Journal of Geochemical Exploration 164 (2016) 33–41

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Geochemical Exploration

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jgeoexp

Fractal/multifractal modeling of geochemical data: A review

Renguang Zuo ⁎, Jian Wang
State Key Laboratory of Geological Processes and Mineral Resources, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Over the past several decades, a wide range of complex structures or phenomena of interest to geologists and
Received 27 February 2015 geochemists has been quantitatively characterized using fractal/multifractal theory and models. With respect
Revised 9 April 2015 to the application of fractal/multifractal models to geochemical data, the focus has been on how to decompose
Accepted 21 April 2015
geochemical populations or quantify the spatial distribution of geochemical data. A variety of fractal/multifractal
Available online 1 May 2015
models for this purpose have been proposed on the basis of the scaling characteristics of geochemical data. These
Keywords:
include the concentration–area (C-A) fractal model, concentration–distance (C-D) fractal model, spectrum–area
Fractal/multifractal (S-A) multifractal model, multifractal singularity analysis, and the concentration–volume (C-V) fractal model.
Concentration–area fractal model These fractal models have been widely demonstrated to be useful, as indicated by the increasing number of pub-
Spectrum–area multifractal model lished papers. In this study, fractal/multifractal modeling of geochemical data including its theory, the way it
Concentration–distance fractal model works, its benefits and limitations, its applications, and the relationships between these models are reviewed.
Concentration–volume fractal model The comparison among of C-A, S-A, and multifractal singularity analysis based on simulated data suggested
Singularity that mapping singularity technique can enhance and identify weak anomalies caused by buried sources. Future
study should focus on how to distinguish the true anomalies associated to mineralization with the false anoma-
lies from a fractal/multifractal perspective.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2. Fractal/multifractal models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.1. Number–size model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2. Concentration–area fractal model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.3. Spectrum–area fractal mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.4. Concentration–distance fractal model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.5. Concentration–volume fractal model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.6. Local singularity analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.7. Other parameters related to fractal methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3. Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.1. Identifying geochemical anomalies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.2. Mapping mineral prospectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.3. Characterization the vertical distribution of geochemical element concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4. Comparison the C-A, S-A and singularity index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5. Discussion and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

1. Introduction important in recent years, discrimination between anthropogenic

Decomposition of geochemical patterns is a basic task for applied
geochemists. With environmental problems becoming increasingly
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zrguang@cug.edu.cn (R. Zuo).
pollution and natural background is assuming increasing relevance
(Albanese et al., 2007; Darnley et al., 1995; Lima et al., 2003, 2005,
2008; Plant et al., 2001). Similarly, how to effectively detect geochemi-
cal anomalies from background is one of the major concerns of geo-
chemical exploration, which continues to be a cornerstone to mineral
exploration at all scales ranging from regional reconnaissance to local

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2015.04.010
0375-6742/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
34 R. Zuo, J. Wang / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 164 (2016) 33–41
exploration (Cohen et al., 2010; Grunsky, 2010). Anomaly patterns, as
the end product of either common geological processes over long pe-
riods of time or uncommon processes such as ore-forming processes,
weathering, human activities and element dispersion from an orebody,
are defined simply as geochemical features different from those that
usually occur more frequently. These differences consist not only of
the frequency and spatial distribution of geochemical data, both of
which have been investigated widely in the past several decades
(e.g., Agterberg, 2007; Ahrens, 1954; Carranza, 2009; Krige, 1966;
Reimann and Filzmoser, 2000; Turcotte, 1986, 1997), but also the geo-
metrical characteristics and scale invariance of geochemical patterns
(Afzal et al., 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013a; Agterberg, 2012a,b; Cheng et al.,
1994, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000; Li et al., 2003; Lima et al., 2003; Xu and
Cheng, 2001; Zuo et al., 2015). It has been shown that ore elements, es-
pecially trace elements, do not follow a normal or lognormal distribu-
tion, but instead follow a positively skewed distribution with a long
Pareto tail toward high values (e.g., Ahrens, 1957). With respect to the
spatial distribution of geochemical data, autocorrelation often exists
over a certain spatial range. The geometry of geochemical anomalies,
also an important aspect, indicates geological structures. For example,
linear anomalies may be associated with underlying faults, while arcu-
ate anomalies may imply intrusive bodies (Cheng et al., 1999). Recent
studies of geochemical patterns at different scales have shown that
self-similarity or self-affinity are fundamental properties of geochemical
data (e.g., Bölviken et al., 1992; Cheng et al., 1994; Zuo et al., 2009a,b).
The most effective way to distinguish geochemical anomalies from the
background is to adopt a comprehensive technique that combines the
properties mentioned above.
The typical and most widely used method for detection of geochem-
ical anomalies is setting threshold values, which contain the upper and
lower limits of background variations (Hawkes and Webb, 1962). Ob-
servations outside of this range are referred to as anomalies, whereas
those within background are not. However, traditional methods, includ-
ing the one mentioned above, exploratory data analysis (Behrens, 1997;
Carranza, 2010; Reimann, 2005a,b; Tukey, 1977), and multivariate sta-
tistics (Yousefi et al., 2012, 2014; Zuo, 2011a,b; Zuo et al., 2009a,b,
2013), are based on the frequency distribution of geochemical values
and, therefore, neglect spatial variation and other potential characteris-
tics that can provide valuable information. Considering the fact that ex-
ploration geochemical data are typically spatially dependent, a couple of
frequency-space-based methods, such as the inverse distance-weighted
Fig. 1. Histogram of the number of papers related with fractal/multifractal modeling of geochemical data published in Journal of Geochemical Exploration (JGE), Applied Geochemistry
(AG) and Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis (GEEA) during 1991–2014.
(IDW) and different kriging methods, have been put forward (Krige,
1978; Lam, 1983; Zimmerman et al., 1999). Although these methods
acknowledge the spatial dependence of element concentrations, they
do not consider that spatial variability is rugged and singular rather
than smooth and differentiable.
The main attraction of fractal/multifractal theory lies in its ability to
quantify irregular and complex phenomena or processes that exhibit
similarity over a wide range of scales, which is termed self-similarity
(Feder, 1988; Mandelbrot, 1983). Since the concept of fractal was intro-
duced by Mandelbrot in the 1960s, a number of studies were applied to
geological processes and phenomena to characterize the spatial distri-
butions of concentrations and the relationship between tonnage and
grade of deposits (e.g., Cheng et al., 1994, 2000; Lavallee et al., 1993;
Mandelbrot, 1983; Turcotte, 1986, 1997, 2002). With respect to applied
geochemistry, various researches are being implemented on the fractal
properties of geochemical patterns over different scales, as indicated by
the increasing number of published papers (Fig. 1). For example, the
number of papers published in the Journal of Geochemical Exploration
(JGE) at the five-year scale has increased nearly exponentially as the
total number of papers in JGE, Applied Geochemistry (AG), and
Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis (GEEA). These num-
bers indicate that fractal/multifractal models have an important role, es-
pecially in applications to geochemical exploration. In detail, three
important achievements have been made over the past thirty years.
The first one is the proposal of a series of fractal/multifractal models
used for separating geochemical anomalies from background or for de-
termining baseline concentration in environmental studies. The second
is the introduction of the concept of singularity, which enables us to
study mineralization from a new nonlinear perspective and provides
an effective tool for mapping local and weak anomalies, and the third
is the ability to quantify the vertical distribution of geochemical ele-
ments using fractal methods.
