This paper summarizes the current status and progress of major system integration technologies for airborne geophysical prospecting used abroad from 2015 to 2020. During this period, some old systems were improved, while some became obsolete. Meanwhile, new system integration methods constantly emerged during this period. Specifically, towed birds using geomagnetic gradient began to be widely applied. At the same time, with the significant improvement of flight control and load capacity, UAVs were widely applied in magnetic, electromagnetic, gravity, and gamma-ray spectrometry fields. SQUID magnetic tensor gradiometers and FTG gravity tensor gradiometers were successively put into commercial airborne geophysical prospecting. The signal-to-noise ratio of electromagnetic systems was significantly improved, and CsI (Tl) scintillators were preferred by companies producing gamma-ray spectrometry instruments.
Zhang H R, Fan Z G. Recent advances in aerogeophysical techniques used abroad[J]. Geophysical and Geochemical Exploration, 2007, 31(1): 1-8.
[3]
Legault J M. Airborne electromagnetic systems:State of the art and future directions[J]. Recorder, 2015, 40(6): 38-49.
[4]
Veryaskin A V. Gravity, magnetic and electromagnetic gradiometry: Strategic technologies in the 21st Century (IOP Concise Physics)[M]. San Rafael: Morgan and Claypool Publishers, 2018.
[5]
Killeen P G. Mineral exploration trends and developments in 2015-2019[M]. Toronto, Ontario: The Northern Miner, 2020.
[6]
Tierney T M, Holmes N, Mellor S. Optically pumped magnetometers: From quantum origins to multi-channel magnetoencephalography[J]. Neuroimage, 2019, 199(1): 598-608.doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.05.063.
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.05.063
[7]
Butta M, Janosek M. Magnetic gradiometer with self-compensation of offset drift[C]// 2016 IEEE sensors, 2016.doi:10.1109/ICSENS.2016.7808502.
[8]
Maire P L, Bertrand L, Munschy M. Aerial magnetic mapping with an unmanned aerial vehicle and a fluxgate magnetometer: A new method for rapid mapping and upscaling from the field to regional scale[J]. Geophysical Prospecting, 2020, 68(7): 2307-2319.doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.12991.
doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.12991
[9]
Sander T H, Preusser J, Mhaskar R. Magnetoencephalography with a chip-scale atomic magnetometer[J]. Biomedical Optics Express, 2012, 3(5): 981-990.doi: 10.1364/BOE.3.000981.
doi: 10.1364/BOE.3.000981
pmid: 22567591
[10]
Veryaskin A V. Theory of operation of direct string magnetic gradiometer with proportional and integral feedback[J]. International Journal of Applied Electromagnetics and Mechanics, 2009, 29(3): 197-215.doi: 10.3233/JAE-2009-1014.
doi: 10.3233/JAE-2009-1014
[11]
Alem O, Sander T H, Mhaskar R. Fetal magnetocardiography measurements with an array of microfabricated optically pumped magnetometers[J]. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 2015, 60(12): 4797-4811.doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/12/4797.
doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/12/4797
[12]
Sheng D, Perry A R, Kryzyzewski S P. A microfabricated optically-pumped magnetic gradiometer[J]. Applied Physics Letters, 2017, 110(3): 031106.doi: 10.1063/1.4974349.
doi: 10.1063/1.4974349
[13]
Schiffler M, Queitsh M, Stolz R. Calibration of SQUID vector magnetometers in full tensor gradiometry systems[J]. Geophysical Journal International, 2014, 198: 954-964.doi: 10.1093/gji/ggu173.
doi: 10.1093/gji/ggu173
[14]
Chwala A, Stolz R, Zakosarenko V, et al. Full tensor SQUID gradiometer for airborne exploration[J]. ASEG Extended Abstracts, 2012.doi: 10.1071/ASEG2012ab296.
doi: 10.1071/ASEG2012ab296
[15]
Zuo B X, Wang L Z, Chen W T. Full tensor eigenvector analysis on air-borne magnetic gradiometer data for the detection of dipole-like magnetic sources[J]. Sensors, 2017, 17(9): 1976-1990.doi: 10.3390/s17091976.
doi: 10.3390/s17091976
[16]
Karl K, Alexander P, Legault J M. Airborne inductive induced polarization chargeability mapping of VTEM data[J]. ASEG Extended Abstracts, 2015.doi: 10.1071/ASEG2015ab104.
doi: 10.1071/ASEG2015ab104
[17]
Brown B, Effers F. The application of airborne geophysics for water exploration[J]. Recorder, 2017, 42(7): 14-19.
