Applying a Structural Multivariate Method Using the Combination of Statistical Methods for the Delineation of Geochemical Anomalies

  • Seyyed Saeed Ghannadpour
  • Ardeshir HezarkhaniEmail author
  • Mostafa Sharifzadeh
  • Fatemeh Ghashghaei
Research Paper


Quantitative descriptions of geochemical patterns and providing geochemical anomaly map are important in applied geochemistry. Several statistical methodologies (nonstructural and structural) are presented in order to identify and separate geochemical anomalies. Structural methods take the sampling locations and their spatial relation into account for estimating the anomalous areas. In the present study, a nonstructural method (Mahalanobis distance method as a multivariate method) is used and U-statistic is considered as a structural method to assess prospective areas of Susanvar district as a gold mineralization index in the Torud-Chah Shirin mountain range of Semnan Province, northern Iran. Results show that the U-statistic method is an efficient method according to spatial distribution of the anomalous samples. In the present study, according to the ability of U-statistic method in combining with other methods, the goal is to use and develop Mahalanobis distance method in structural mode. For this purpose, Mahalanobis distance should be combined with a structural method which devotes a new value to each sample based on its surrounding samples. For this reason, the combination of efficient U-statistic method and multivariate Mahalanobis distance method has been used to separate geochemical anomalies from background. Combination results show that the performance of these two methods is more accurate than using just one of them. Because samples indicated by the combination of these methods as anomalous are less dispersed and closer to each other than in the case of using just the U-statistic and other nonstructural methods such as Mahalanobis distance. Also it was observed that the combination results are closely associated with the defined Au ore indication within the study area. Finally, univariate and bivariate geochemical anomaly maps are provided for Au and As, which have been, respectively, prepared using U-statistic and its combination with Mahalanobis distance method.