Based on previously published researches, this paper provides an
overview of fractal/multifractal modeling of geochemical data, includ-
ing its theory, the way it works, its benefits and limitations, its applica-
tions, and the relationships among various models.
2. Fractal/multifractal models
The study of Bölviken et al. (1992) was early to address the impor-
tance of fractal models used for geochemical landscape studies and to
 R. Zuo, J. Wang / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 164 (2016) 33–41
predict their profound impact on geochemical exploration. Cheng et al.
(1994) proposed the concentration-area fractal model (C-A), which rep-
resents the first important advancement in fractal/multifractal modeling
of geochemical data (Zuo et al., 2012) and is a fundamental technique
used frequently for modeling geochemical anomalies (Carranza, 2009).
The spectrum-area fractal model (S-A), introduced by Cheng et al.
(1999) as a version of the C-A model in the frequency domain, can sep-
arate overlapping populations using more than one cutoff value. Based
on Mandelbrot’s radial-density law, by replacing density with concentra-
tion, Li et al. (2003) proposed the concentration–distance (C-D) fractal
model, which is used for discriminating geochemical anomalies from
background. Carranza (2009) reviewed the fractal/multifractal methods
used to model geochemical data in his book Geochemical Anomaly and
Mineral Prospectivity Mapping in GIS and demonstrated the advantages
of these models. Afzal et al. (2011) extended the C-A fractal model to
3D and developed the concentration–volume (C-V) fractal model to
identify various zones of mineralization. These models have been ac-
knowledged widely as powerful tools for identifying anomalies as well
as for determining geochemical baseline in environmental studies
(e.g., Afzal et al., 2010, 2011, 2013b; Albanese et al., 2007; Ali et al.,
2007; Asadi et al., 2014; Cheng et al., 1994, 1997, 2000, 2010; Deng
et al., 2010; Gonçalves et al., 2001; He et al., 2013; Heidari et al., 2013;
Jesus et al., 2013; Li et al., 2003; Luz et al., 2014; Panahi et al., 2004;
Sadeghi et al., 2012; Sun and Liu, 2014; Wang, G. et al., 2013; Xu and
Cheng, 2001; Zuo, 2011a,b, 2014). As for the concept of singularity,
Cheng (2007) considered mineralization to be a singular process due
to an efficient process of element enrichment. A singularity mapping
technique was proposed to characterize the degree of uniqueness of geo-
logical features, and it can detect potential targets that are often
smoothed by traditional contouring methods (e.g., Arias et al., 2012;
Bai et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2015; Cheng, 2007; Cheng and Agterberg,
2009; Liu et al., 2013; Sun et al., 2010; Xiao et al., 2012, 2014; Xie et al.,
2007; Zhao et al., 2012, 2013, 2014; Zuo and Cheng, 2008; Zuo et al.,
2009a, 2013, 2015). Considering the fact that different points within a
small vicinity may have different singularity exponents, Chen et al.
(2007) proposed a local singularity iteration algorithm as an improve-
ment of parameter estimation involved in the local singularity analysis.
Cheng (2012) proposed a density–area power-law model, attempting
to systematically confirm that singularity analysis is effective for recogni-
tion of weak geochemical anomalies. Agterberg (2012a, 2012b) noticed
that singularity exponents are linearly related to logarithmically trans-
formed element concentration values, which can be used to measure
the small-scale nugget effect caused by measurement error and micro-
scopic randomness. Zuo et al. (2015) found that the local singularity
index calculated by the original algorithm is influenced by background
values and proposed a modified algorithm to overcome these shortcom-
ings. With respect to the third aforementioned important achievement,
characterization of the vertical distribution of elements, several parame-
ters, including the box-counting dimension, Hurst exponent, power-law
frequency characteristics, etc., usually need to be estimated. A number of
studies have demonstrated that the distribution of geochemical ele-
ments in borehole exhibit fractal properties, just as the distribution in
surficial materials (Monecke et al., 2001; Nazarpour et al., 2014;
Sanderson et al., 1994; Wang, G. et al., 2012; Zuo et al., 2009b). These
properties can be used to distinguish mineralized zones from those
that are not mineralized.
2.1. Number–size model
The very important fractal model, i.e., the number–size model (N-S),
was firstly proposed by Mandelbrot (1983) to characterize the relation-
ship between the size of objects and the number of objects with size
greater than or equal to a given size. Based on this model, several
variants have been developed and successfully applied in earth sciences
(Agterberg, 1996; Carlson, 1991; Hassanpour and Afzal, 2013;
35
Sanderson et al., 1994; Turcotte, 2002; Zuo et al., 2009b). This model
was probably the first one with geochemical relevance.
2.2. Concentration–area fractal model
From the multifractal point of view, Cheng et al. (1994) derived the
C-A fractal model, which relates the element concentration to the area
enclosed by concentration contours by a power-law relation as follows
Aðρ ≤ vÞ∝ρ−α 1 ; Aðρ N vÞ∝ρ−α2 ð1Þ
where A(ρ) denotes the area with concentration values greater than or
equal to the contour value ρ, cse is the mathematical symbol for “propor-
tional to”, and α1 and α2 are exponents associated with minimum and
maximum singularity, respectively. Two approaches can be used to cal-
culate the enclosed area. One is based on the contour map created by in-
terpolation procedures, and the other is based on superimposing a grid
with cells on the study area and calculating the area by means of a box-
counting method. Distinct patterns, each corresponding to a set of sim-
ilarly shaped contours, can be separated by different straight segments
fitted to the values of the contours and enclosed areas on the log–log
plot. The slopes of these straight lines can be taken as an estimation of
the exponents of the power-law relation in Eq. (1). The optimum
threshold for separating geochemical anomalies from background is
the concentration value common to both linear relationships on the
log–log plot.
2.3. Spectrum–area fractal mode
Geochemical patterns in the spatial domain can be considered as
superimposed signals of different frequencies. Based on this argument,
Cheng et al. (1999) proposed the S-A fractal model to separate geo-
chemical anomalies from background using spectral analysis in the fre-
quency domain combined with the C-A model, which can provide an
effective tool for determining an optimum threshold between different
patterns on the basis of the scaling property. This fractal model also can
be expressed as a power-law relation between the power spectrum ρ
and area A(E N ρ) with the power spectrum above the given value ρas
follows:
AðE N ρÞ∝ρ =β ;
‐2d
ð2Þ
where β is an anisotropic scaling exponent and d represents the overall
degree of concentration. Different patterns can be recognized by fitting
several straight lines, each with a different slope, to the data pairs of area
and power spectrum on the log–log plot. An irregular fractal filter can
then be built according to these distinct patterns with background and
noise corresponding to low and high power spectrum values being re-
moved. The geochemical anomalies of interest can be obtained by
converting the filtered pattern back to the spatial domain (Cheng,
1999a; Cheng et al., 2010; Xu and Cheng, 2001; Zuo, 2011a,b, 2012,
2013).
2.4. Concentration–distance fractal model
A geochemical dispersion pattern often involves many sub-patterns
at many hierarchical levels, leading to the spatial distribution of element
concentration being clustered at different scales (Li et al., 2003).
