Geochemical sampling media, be they rock chip, soil or stream sediment samples, routinely collected in mineral exploration, are key to detecting mineralisation-related geochemical dispersion patterns. Notwithstanding the diversity of methods applied to geochemical anomaly detection, they can be broadly divided into two major groups, namely structural and non-structural techniques. The former group covers those methods in which threshold values are assigned based on sample location while the sample locations are not required in the application of the non-structural techniques. In this study, rock chip samples from the Shadan porphyry copper–gold deposit are used to address the question as to how structural and non-structural methods can separate geochemical populations for the purpose of a deposit-scale study. It was revealed that the two structural techniques used in this study, concentration-area (C-A) fractal and U-spatial statistic methods, outperformed the non-structural techniques employed in this study.
AsadiHH, PorwalA, FatehiM, KianpouryanS, LuY.2015. Exploration feature selection applied to hybrid data integration modeling: targeting copper–gold potential in central Iran.Ore Geol Rev. 71:819–838. doi: 10.1016/j.oregeorev.2014.12.001
3.
BolvikenB, StokePR, FederJ, JosanyT.1992. The fractal nature of geochemical landscapes.J Geochem Explor. 43:91–109. doi: 10.1016/0375-6742(92)90001-O
4.
CarranzaEJM.2008. Geochemical anomaly and mineral prospectivity mapping in GIS. In: Handbook of exploration and environmental geochemistry. Vol. 11. Amsterdam: ElsevierSage UK: London, England; p. 351.
5.
ChengQ.1999. Spatial and scaling modeling for geochemical anomaly separation.J Geochem Explor. 65:175–194. doi: 10.1016/S0375-6742(99)00028-X
6.
ChengQ, AgterbergFP, BallantyneSB.1994. The separation of geochemical anomalies from background by fractal methods.J Geochem Explor. 51:109–130. doi: 10.1016/0375-6742(94)90013-2
7.
ChengQ, AgterbergFP, Bonham-CarterGF.1996. A spatial analysis method for geochemical anomaly separation.J Geochem Explor. 56:183–195. doi: 10.1016/S0375-6742(96)00035-0
8.
CohenDR, KelleyDL, AnandR, CokerWB.2010. Major advances in exploration geochemistry, 1998–2007.Geochem Explor Environ Anal. 10:3–16. doi: 10.1144/1467-7873/09-215
9.
GałuszkaA.2007. A review of geochemical background concepts and an example using data from Poland.Environ Geol. 52:861–870. doi: 10.1007/s00254-006-0528-2
10.
GeranianH, MokhtariAR, CohenDR.2013. A comparison of fractal methods and probability plots in identifying and mapping soil metal contamination near an active mining area, Iran.Sci Total Environ. 463:845–854. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.06.100
11.
GhannadpourSS, HezarkhaniA.2017. Comparing U-statistic and nonstructural methods for separating anomaly and generating geochemical anomaly maps of Cu and Mo in Parkam district, Kerman, Iran.Carbonates Evaporites. 32:155–166. doi: 10.1007/s13146-015-0282-1
12.
GhannadpourSS, HezarkhaniA, MaghsoudiA, FarahbakhshE.2015. Assessment of prospective areas for providing the geochemical anomaly maps of lead and zinc in Parkam district, Kerman, Iran.Geosci J. 19:431–440. doi: 10.1007/s12303-014-0064-0
13.
Ghavami-RiabiR, Seyedrahimi-NiaraqMM, KhalokakaieR, HazarehMR.2010. U-spatial statistic data modeled on a probability diagram for investigation of mineralization phases and exploration of shear zone gold deposits.J Geochem Explor. 104:27–33. doi: 10.1016/j.gexplo.2009.10.002
14.
GhezelbashR, MaghsoudiA.2018. Comparison of U-spatial statistics and C–A fractal models for delineating anomaly patterns of porphyry-type Cu geochemical signatures in the Varzaghan district, NW Iran.CR Geosci. 350:180–191. doi: 10.1016/j.crte.2018.02.003
15.
GrunskyEC.2010. The interpretation of geochemical survey data.Geochem Explor Environ Anal. 10:27–74. doi: 10.1144/1467-7873/09-210
16.
HoshmandzadehA.2014. Report of exploration operations of the Shadan porphyry copper-gold ore deposit, Pars Kani Co, Tehran, Iran.
17.
JannessaryMR, MelcherF, LodziakJ, MeiselTC.2012. Review of platinum-group elementdistribution and mineralogy in chromitite ores from southern Iran.Ore Geol Rev. 48:278–305. doi: 10.1016/j.oregeorev.2012.05.001
18.
KarimpourMH, MazhariN, ShafaroudiAM.2014. Discrimination of different erosion levels of porphyry Cu deposits using ASTER image processing in eastern Iran: a case study in the Maherabad, Shadan, and Chah Shaljami Areas.Acta Geol Sin. 88:1195–1213. doi: 10.1111/1755-6724.12283
19.
LindsayM, AitkenA, FordA, DentithM, HollisJ, TylerI.2016. Reducing subjectivity in multi-commodity mineral prospectivity analyses: modelling the west Kimberley, Australia.Ore Geol Rev. 76:395–413. doi: 10.1016/j.oregeorev.2015.03.022
20.