Susanvar U-statistic Mahalanobis distance Anomaly separating 


  1. Alavi M (1991) Tectonic map of the Middle East: Geological Survey of Iran, TehranGoogle Scholar
  2. Bodenan F, Baranger P, Piantone P, Lassin A, Azaroual M, Gaucher E, Braibant G (2004) Arsenic behaviour in gold-ore mill tailings, Massif Central, France: hydrogeochemical study and investigation of in situ redox signatures. Appl Geochem 19:1785–1800Google Scholar
  3. Cheng Q (1999) Spatial and scaling modelling for geochemical anomaly separation. J Geochem Explor 65(3):175–194Google Scholar
  4. Cheng Q, Agterberg FP, Ballantyne SB (1994) The separation of geochemical anomalies from background by fractal methods. J Geochem Explor 51:109–130Google Scholar
  5. Cheng Q, Agterberg FP, Bonham-Carter GF (1996) A spatial analysis method for geochemical anomaly separation. J Geochem Explor 56:183–195Google Scholar
  6. Filzmoser P, Garrett RG, Reimann C (2005) Multivariate outlier detection in exploration geochemistry. Comput Geosci 31:579–587Google Scholar
  7. Geological Survey of Iran (1995) Explanatory text of geochemical map of Moaleman (6960). Report 1(9):33Google Scholar
  8. Ghannadpour SS, Hezarkhani A (2012) Developed software to calculate the additive constant number of average in three-variable normal logarithm. Glob J Comput Sci 2(1):7–13Google Scholar
  9. Ghannadpour SS, Hezarkhani A (2015a) Lead and zinc geochemical behavior based on geological characteristics in Parkam Porphyry Copper System, Kerman, Iran. J Cent South Univ 22(11):4274–4290Google Scholar
  10. Ghannadpour SS, Hezarkhani A (2015b) Investigation of Cu, Mo, Pb, and Zn geochemical behavior and geological interpretations for Parkam porphyry copper system, Kerman, Iran. Arab J Geosci 8(9):7273–7284Google Scholar
  11. Ghannadpour SS, Hezarkhani A (2016a) Introducing 3D U-statistic method for separating anomaly from background in exploration geochemical data with associated software development. J Earth Syst Sci 125(2):387–401Google Scholar
  12. Ghannadpour SS, Hezarkhani A (2016b) Exploration geochemistry data-application for anomaly separation based on discriminant function analysis in the Parkam porphyry system (Iran). Geosci J 20(6):837–850Google Scholar
  13. Ghannadpour SS, Hezarkhani A (2017a) Comparing U-statistic and nonstructural methods for separating anomaly and generating geochemical anomaly maps of Cu and Mo in Parkam district, Kerman, Iran. Carbon Evapor 32(2):155–166Google Scholar
  14. Ghannadpour SS, Hezarkhani A (2017b) Providing the bivariate anomaly map of Cu–Mo and Pb–Zn using combination of statistic methods in Parkam district, Iran. Carbon Evapor. Google Scholar
  15. Ghannadpour SS, Hezarkhani A, Eshqi H (2012) Average and variance estimation programming in normal logarithmic distribution. Glob J Comput Sci 2(1):1–6Google Scholar
  16. Ghannadpour SS, Hezarkhani A, Sabetmobarhan A (2015a) Some statistical analyses of Cu and Mo variates and geological interpretations for Parkam porphyry copper system, Kerman, Iran. Arab J Geosci 8(1):345–355Google Scholar
  17. Ghannadpour SS, Hezarkhani A, Maghsoudi A, Farahbakhsh E (2015b) Assessment of prospective areas for providing the geochemical anomaly maps of lead and zinc in Parkam district, Kerman, Iran. Geosci J 19(3):341–440Google Scholar
  18. Ghannadpour SS, Hezarkhani A, Sabetmobarhan A (2017a) The Parkam exploration district (Kerman, Iran): geology, alterations, and delineation of Cu- and Mo-mineralized zones using U-spatial statistic with associated software development. J Earth Sci 28(2):283–294Google Scholar
  19. Ghannadpour SS, Hezarkhani A, Roodpeyma T (2017b) Combination of separation methods and data mining techniques for prediction of anomalous areas in Susanvar, Central Iran. J African Earth Sci 134:516–525Google Scholar
  20. Goncalves MA, Mateus A, Oliveria V (2001) Geochemical anomaly separation by multifractal modeling. J Geochem Explor 72:91–114Google Scholar
  21. Hassanzadeh J, Ghazi AV, Axen G, Guest B (2002) Oligomiocene mafic-alkaline magmatism in north and northwest of Iran: evidence for the separation of the Alborz from the Urumieh-Dokhtar magmatic arc. Geol Soc Am Abstr Program 34(6):331Google Scholar
  22. Hawkes HE, Webb JS (1962) Geochemistry in mineral exploration. Harper and Row, New York, p 415Google Scholar
  23. Hezarkhani A, Ghannadpour SS (2015) Geochemical behavior investigation based on K-means clustering (basics, concepts and case study), 1st edn. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  24. Kazmin VG, Sborshikov IM, Ricou LE, Zorenshain EP, Boulin S, Knipper AL (1986) Volcanic belts as markers of the Mesozoic–Cenozoic active margin of Eurasia. Tectonophysics 123:123–152Google Scholar
  25. Miesch AT (1981) Estimation of the geochemical threshold and its statistical significance. J Geochem Explor 16:49–76Google Scholar
  26. Moeini H, Aryafar A (2016) Local multivariate outliers as geochemical anomaly halos indicators, a case study: Hamich area, Southern Khorasan, Iran. J Mining Environ
  27. Morrison GW, Rose WJ, Jaireth S (1991) Geological and geochemical controls on the silver content (fineness) of gold in gold-silver deposits. Ore Geol Rev 6:333–364Google Scholar
  28. Ramzan S, Zahid FM, Ramzan S (2013) Evaluating multivariate normality: a graphical approach. Middle-East J Sci Res 13(2):254–263Google Scholar
  29. Shamanian GH, Hedenquist JW, Hattori KH, Hassanzadeh J (2003) Epithermal precious- and base-metal mineralization in the Eocene arc of Torud-Chah Shirin mountain range: Gandy and Abolhassani districts, Semnan, northern Iran. In: Eliopoulos DG et al (eds) Mineral exploration and sustainable development. Millpress, Rotterdam, pp 519–522Google Scholar
  30. Shamanian GH, Hedenquist JW, Hattori KH, Hassanzadeh J (2004) The Gandy and Abolhassani epithermal deposits in the Alborz magmatic arc, Semnan Province, northern Iran. Econ Geol 99(4):691–712Google Scholar
  31. Sinclair AJ (1991) A fundamental approach to threshold estimation in exploration geochemistry: probability plots revisited. J Geochem Explor 41(1):1–22Google Scholar
  32. Stanley CR, Sinclair AJ (1989) Comparison of probability plots and the gap statistic in the selection of thresholds for exploration geochemistry data. J Geochem Explor 32:355–357Google Scholar
  33. Thornton I, Farago M (1997) The geochemistry of arsenic. In: Abernathy CO, Calderon RL, Chappell WR (eds), Arsenic exposure and health effects, Chapman & Hall, London, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  34. Zuo R (2011) Identifying geochemical anomalies associated with Cu and Pb–Zn skarn mineralization using principal component analysis and spectrum–area fractal modeling in the Gangdese Belt, Tibet (China). J Geochem Explor 111:13–22Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seyyed Saeed Ghannadpour
    • 1
  • Ardeshir Hezarkhani
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mostafa Sharifzadeh
    • 2
  • Fatemeh Ghashghaei
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mining and Metallurgical EngineeringAmirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic)TehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Mining Engineering and Metallurgical Engineering, Western Australia School of MineCurtin UniversityKalgoorlieAustralia

Personalised recommendations