Mandelbrot proposed the radial-density model as an approach to char-
acterize the clustering of point events (Mandelbrot, 1983). Based on this
model, Li et al. (2003) developed the concentration–distance (C-D)
fractal model by replacing the density with element concentration.
This model can directly process original element concentration data,
and can avoid the error caused by any interpolation procedure. Deter-
mination of the optimum threshold for this model is nearly the same
as for the C-A model.
36 R. Zuo, J. Wang / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 164 (2016) 33–41
2.5. Concentration–volume fractal model
On the basis of the same idea as the C-A model, the C-V fractal model
was proposed by Afzal et al. (2011) to quantify the relationship between
element concentration and the accumulative volume with concentra-
tion greater than or equal to the given value (Afzal et al., 2011;
Delavar et al., 2012; Lin et al., 2013; Sadeghi et al., 2012; Soltani et al.,
2014; Sun and Liu, 2014; Wang, G. et al., 2012).
2.6. Local singularity analysis
Singular processes, including earthquakes, mineralization, etc.,
usually result in anomalous amounts of energy release or mass
accumulation, which are generally confined to a relatively narrow
spatial-temporal interval (Cheng, 2007). Singularity is a fundamental
property of these complex processes, and they can often be expressed
as multifractal distributions. The singularity mapping technique is
developed on the basis of the local singularity exponent, which is
calculated by assembling a geochemical map at different scales to
quantify the scaling characteristics of element concentration or deple-
tion (Cheng, 2007). Within a multifractal context, the singular geo-
chemical distribution can be described by the following power–law
relation:
α
μ ðAÞ ¼ cA 2 ð3Þ
where μ(A) denotes the total amount of metal within an area of size A, c
is a constant also termed the fractal density, and a is the singularity ex-
ponent, which can be estimated using the ratio of the logarithmic trans-
formation of measure μ and area Aas follows:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
α ¼ logðμ 1 =μ 2 Þ= log A1 =A2 ð4Þ
Different cases of α− E (Euclidian dimension) versus zero corre-
spond to different geochemical dispersion patterns, the case with differ-
ence value greater than zero indicating element depletion or otherwise
enrichment. Cheng (2007) provided a windows-based method for map-
ping a local singularity, which has been used widely for mineral
prospecting.
As showed in the Lebesgue decomposition theorem, any complex
measure can be decomposed into two components: one is an absolutely
continuous measure and the other a singularity. Therefore, for the
power-law relation in Eq. (3), the value of c should be a nonsingular
component (Chen et al., 2007; Cheng, 2005). In the context of GIS, a
point is different from a pixel because a point has no size. Therefore,
the singularity exponent based on the raster model represents a local
singularity in the sense of small vicinity but not a point-wise singularity,
i.e., the estimated value of c still contains the singularity. This kind of
knowledge led to the proposal by Chen et al. (2007) of an iterative algo-
rithm to obtain the optimal local singularity exponent, which has been
demonstrated to be superior to the non-iterative algorithm originally
proposed by Cheng (2007). Considering that the original algorithm
used to estimate the local singularity exponent could not directly pro-
cess a data set containing negative values and that the estimated singu-
larity is influenced by background values, Zuo et al. (2015) developed a
modified algorithm to overcome the aforementioned shortcomings. The
improvement associated with the new algorithm involves the introduc-
tion of a step in which the minimum value within the maximum win-
dow for each given location is previously subtracted. This kind of
straight processing solves the existing problem and enables the singu-
larity of similar anomalous patterns within different background values
to be comparable.
2.7. Other parameters related to fractal methods
The Hurst exponent (H) was proposed by Hurst (1951) as a measure
of long-term dependence, and it has been applied widely in the
geosciences (Turcotte, 1997). The expected value of H lies between 0
and 1. A larger H means a stronger persistence of the time series.
The rescaled range statistic (R/S) analysis as a measure of how the
apparent variability of a series changes with the length of the
time-period being considered is one of the most popular methods to
calculate the Hurst exponent. The rescaled range is calculated through
dividing the range of the values within a portion of the time series by
the standard deviation of the values for the whole same portion of the
time series. The Hurst exponent can be estimated from the slope of re-
gression line with log (n) versus log(R/S), where n is the length of
sub-series.
In addition, the box dimension also can be used for measurement of
the complexity of geochemical patterns, which can be estimated by the
box counting method. Further details on these parameters and models
can be found in related literature (e.g., Sanderson et al., 1994; Wang,
G. et al., 2012; Zuo et al., 2009b).
3. Application
3.1. Identifying geochemical anomalies
The past several decades saw the emergence of fractal/multifractal
models and their utility in the field of applied geochemistry. Particu-
larly, various types of geochemical datasets, including stream and
lake sediments, soil, borehole, and lithogeochemistry datasets have
been processed to identify geochemical anomalies and discriminate
between anthropogenic pollution and natural sources (e.g., Afzal
et al., 2010, 2011; Albanese et al., 2007; Asadi et al., 2014; Cheng
et al., 1994, 2000, 2010; Deng et al., 2010; Gonçalves et al., 2001; He
et al., 2013; Heidari et al., 2013; Jesus et al., 2013; Li et al., 2003;
Luz et al., 2014; Panahi et al., 2004; Sadeghi et al., 2012; Sun and
Liu, 2014; Wang, W. et al., 2013; Xu and Cheng, 2001; Zuo, 2011a,b,
2014). Many researchers also found that the components decomposed
from the original geochemical data often have good correspondence
to the geological processes or phenomena. For example, Cheng et al.
(1994) applied the C-A fractal model to lithogeochemical data of
the Mitchell-Sulphurets precious metal district, British Columbia,
and found that different fractal patterns exist inside and outside the
potassic, sulfidic, and silicic alteration areas. Afzal et al. (2011)
employed the C-V fractal model to separate supergene enrichment
and hypogene zones from oxidation zones and barren host rocks,
and the zones interpreted on the basis of the C-V fractal model are
consistent with the geological settings. In addition, these fractal
models are often combined with principal component analysis or fac-
tor analysis methods to delineate multi-element association anomalies
(e.g., Asadi et al., 2014; Cheng et al., 1997; He et al., 2014; Hosseini
et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2013; Panahi et al., 2004; Shamseddin et al.,
2014; Zuo, 2011a,b, 2014). New models also can be established
based on these models. For instance, Wang et al. (2011) proposed a
new fractal model to estimate the reserve. In this model, an orebody
can be divided spatially into several parts with different degrees of
mineralization via the cutoff values obtained from the C-A fractal
model. Furthermore, on the basis of the C-A fractal model, a median
C-A model was derived, and the ore tonnage–thickness and the
metal tonnage–grade thickness models then were established
(Wang, Q. et al., 2012). These new models can be helpful for under-
standing orebody spatial distribution. Cao and Cheng (2012) com-
bined the S-A fractal model and generalized scale invariance to
develop a new method, which can not only separate anomalies from
background but can also provide information about anisotropic scale
invariance of geochemical patterns.
 R. Zuo, J. Wang / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 164 (2016) 33–41
Fig. 2. Maps showing simulated geochemical patterns: (a) a regional field created by linearly decreased function; (b) anomalies generated by two sources with a different buried depth;
(c) simulated geochemical pattern by superimposing the regional background on the anomalies; (d) a profile demonstrating three simulated maps.