[18]
Karen G, Anne T, Russell M. The Forrestania and Nepean electromagnetic test ranges, Western Australia: A comparison of airborne systems[J]. ASEG Extended Abstracts, 2019.doi: 10.1080/22020586.2019.12073208.
doi: 10.1080/22020586.2019.12073208
[19]
Witherly K. Exploration Trends and Developments 2019 [J]. Preview, 2019. doi: 10.1080/14432471.2019.1623008.
doi: 10.1080/14432471.2019.1623008
[20]
Sattel D, Battig E. Passive EM processing of MEGATEM and HELITEM data[J]. ASEG Extended Abstracts, 2018.doi: 10.1071/ASEG2018abT7_4F.
doi: 10.1071/ASEG2018abT7_4F
[21]
Macnae J. Stripping very low frequency communication signals with minimum shift keying encoding from streamed time-domain electromagnetic data[J]. Geophysics, 2015, 80(6): 343-353.doi: 10.1190/geo2015-0304.1.
doi: 10.1190/GEO2015-0304.1
[22]
Karshakov E V, Podmogov Y G, Kertsman V M. Combined frequency domain and time domain airborne data for environmental and engineering challenges[J]. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 2017, 22(1): 1-11.doi: 10.2113/JEEG22.1.1.
doi: 10.2113/JEEG22.1.1
[23]
Moul F, Witherly K. A comparison of MobileMT with ZTEM and HELITEM over isolated conductors in the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, Canada[J]. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 2020: 1389-1393.doi: 10.1190/segam2020-3428466.1.
doi: 10.1190/segam2020-3428466.1
[24]
Smiarowski A, Miles P, Konieczny G. CGG’S New Helitem-C AEM Systems[J]. ASEG Extended Abstracts, 2018.doi: 10.1071/ASEG2018abT7_3F.
doi: 10.1071/ASEG2018abT7_3F
[25]
Konieczny G, Miles P, Smiarowski A. Breaking through the 25/30 Hz barrier: Lowering the base frequency of the Helitem airborne EM system[J]. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 2016: 2218-2222.doi: 10.1190/segam2016-13957502.1.
doi: 10.1190/segam2016-13957502.1
[26]
Chen T Y, Greg H, Philip M. MULTIPULSE-high resolution and high power in one TDEM system[J]. Exploration Geophysics, 2015, 46(1): 49-57.doi: 10.1071/EG14027.
doi: 10.1071/EG14027
[27]
Legault J M, Izarra C, Prikhodko A. Comparing VTEM time-domain EM and ZTEM natural field airborne EM survey results over the McArthur River unconformity uranium project[J]. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 2018.
[28]
Eadie T, Legault J M, Plastow G. VTEM ET: An improved helicopter time-domain EM system for near surface applications[J]. ASEG Extended Abstracts, 2018.doi: 10.1071/ASEG2018abW9_3H.
doi: 10.1071/ASEG2018abW9_3H
[29]
Jean L, Carlos I, Alexander P. Helicopter EM (ZTEM-VTEM) survey results over the Nuqrah copper-lead-zinc-gold SEDEX massive sulphide deposit in the Western Arabian Shield, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia[J]. Exploration Geophysics, 2015, 46(1): 36-48.doi: 10.1071/EG14028.
doi: 10.1071/EG14028
[30]
Andersen K K, Nyboe N S, Kirkegaard C. A System Response Convolution Routine for Improved Near Surface Sensitivity in SkyTEM Data[C]// First European Airborne Electromagnetics Conference, 2015.doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201413874.
[31]
Gissel P, Nyboe N S. Skytem high power systems: A new generation of airborne TEM transmitters[C]// Second European Airborne Electromagnetics Conference, 2017.doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201702155.
[32]
Nyboe N S, Mai S S. Recent advances in Skytem receiver system technologies[C]// Second European Airborne Electromagnetics Conference, 2017, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.201702157.
