectric anomalies corresponding to the targets sought (Embeng et al., 2022; Kayode et al., 2022; Lenhare & Moreira, 2020; Martin et al., 2020; Moreira et al., 2019; Sağır et al., 2020; Ya‐wei et al., 2015).…”
Section: Data Acquisition Used and Processing Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Especially for the IP survey, optimizing the IP survey's geometry and maximizing the acquired signal by keeping at least one potential electrode between the current electrode's pair [38] was attempted. Stainless steel electrodes were used [39] instead of the recommended porous pot (Cu-CuSO 4 ). The resistivity meter can inject up to 2 amperes of current; however, the instruments regulate the current automatically since it is proven that more current is not always the best option [40].…”
Section: Data Acquisitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, the secondary voltage is low in magnitude, and thus, the data quality is vulnerable to ambient noise [36], especially in sites with high groundwater salinity. Data acquired with a high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) are the basis for the effective utilization of the IP signal in contaminated sites, and therefore, many studies on data acquisition methods have been conducted [37][38][39].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%