LuzF, MateusA, MatosJX, GonçalvesMA.2014. Cu and Zn-soil anomalies in the NE Border of the South Portuguese Zone (Iberian Variscides, Portugal) identified by multifractal and geostatistical analyses.Nat Resour Res. 23:195–215. doi: 10.1007/s11053-013-9217-5
MeigoonyMS, AfzalP, GholinejadM, YasrebiAB, SadeghiB.2014. Delineation of geochemical anomalies using factor analysis and multifractal modeling based on stream sediments data in Sarajeh 1: 100, 000 sheet, Central Iran.Arabian J Geosci. 7:5333–5343. doi: 10.1007/s12517-013-1074-3
23.
MieschAT.1981. Estimation of the geochemical threshold and its statistical significance.J Geochem Explor. 16:49–76. doi: 10.1016/0375-6742(81)90125-4
24.
MoeiniH, TorabFM.2017. Comparing compositional multivariate outliers with autoencoder networks in anomaly detection at Hamich exploration area, east of Iran.J Geochem Explor. 180:15–23. doi: 10.1016/j.gexplo.2017.05.008
25.
MohammadiNM, HezarkhaniA, SaljooghiBS.2016. Separation of a geochemical anomaly from background by fractal and U-statistic methods, a case study: Khooni district, Central Iran.Geochemistry. 76:491–499. doi: 10.1016/j.chemer.2016.09.001
26.
NavidiA, ZiaiiM, AfzalP, YasrebiAB, WethereltA, FosterP.2014. Determination of chromites prospects using multifractal models and zonality index in the Parang 1: 100000 sheet, Iran.Universal J Geosci. 2:133–139.
27.
ParsaM, MaghsoudiA, CarranzaEJM, YousefiM.2017a. Enhancement and mapping of weak multivariate stream sediment geochemical anomalies in Ahar Area, NW Iran.Nat Resour Res. 26:443–455. doi: 10.1007/s11053-017-9346-3
28.
ParsaM, MaghsoudiA, GhezelbashR.2016. Decomposition of anomaly patterns of multi-element geochemical signatures in Ahar area, NW Iran: a comparison of U-spatial statistics and fractal models.Arabian J Geosci. 9:1–16. doi: 10.1007/s12517-016-2435-5
29.
ParsaM, MaghsoudiA, YousefiM, SadeghiM.2017b. Multifractal analysis of stream sediment geochemical data: Implications for hydrothermal nickel prospection in an arid terrain, Eastern Iran.J Geochem Explor. 181:305–317. doi: 10.1016/j.gexplo.2016.11.013
30.
ReimannC, FilzmoserP, GarrettRG.2005. Background and threshold: critical comparison of methods of determination.Sci Total Environ. 346:1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.11.023
31.
RoshanravanB.2020. Translating a mineral systems model into continuous and data-driven targeting models: an example from the Dolatabad Chromite District, Southeastern Iran.J Geochem Explor. 215:106556. doi: 10.1016/j.gexplo.2020.106556
32.
RoshanravanB, KreuzerOP, BruceM, DavisJ, BriggsM.2020. Modelling gold potential in the Granites-Tanami Orogen, NT, Australia: a comparative study using continuous and data-driven techniques.Ore Geol Rev. 125:103661. doi: 10.1016/j.oregeorev.2020.103661
33.
RousseeuwPJ, CrouxC.1993. Alternatives to the median absolute deviation.J Am Stat Assoc. 88:1273–1283. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1993.10476408
34.
SinclairAJ.1974. Selection of threshold values in geochemical data probability graphs.J Geochem Explor. 3:129–149. doi: 10.1016/0375-6742(74)90030-2
35.
SinclairAJ.1991. A fundamental approach to threshold estimation in exploration geochemistry, probability plots revisited.J Geochem Explor. 41:1–22. doi: 10.1016/0375-6742(91)90071-2
36.
StanleyCR, SinclairAJ.1989. Comparison of probability plots and the gap statistic in the selection of thresholds for exploration geochemistry data.J Geochem Explor. 32:355–357. doi: 10.1016/0375-6742(89)90076-9
37.
WangJ, ZuoR.2016. An extended local gap statistic for identifying geochemical anomalies.J Geochem Explor. 164:86–93. doi: 10.1016/j.gexplo.2016.01.002
38.
WellmerFW.2012. Statistical evaluations in exploration for mineral deposits. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin HeidelbergSage UK: London, England.
39.
ZhaoJ, ChenS, ZuoR.2016. Identifying geochemical anomalies associated with Au–Cu mineralization using multifractal and artificial neural network models in the Ningqiang district, Shaanxi, China.J Geochem Explor. 164:54–64. doi: 10.1016/j.gexplo.2015.06.018
40.
ZiaiiM, ArdejaniFD, ZiaeiM, SoleymaniAA.2012. Neuro-fuzzy modeling based genetic algorithms for identification of geochemical anomalies in mining geochemistry.Appl Geochem. 27:663–676. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2011.12.020
41.
ZiaiiM, PouyanAA, ZiaeiM.2009. Neuro-fuzzy modelling in mining geochemistry: identification of geochemical anomalies.J Geochem Explor. 100:25–36. doi: 10.1016/j.gexplo.2008.03.004
42.
ZiaiiM, SafariS, TimkinT, VoroshilovV, YakichT.2019. Identification of geochemical anomalies of the porphyry–Cu deposits using concentration gradient modelling: a case study, Jebal-Barez area, Iran.J Geochem Explor. 199:16–30. doi: 10.1016/j.gexplo.2019.01.004
43.
ZuoR, WangJ.2016. Fractal/multifractal modeling of geochemical data: a review.J Geochem Explor. 164:33–41. doi: 10.1016/j.gexplo.2015.04.010