3.2. Mapping mineral prospectivity
Cheng (2007) proposed the concept of the singularity exponent to
depict the local structure of geochemical patterns, and many case stud-
ies have been conducted to demonstrate its utility. Note that some
methods, such as principal component analysis, spatially weighted prin-
cipal component analysis, spatially weighted geographic regression,
robust principal component analysis, etc., could be applied to the geo-
chemical data before singularity mapping to integrate information of
ore-forming elements (Xiao et al., 2012; Zhao et al, 2012, 2013; Zuo
et al., 2015). Considering the difference of elemental mobility in areas
with overburden, Xiao et al. (2014) investigated the possibly of mobile
elements by means of accumulation coefficient analysis to determine a
set of suitable indicator elements for further analysis. This procedure is
necessary for identification of weak anomalies from buried mineraliza-
tion. From the perspective of application, singularity analysis cannot
only identify geochemical anomalies but can also map igneous rock
bodies if different element associations are analyzed (Zhao et al.,
2012). For example, stream sediment geochemical data of K2O, Na2O,
SiO2, and Al2O3 can be integrated using principal component analysis
and then one component score is processed to map acid igneous rocks
using singularity analysis. In addition, on the basis of singularity analy-
sis, new models can be established to assist in geochemical exploration.
Considering the advantage that the singularity exponent can identify
heterogeneity, Wang, W. et al. (2013) proposed a new model, the
fault trace-oriented singularity mapping technique, to characterize an-
isotropic mineralization-associated geochemical signatures. Further-
more, a tectonic-geochemical exploration model that focuses on fault-
controlled and geochemical halo-associated mineralization was also
constructed by Wang, W. et al. (2012).
Note that a singularity distribution map derived from a singularity
mapping technique requires further analysis for modeling mineral
prospectivity, which usually involves setting a series of thresholds to di-
vide the singularity exponents into binary patterns and then calculating
37
the spatial correlation between these patterns and known deposits and
occurrences. These correlation indices, termed Student’s t-values, can be
estimated by the weights of evidence method. Further details on this
method can be found in related literature (Bonham–Carter, 1994;
Cheng et al., 1994).
There are also some other applications of singularity mapping tech-
niques that deserve to be mentioned. Local singularity analysis has been
proposed in the multifractal context, and it can predict strong local con-
tinuity of element concentration values. In comparison with conven-
tional methods, one prominent advantage of this approach is its ability
to determine all singularities including positions with extreme values,
which often disable statistical methods due to the small sample size
problem. Agterberg (2012a) found that estimated singularities are line-
arly related to logarithmically transformed element concentration
values. By means of this relation, the small-scale nugget effect can be
measured. This argument has been demonstrated by several cases, in-
cluding simulated and practical geochemical data. In addition,
singularity exponents can be used for interpolation. Conventional
methods, such as inverse distance weighting and Kriging, fail to take
into account the local properties of geochemical data. The newly pro-
posed multifractal interpolation approach can overcome this drawback
by incorporating local singularity into traditional models. In this regard,
this method takes into account the local structure and singularity
Table 1
Model and parameters used to simulate anomalies.
Anomalies Model C h/m Position(m)
No. 1 Ch 4000 80 (400,402)
P¼ 3 =2
2
x2 þ y 2 þ h
No. 2 4000 140 (700,402)
Note: The simulated values range from 1 to 14. P-simulated value; h-buried depth;
C-constant; (x,y)-location of center of anomaly source.
38 R. Zuo, J. Wang / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 164 (2016) 33–41
Fig. 3. (a) Log-log plot of concentration versus area with values greater than or equal to the given concentration; (b) anomaly map identified by the C–A fractal model.
in assigning weights for data interpolation. Both one- and two-
dimensional cases have been used to demonstrate its superiority over
conventional methods (Cheng, 1999b, 2000, 2005, 2008). In fact, ordi-
nary moving average techniques can be taken as a special case of the
multifractal interpolation method.
3.3. Characterization the vertical distribution of geochemical
element concentration
Characterization of the vertical distribution of geochemical element
concentration plays an important role in economic planning in the min-
ing industry. Cheng (2014) proposed a new non-linear differential
equation which assumes the decay rate of concentration is negatively
proportional to the concentration itself, with a functional coefficient de-
pendent on vertical distance from the underlying surface of mineralized
rocks to quantify the decay behaviour of geochemical concentration of
an element in a vertical regolith profile. Many studies have revealed
that the distribution of geochemical elements exhibits fractal proper-
ties, which can be characterized by fractal or multifractal models. The
routine procedure for this purpose involves estimation of several fractal
parameters, including the box-counting dimension, Hurst exponent,
etc. The box dimension often can be used for quantification of the com-
plexity of phenomena or processes, which usually serves as an indicator
to differentiate mineralized and non-mineralized zones (Zuo et al.,
2009b). The Hurst exponent is associated with continuity of mineraliza-
tion, and the larger the Hurst exponent, the better the continuity. In ad-
dition, the power-law frequency distribution also plays an important
role in characterizing the vertical distribution of geochemical elements.
It can reveal different patterns of elemental distribution and provide
cutoff values distinguishing these patterns.
4. Comparison the C-A, S-A and singularity index
Cheng (2014) briefly reviewed the state-of-the-art the vertical dis-
tribution of elements in upper regolith over mineral deposits, and pro-
posed a power-law decay function to model the regolith decay trends
with increasing distance from the underlying altered rocks or saprocks.
Cheng's work indicated that the element concentration is a function of
the depth of mineral deposits. For instance, Cheng (2012) showed a
geological and geochemical profile in Gejiu Tin district, China (c.f., Fig.
2 in Cheng, 2012). It can be observed that in the east of Gejiu, most of
the known deposits with outcropping or shallower ore bodies (c.f., Fig.
2G in Cheng, 2012) have large Sn concentrations; however, in the
west, the ore bodies occurred about 1 km below the surface of the
Earth, correspond to small Sn concentrations (c.f., Fig. 2F in Cheng,
2012). Following the preceding studies, the C-A, S-A and singularity
index were compared based on simulated data, which were created
by the superposition of anomalies on a linearly varied background. In
this simulated model, we only considered the situation described by
Cheng (2012, 2014). In practice, there could be more complex situations
which should be further considered. In this paper, the anomaly pattern
was generated using a method similar to the gravity forward model
(Telford et al., 1990), which exhibited a power-law relation between
magnitude of the gravity field and the departure from the geological
body. The anomalies were defined as the projection of patterns around
sources with different burial depths. The model and detailed parameters
used for simulating anomalies can are shown in Table 1 and Fig. 2. The
simulated geochemical pattern (Fig. 2c) was created by superimposing
the anomalies (Fig. 2b) on the regional background (Fig. 2a). Fig. 2d il-
lustrates the profiles that intersect those patterns in the middle and
two anomalous sources with different depth. Obviously, the deeper
the source, the weaker the pattern on the surface. Thus, the anomalous
pattern corresponding to the second source becomes almost indistin-
guishable due to the masking effect of the background. Even for the
first one, it has been weakened significantly.
Three fractal models C-A, S-A, and local singularity analysis will be
employed on the simulated geochemical data to detect anomalies
with the aid of a Matlab program (Wang and Zuo, 2015). Based on the
simulated geochemical pattern, the C-A plot, as illustrated in Fig. 3a,
was obtained to reveal the relationship between the threshold value
and the number of cells with values greater than or equal to it. Three
straight lines can be fit by means of the least square method. Two
threshold values can be then obtained and used further to divide the
geochemical pattern into three components (Fig. 3b). The left part and
the circle within the middle region can be regarded as anomalies. The
middle part, with the exception of the circle, can be regarded as moder-
ate anomalies, and the rest can be considered as background. Compar-
ing these results with the anomalies map illustrated in Fig. 2b, only
Fig. 4. Log–log plot of power spectrum values and areas.
 R. Zuo, J. Wang / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 164 (2016) 33–41
Fig. 5. Maps showing background (a) and anomalous (b) map obtained by the S-A model.
the higher anomaly can be detected, which is associated with a large
part of background being classified as anomalies. In this regard, the ef-
fectiveness of the C-A fractal model depends on the variability of the
background.
Converting the simulated geochemical data to the frequency domain
using fast Fourier transformation (FFT) and applying the C-A model
again, the S-A plot can then be obtained (Fig. 4). Two cutoff values can
be determined by the same procedure as the C-A fractal model. The
filter can be built using the higher cutoff value and further employed
on the FFT map. Converting the filtered map back into the spatial do-
main, two patterns, i.e., background and anomalies, were generated
(Fig. 5a and b).
Unlike the results obtained by C-A, the S-A can extract anomalies
that lie within the varied background. The decomposed background is
nearly the same as the originally simulated pattern, with the exception
of those locations significantly influenced by the two anomalous
sources. As for the anomaly map, both of the sources can be reflected
to some degree. However, there are also some symmetrically distribut-
ed anomalous areas that have no direct correspondence to potential
sources. These areas may be the numerical artifact of the S-A model it-
self. In this regard, this method has limited capacity to correctly map
anomalies weakened by thick overburden.
The singularity mapping technique was also used to detect simulat-
ed anomalies. Several parameters need to be set prior to the calculation
of singularity exponents. A series of square windows was selected with
half window lengths ranging from 4 m to 20 m at a 4 m interval. The sin-
gularity map (Fig. 6) could then be created. Obviously, two circular re-
gions with relatively low singularity exponents are delineated. The
locations and shapes of the regions are highly consistent with the anom-
alous sources. In addition, there are scarcely any interferences, as indi-
cated by the fact that the singularity exponents of the regional field
Fig. 6. Map showing the singularity index.
39
area approach 2. However, note that the singularity of the left delineat-
ed area is relatively stronger than that of the right one due to their dif-
ferent burial depths. Therefore, the singularity mapping technique is a
powerful tool for enhancing weak anomalies and locating anomalous
sources from a multifractal perspective.
5. Discussion and conclusions
Fractal/multifractal models have provided a new perspective for
modeling of geochemical data. These methods also have been proved ef-
fectively in practice by many case studies. However, for analyzing geo-
chemical data itself, there are still some unsolved problems. No matter
what methods are adopted, the anomalies detected are usually of un-
equal importance for further exploration. Thus, methods for selecting
promising anomalies mathematically are crucial and require additional
research. There are few studies on whether fractal/multifractal models
could be used to assess anomalies, and to distinguish anomalies associ-
ated to mineralization with false anomalies which may be caused by
noise, data processing, or other geological processes. In addition, detec-
tion of geochemical anomalies in areas with more or less overburden re-
mains the principal challenge. Mechanisms of element dispersion and
distribution in the surficial environment should be investigated further
with the help of new theoretical approaches, including fractal and
multifractal models.
This study has mainly presented an overview of fractal/multifractal
models used to model geochemical data. These models, including C-A,
S-A, the singularity mapping technique, etc., have been used widely to
detect anomalies in geochemical exploration and determine the geo-
chemical baseline in environmental studies. The simulated experiment
presented here made a comparison of three fractal/mutifractal models,
i.e., C-A, S-A, and singularity mapping, indicating that singularity map-
ping technique can enhance and identify weak anomalies caused by
buried sources.
Acknowledgments
We thank John Carranza, Peyman Afzal and an anonymous
reviewer's comments and suggestions, which improve this study. This
research benefited from the joint financial support from the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41372007), and the Program
for New Century Excellent Talents in University (NCET-13-1016).
References
Afzal, P., Khakzad, A., Moarefvand, P., Rashidnejad, O.N., Esfandiari, B., Fadakar, A.Y., 2010.
Geochemical anomaly separation by multifractal modeling in Kahang (GorGor)
porphyry system, Central Iran. J. Geochem. Explor. 104, 34–46.
Afzal, P., Fadakar, A.Y., Khakzad, A., Moarefvand, P., Rashidnejad, O.N., 2011. Delineation of
mineralization zones in porphyry Cu deposits by fractal concentration–volume
modeling. J. Geochem. Explor. 18, 220–232.
40 R. Zuo, J. Wang / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 164 (2016) 33–41
Afzal, P., Fadakar, A.Y., Moarefvand, P., Rashidnejad, O.N., Asadi, H.H., 2012. Application of
power–spectrum–volume fractal method for detecting hypogene, supergene enrich-
ment, leached and barren zones in Kahang Cu porphyry deposit, Central Iran.
J. Geochem. Explor. 112, 131–138.
Afzal, P., Harati, H., Fadakar, A.Y., Yasrebi, A.B., 2013a. Application of spectrum–area fractal
model to identify of geochemical anomalies based on soil data in Kahang porphyry–
type Cu deposit, Iran. Chem. Erde 73, 533–543.
Afzal, P., Ahari, H.D., Omran, N.R., Aliyari, F., 2013b. Delineation of gold mineralized zones
using concentration–volume fractal model in Qolqoleh gold deposit, NW Iran. Ore
Geol. Rev. 55, 125–133.
Agterberg, F.P., 1996. Multifractal modeling of the sizes and grades of giant and
supergiant deposits. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 33, A365.
Agterberg, F.P., 2007. Mixtures of multiplicative cascade models in geochemistry. Nonlin-
ear Process. Geophys. 14, 201–209.
Agterberg, F.P., 2012a. Multifractals and geostatistics. J. Geochem. Explor. 122, 113–122.
Agterberg, F.P., 2012b. Sampling and analysis of chemical element concentration distribu-
tion in rock units and orebodies. Nonlinear Process. Geophys. 19, 23–44.
Ahrens, L.H., 1954. The lognormal distribution of elements (a fundamental law of geo-
chemistry and its subsidiary). Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 5, 49–73.
Ahrens, L.H., 1957. Lognormal-type distributions-III. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 11,
205–212.
Albanese, S., De Vivo, B., Lima, A., Cicchella, D., 2007. Geochemical background and base-
line values of toxic elements in stream sediments of Campania region (Italy).
J. Geochem. Explor. 93, 21–34.
Ali, K., Cheng, Q., Chen, Z., 2007. Multifractal power spectrum and singularity analysis for
modelling stream sediment geochemical distribution patterns to identify anomalies
related to gold mineralization in Yunnan Province, South China. Geochem. Explor.
Environ. Anal. 7, 293–301.
Arias, M., Gumie, P., Martín-Izard, A., 2012. Multifractal analysis of geochemical anoma-
lies: A tool for assessing prospectivity at the SE border of the Ossa Morena Zone,
Variscan Massif (Spain). J. Geochem. Explor. 122, 101–112.
Asadi, H.H., Kianpouryan, S., Lu, Y., McCuaig, T.C., 2014. Exploratory data analysis and C-A
fractal model applied in mapping multi-element soil anomalies for drilling: A case
study from the Sari Gunay epithermal gold deposit, NW Iran. J. Geochem. Explor.
145, 233–241.
Bai, J., Porwal, A., Hart, C., Ford, A., Yu, L., 2010. Mapping geochemical singularity using
multifractal analysis: Application to anomaly definition on stream sediments data
from Funin Sheet, Yunnan, China. J. Geochem. Explor. 104, 1–11.
Behrens, J.T., 1997. Principles and Procedures of Exploratory Data Analysis. Psychol.
Methods 2, 131–160.
Bölviken, B., Stokke, P.R., Feder, J., Jössang, T., 1992. The fractal nature of geochemical
landscapes. J. Geochem. Explor. 43, 91–109.
Bonham-Carter, G.F., 1994. Geographic information systems for geoscientists: modeling with
GIS. Computer Methods in the Geosciences first ed. Pergamon, New York (398 pp.).
Cao, L., Cheng, Q., 2012. Quantification of anisotropic scale invariance of geochemical
anomalies associated with Sn-Cu mineralization in Gejiu, Yunan Province, China.
J. Geochem. Explor. 122, 47–54.
Carlson, C.A., 1991. Spatial distribution of ore deposits. Geology 19, 111–114.
Carranza, E.J.M., 2009. Geochemical Anomaly and Mineral Prospectivity Mapping in GIS.
Handbook of Exploration and Environmental Geochemistry vol. 11. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Carranza, E.J.M., 2010. Mapping of anomalies in continuous and discrete fields of stream
sediment geochemical landscapes. Geochem. Explor. Environ. Anal. 10, 171–187.
Chen, Z., Cheng, Q., Chen, J., Xie, S., 2007. A novel iterative approach for mapping local sin-
gularities from geochemical data. Nonlinear Process. Geophys. 14, 317–324.
Chen, G., Cheng, Q., Zuo, R., Liu, T., Xi, Y., 2015. Identifying gravity anomalies caused by
granitic intrusions in Nanling mineral district, China: a multifractal perspective.
Geophys. Prospect. 63, 256–270.
Cheng, Q., 1999a. Spatial and scaling modeling for geochemical anomaly separation.
J. Geochem. Explor. 65, 175–194.
Cheng, Q., 1999b. Multifractal interpolation. In: Lippard, S.J., Naess, A., Sinding-Larsen, R.
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conference of the International Association
forMathematical Geology, Trondheim, Norway. 6-11 Aug. 1999. Norway University
of Science and Technology, Trondheim, pp. 245–250.
Cheng, Q., 2000. Interpolation by means of multifractal, kriging and moving average tech-
niques. GeoCanada 2000, Proc. GAC/MAC Meeting, Calgary, AB, Canada [CD-ROM]. 29
May-2 June 2000. Geol. Assoc. Can., St. John’s, NF, Canada.
Cheng, Q., 2005. A new model for incorporating spatial association and singularity in in-
terpolation of exploratory data. In: Leuangthong, O., Deutsch, C.V. (Eds.), Geostatistics
Banff 2004, Quantitative Geology and Geostatistics 14. Springer Press, Netherlands,
pp. 1017–1025.
Cheng, Q., 2007. Mapping singularities with stream sediment geochemical data for pre-
diction of undiscovered mineral deposits in Gejiu, Yunnan Province, China. Ore
Geol. Rev. 32, 314–324.
Cheng, Q., 2008. Modeling local scaling properties for multiscale mapping. Vadose Zone J.
7, 525–532.
Cheng, Q., 2012. Singularity theory and methods for mapping geochemical anomalies
caused by buried sources and for predicting undiscovered mineral deposits in cov-
ered areas. J. Geochem. Explor. 122, 55–70.
Cheng, Q., 2014. Vertical distribution of elements in regolith over mineral deposits
andimplications for mapping geochemical weak anomalies in covered areas.
Geochem. Explor. Environ. Anal. 14, 277–289.
Cheng, Q., Agterberg, F.P., 2009. Singularity analysis of ore-mineral and toxic trace ele-
ments in stream sediments. Comput. Geosci. 35, 234–244.
Cheng, Q., Agterberg, F.P., Ballantyne, S.B., 1994. The separation of geochemical anomalies
from background by fractal methods. J. Geochem. Explor. 51, 109–130.
Cheng, Q., Agterberg, F.P., Bonham-Carter, G.F., 1996. A spatial analysis method for geo-
chemical anomaly separation. J. Geochem. Explor. 56, 183–195.
Cheng, Q., Bonham-Carter, G.F., Hall, G.E.M., Bajc, A., 1997. Statistical study of trace
elements in the soluble organic and amorphous Fe-Mn phases of surficial
sediments, Sudbury Basin 1. Multivariate and spatial analysis. J. Geochem. Explor.
59, 27–46.
Cheng, Q., Xu, Y., Grunsky, E., 1999. Integrated spatial and spectral analysis for geochem-
ical anomaly separation. In: Lippard, S.J., Naess, A., Sinding-Larsen, R. (Eds.), Proceed-
ings of the Fifth Annual Conference of the International Association for Mathematical
Geology, Trondheim, Norway 6–11th August. vol. 1, pp. 87–92.
Cheng, Q., Xu, Y., Grunsky, E., 2000. Integrated Spatial and Spectrum Method for
Geochemical Anomaly Separation. Nat. Resour. Res. 9, 43–52.
Cheng, Q., Xia, Q., Li, W., Zhang, S., Chen, Z., Zuo, R., Wang, W., 2010. Density/area power-
law models for separating multi-scale anomalies of ore and toxic elements in stream
sediments in Gejiu mineral district, Yunnan Province, China. Biogeosciences 7,
3019–3025.
Cohen, D.R., Kelley, D.L., Anand, R., Coker, W.B., 2010. Major advances in exploration geo-
chemistry, 1998-2007. Geochem. Explor. Environ. Anal. 10, 3–16.
Darnley, A.G., Bjorklund, B., Gustavsson, N., Koval, P.V., Plant, J., Steenfelt, A., Tauchid, T.M.,
Xie, X.J., 1995. A Global Geochemical Database for environmental and resource man-
agement. Recommendations for internationalgeochemical mapping. Earth Sciences
Report 19. UNESCO Publishing, Paris.
Delavar, S.T., Afzal, P., Borg, G., Rasa, I., Lotfi, M., Omran, N.R., 2012. Delineation of miner-
alization zones using concentration–volume fractal method in Pb-Zn carbonate
hosted deposits. J. Geochem. Explor. 118, 98–110.
Deng, J., Wang, Q., Yang, L., Wang, Y., Gong, Q., Liu, H., 2010. Delineation and explanation
of geochemical anomalies using fractal models in the Heqing area, Yunnan Province,
China. J. Geochem. Explor. 105, 95–105.
Feder, J., 1988. Fractals. Plenum Press, New York (283 pp.).
Gonçalves, M.A., Mateus, A., Oliveira, V., 2001. Geochemical anomaly separation by
multifractal modeling. J. Geochem. Explor. 72, 91–114.
Grunsky, E.C., 2010. The interpretation of geochemical survey data. Geochem. Explor.
Environ. Anal. 10, 27–74.
Hassanpour, Sh., Afzal, P., 2013. Application of concentration-number (C-N) multifractal
modelling for geochemical anomaly separation in Haftcheshmeh porphyry system,
NW Iran. Arab. J. Geosci. 6, 957–970.
Hawkes, H.E., Webb, J.S., 1962. Geochemistry in Mineral Exploration. Harper and Row,
New York.
He, J., Yao, S., Zhang, Z., You, G., 2013. Complexity and Productivity Differentiation Models
of Metallogenic Indicator Elements in Rocks and Supergene Media Around
Daijiazhuang Pb-Zn Deposit in Dangchang County, Gansu Province. Nat. Resour.
Res. 22, 19–36.
He, F., Wang, Z., Fang, C., Wang, L., Geng, X., 2014. Identification and assessment of
Sn–polymetallic prospects in the Gejiu western district, Yunnan (China). J. Geochem.
Explor. 145, 106–113.
Heidari, S.M., Ghaderi, M., Afzal, P., 2013. Delineating mineralized phases based on
lithogeochemical data using multifractal model in Touzlar epithermal Au–Ag (Cu)
deposit, NW Iran. Appl. Geochem. 31, 119–132.
Hosseini, S.A., Afzal, P., Sadeghi, B., Sharmad, T., Shahrokhi, S.V., Farhadinejad, T., 2014.
Prospection of Au mineralization based on stream sediments and lithogeochemical
data using multifractal modeling in Alut 1:100,000 sheet, NW Iran. Arab. J. Geosci.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12517-014-1436-5.
Hurst, H.E., 1951. Long-term storage capacity of reservoirs. Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 116,
770–808.
Jesus, A.P., Mateus, A., Gonçalves, M.A., Munhá, J., 2013. Multi-fractal modelling and spa-
tial Cu–soil anomaly analysis along the southern border of the Iberian Terrane in
Portugal. J. Geochem. Explor. 126–127, 23–44.
Krige, D.G., 1966. A study of gold and uranium distribution patterns in the Klerksdorp
goldfield. Geoexploration 4, 43–53.
Krige, D.G., 1978. Lognormal de–Wijsiangeostatistics for ore evaluation. South
AfricanInstitute Mining and Metallurgy Monograph Series. Geostatistics 1.
Lam, N.S., 1983. Spatial interpolation methods: A review. Am. Cartogr. 10, 129–149.
Lavallee, D., Lovejoy, S., Schertzer, D., Ladoy, P., 1993. Nonlinear variability and landscape
topography: analysis and simulation. Fractals Geogr. 158–192.
Li, C., Ma, T., Shi, J., 2003. Application of a fractal method relating concentrations and dis-
tances for separation of geochemical anomalies from background. J. Geochem. Explor.
77, 167–175.
Lima, A., De, Vivo B., Cicchella, D., Cortini, M., Albanese, S., 2003. Multifractal IDW interpo-
lation and fractal filtering method in environmental studies: an application on re-
gional stream sediments of (Italy), Campania region. Appl. Geochem. 18, 1853–1865.
Lima, A., Albanese, S., Cicchella, D., 2005. Geochemical baselines for the radioelements K,
U, and Th in the Campania region, Italy: a comparison of stream–sediment geochem-
istry and gamma-ray surveys. J. Geochem. Explor. 20, 611–625.
Lima, A., Plant, J.A., Vivo, B.D., Tarvainen, T., Albanese, S., Cicchella, D., 2008. Interpolation
methods for geochemical maps: a comparative study using arsenic data from
European stream waters. Geochem. Explor. Environ. Anal. 8, 41–48.
Lin, X., Zhang, B., Wang, X., 2013. Application of factor analysis and concentration–volume
fractal modeling to delineation of 3D geochemical patterns: a case study of the
Jinwozi gold field, NW China. Geochem. Explor. Environ. Anal. 14, 359–367.
Liu, Y., Cheng, Q., Xia, Q., Wang, X., 2013. Application of singularity analysis for mineral
potential identification using geochemical data – A case study: Nanling W-Sn-Mo
polymetallicmetallogenic belt, South China. J. Geochem. Explor. 134, 61–72.
Luz, F., Mateus, A., Matos, J.X., Gonçalves, M.A., 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.
Mandelbrot, B.B., 1983. The fractal geometry of nature. Freeman, San Francisco (468 pp.).
 R. Zuo, J. Wang / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 164 (2016) 33–41
Monecke, T., Gemmell, J.B., Monecke, J., 2001. Fractal distributions of veins in drill core
from the Hellyer VHMS deposit, Australia: constraints on the origin and evolution
of the mineralizing system. Mineral. Deposita 36, 406–415.
Nazarpour, A., Sadeghi, B., Sadeghi, M., 2014. Application of fractal models to characteri-
zation and evaluation of vertical distribution of geochemical data in Zarshuran gold
deposit, NW Iran. J. Geochem. Explor. 148, 60–70.
Panahi, A., Cheng, Q., Bonham-Carter, G.F., 2004. Modelling lake sediment geochemical
distribution using principal component, indicator kriging and multifractal power-
spectrum analysis: a case study from Gowganda, Ontario. Geochem. Explor. Environ.
Anal. 4, 59–70.
Plant, J., Smith, D., Smith, B., Williams, L., 2001. Environmental geochemistry at the global
scale. Appl. Geochem. 16, 1291–1308.
Reimann, C., 2005a. Geochemical mapping: technique or art? Geochem. Explor. Environ.
Anal. 5, 359–370.
Reimann, C., 2005b. Sub-continental-scale geochemical mapping: sampling, quality con-
trol and data analysis issues. Geochem. Explor. Environ. Anal. 5, 311–323.
Reimann, C., Filzmoser, P., 2000. Normal and lognormal data distribution in geochemistry:
death of a myth. Consequences for the statistical treatment of geochemical and envi-
ronmental data. Environ. Geol. 39, 1001–1014.
Sadeghi, B., Moarefvand, P., Afzal, P., Yasrebi, A.B., Saein, L.D., 2012. Application of fractal
models to outline mineralized zones in the Zaghia iron ore deposit, Central Iran.
J. Geochem. Explor. 122, 9–19.
Sanderson, D.J., Roberts, S., Gumiel, P., 1994. A fractal relationship between vein thickness
and gold grade in drill core from La Codosera, Spain. Econ. Geol. 89, 168–173.
Shamseddin, M.M., Afzal, P., Gholinejad, M., Yasrebi, A.B., Sadeghi, B., 2014. Delineation of
geochemical anomalies using factor analysis and multifractal modeling based on
stream sediments data in Sarajeh 1:100,000 sheet, Central Iran. Arab. J. Geosci. 7,
5333–5343.
Soltani, F., Afzal, P., Asghari, O., 2014. Delineation of alteration zones based on Sequential
Gaussian Simulation and concentration–volume fractal modeling in the hypogene
zone of Sungun copper deposit, NW Iran. J. Geochem. Explor. 140, 64–76.
Sun, T., Liu, L., 2014. Delineating the complexity of Cu-Mo mineralization in a porphyry
intrusion by computational and fractal modeling: A case study of the Chehugou
deposit in the Chifeng district, Inner Mongolia, China. J. Geochem. Explor. 144,
128–143.
Sun, X., Gong, Q., Wang, Q., Yang, L., Wang, C., Wang, Z., 2010. Application of local singu-
larity model to delineate geochemical anomalies in Xiong'ershan gold and molybde-
num ore district, Western Henan province, China. J. Geochem. Explor. 107, 21–29.
Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., Sheriff, R.E., 1990. Applied geophysics. Cambridge University
Press (784 pp.).
Tukey, J.W., 1977. Exploratory data analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading, USA.
Turcotte, D.L., 1986. A fractal approach to the relationship between ore grade and ton-
nage. Econ. Geol. 81, 1528–1532.
Turcotte, D.L., 1997. Fractals and chaos in geology and geophysics. second edition.
Cambridge University Press (398 pp.).
Turcotte, D.L., 2002. Fractals in petrology. Lithos 65, 261–271.
Wang, J., Zuo, R., 2015. A MATLAB-based program for processing geochemical data using
fractal/multifractal modeling. Earth Sci. Inf. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12145-015-
0215-5.
Wang, Q., Deng, J., Liu, H., Wang, Y., Sun, X., Wan, L., 2011. Fractal models for estimating
local reserves with different mineralization qualities and spatial variations.
J. Geochem. Explor. 108, 196–208.
Wang, G., Carranza, E.J.M., Zuo, R., Hao, Y., Du, Y., Pang, Z., Sun, Y., Qu, J., 2012. Mapping of
district-scale potential targets using fractal models. J. Geochem. Explor. 122, 34–46.
Wang, Q., Deng, J., Zhao, J., Li, N., Wan, L., 2012. The fractal relationship between orebody
tonnage and thickness. J. Geochem. Explor. 122, 4–8.
Wang, W., Zhao, J., Cheng, Q., Liu, J., 2012. Tectonic–geochemical exploration modeling for
characterizing geo-anomalies in southeastern Yunnan district, China. J. Geochem.
Explor. 122, 71–80.
Wang, G., Pang, Z., Boisvert, J.B., Hao, Y., Cao, Y., Qu, J., 2013. Quantitative assessment of
mineral resources by combining geostatistics and fractal methods in the Tongshan
porphyry Cu deposit (China). J. Geochem. Explor. 134, 85–98.
41
Wang, W., Zhao, J., Cheng, Q., 2013. Fault trace-oriented singularity mapping technique to
characterize anisotropic geochemical signatures in Gejiu mineral district, China.
J. Geochem. Explor. 134, 27–37.
Xiao, F., Chen, J., Zhang, Z., Wang, C., Wu, G., Agterberg, F.P., 2012. Singularity mapping
and spatially weighted principal component analysis to identify geochemical anom-
alies associated with Ag and Pb–Zn polymetallic mineralization in Northwest
Zhejiang, China. J. Geochem. Explor. 122, 90–100.
Xiao, F., Chen, J., Agterberg, F.P., Wang, C., 2014. Element behavior analysis and its impli-
cations for geochemical anomaly identification: A case study for porphyry Cu–Mo de-
posits in Eastern Tianshan, China. J. Geochem. Explor. 145, 1–11.
Xie, S., Cheng, Q., Chen, G., Chen, Z., Bao, Z., 2007. Application of local singularity in
prospecting potential oil/gas targets. Nonlinear Process. Geophys. 14, 285–292.
Xu, Y., Cheng, Q., 2001. A fractal filtering technique for processing regional geochemical
maps for mineral exploration. Geochem. Explor. Environ. Anal. 1, 147–156.
Yousefi, M., Kamkar-Rouhani, A., Carranza, E.J.M., 2012. Geochemical mineralization prob-
ability index (GMPI): A new approach to generate enhanced stream sediment geo-
chemical evidential map for increasing probability of success in mineral potential
mapping. J. Geochem. Explor. 115, 24–35.
Yousefi, M., Kamkar-Rouhani, A., Carranza, E.J.M., 2014. Application of staged factor anal-
ysis and logistic function to create a fuzzy stream sediment geochemical evidence
layer for mineral prospectivity. Geochem. Explor. Environ. Anal. 14, 45–58.
Zhao, J., Wang, W., Dong, L., Yang, W., Cheng, Q., 2012. Application of geochemical anom-
aly identification methods in mapping of intermediate and felsic igneous rocks in
eastern Tianshan, China. J. Geochem. Explor. 122, 81–89.
Zhao, J., Wang, W., Cheng, Q., 2013. Investigation of spatially non-stationary influences of
tectono-magmatic processes on Fe mineralization in eastern Tianshan, China with
geographically weighted regression. J. Geochem. Explor. 134, 38–50.
Zhao, J., Zuo, R., Chen, S., Kreuzer, O.P., 2014. Application of the tectono-geochemistry
method to mineral prospectivity mapping: A case study of the Gaosong tin-
polymetallic deposit, Gejiu district, SW China. Ore Geol. Rev. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.oregeorev.2014.09.023.
Zimmerman, D., Pavlik, C., Ruggles, A., Armstrong, A.P., 1999. An experimental compari-
son ofordinary and universal kriging and inverse distance weighting. Math. Geol.
31, 375–390.
Zuo, R., 2011a. Decomposing of mixed pattern of arsenic using fractal model in Gangdese
belt, Tibet, China. Appl. Geochem. 26, S271–S273.
Zuo, R., 2011b. Identifying geochemical anomalies associated with Cu and Pb-Zn skarn
mineralization using principal component analysis and spectrum-area fractal model-
ing in the Gangdese Belt, Tibet (China). J. Geochem. Explor. 111, 13–22.
Zuo, R., 2012. Exploring the effects of cell size in geochemical mapping. J. Geochem.
Explor. 112, 357–367.
Zuo, R., 2014. Identification of geochemical anomalies associated with mineralization in
the Fanshan district, Fujian, China. J. Geochem. Explor. 139, 170–176.
Zuo, R., Cheng, Q., 2008. Mapping singularities – a technique to identify potential Cu min-
eral deposits using sediment geochemical data, an example for Tibet, west China.
Mineral. Mag. 72, 531–534.
Zuo, R., Cheng, Q., Agterberg, F.P., Xia, Q., 2009a. Application of singularity mapping tech-
nique to identify local anomalies using stream sediment geochemical data, a case
study from Gangdese, Tibet, western China. J. Geochem. Explor. 101, 225–235.
Zuo, R., Cheng, Q., Xia, Q., 2009b. Application of fractal models to characterization of ver-
tical distribution of geochemical element concentration. J. Geochem. Explor. 102,
37–43.
Zuo, R., Carranza, E.J.M., Cheng, Q., 2012. Fractal/multifractal modelling of geochemical ex-
ploration data. J. Geochem. Explor. 122, 1–3.
Zuo, R., Xia, Q., Zhang, D., 2013. A comparison study of the C-A and S-A models with sin-
gularity analysis to identify geochemical anomalies in covered areas. Appl. Geochem.
33, 165–172.
Zuo, R., Wang, J., Chen, G., Yang, M., 2015. Identification of weak anomalies: A multifractal
perspective. J. Geochem. Explor. 148, 12–24.