[33]
Leggatt P. Extending the range of time constants recorded by the SPECTREM AEM system[J]. Exploration Geophysics, 2015, 46(1): 136-139.doi: 10.1071/EG14029.
doi: 10.1071/EG14029
[34]
Devkurran N, Polomé L, Pitts B. Performance of the Spectrem PLUS system in Australian geological conditions[J]. ASEG Extended Abstracts, 2019.doi: 10.1080/22020586.2019.12073064.
doi: 10.1080/22020586.2019.12073064
[35]
Becken M, Nittinger C G, Smirnova M. DESMEX: A novel system development for semi-airborne electromagnetic exploration[J]. Geophysics, 2020, 85(6): 1-49.doi: 10.1190/geo2019-0336.1.
doi: 10.1190/geo2019-0336.1
[36]
Bingham D, Napier S, Mathieson T. Results from a galvanic HeliSAM survey over the Patterson Lake South uranium deposit[J]. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 2018.doi: 10.1190/segam2018-2998497.1.
doi: 10.1190/segam2018-2998497.1
[37]
Cattach M, Christopher P, Russell M. Sub-audio magnetics (SAM) — ground-based and HeliSAM FLEM trials at the Forrestania EM test range[J]. ASEG Extended Abstracts, 2018.doi: 10.1071/ASEG2018abT7_2F.
doi: 10.1071/ASEG2018abT7_2F
[38]
Fairhead J D, Cooper G R J, Sander S. Advances in Airborne Gravity and Magnetics[C]// Proceedings of Exploration 17: Sixth Decennial International Conference on Mineral Exploration, 2017: 113-127.
[39]
Lin C A, Chiang K W, Kuo C Y. Integration of INS and GNSS for gravimetric application with UAS[J]. International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 2018, XLII(1): 263-268.doi: 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-1-263-2018.
doi: 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-1-263-2018
[40]
Douch K, Christophe B. Ultra-sensitive electrostatic planar acceleration gradiometer for airborne geophysical surveys[J]. Measurement Science and Technology, 2014, 25(10): 105902-105903.doi: 10.1088/0957-0233/25/10/105902.
doi: 10.1088/0957-0233/25/10/105902
[41]
Douch K, Foulon B, Christophe B. A new planar electrostatic gravity gradiometer for airborne surveys[J]. Journal of Geodesy, 2013, 89(12): 1216-1219.doi: 10.1190/segam2013-1122.1.
doi: 10.1190/segam2013-1122.1
[42]
Evstifeev M I. The state of the art in the development of onboard gravity gradiometers[J]. Gyroscopy and Navigation, 2017, 8(1): 68-79.doi: 10.1134/S2075108717010047.
doi: 10.1134/S2075108717010047
[43]
DiFrancesco D. Advances in geophysical exploration: Sensors and platforms[C]// SEG Global Meeting Abstracts, 2019: 9-12.doi: 10.1190/GEM2019-003.1.
doi: 10.1190/GEM2019-003.1
[44]
Galder C, Dransfield M. Full Spectrum Gravity — Improving AGG data quality at both ends of the spectrum[J]. ASEG Extended Abstracts, 2016.
[45]
Hatch D, Wong H, Annecchione M. Validating the Gedex HD-AGG airborne gravity gradiometer[J]. ASEG Extended Abstracts, 2018.doi: 10.1071/ASEG2016ab111.
doi: 10.1071/ASEG2016ab111
[46]
Aravanis T. VK1-a next generation airborne gravity gradiometer[J]. ASEG Extended Abstracts, 2016.doi: 10.1071/ASEG2016ab318.
doi: 10.1071/ASEG2016ab318
[47]
International Atomic Energy Agency. Advances in Airborne and Ground Geophysical Methods for Uranium Exploration:NF-T-1.5[M]. Vienna:IAEA, 2013.
[48]
Mohammad U. A review on the adsorption of heavy metals by clay minerals, with special focus on the past decade[J]. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2016, 308(1): 438-462.doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2016.09.029.
doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2016.09.029
[49]
Steven V, Ronald K, Fenny E. A drone as platform for airborne gamma-ray Surveys to characterize soil and monitor contaminations[C]// 24th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 2018.doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.201802510.
[50]
Limburg J, Seht M I, Barrie C. Benchmarking a small footprint detector system for airborne surveying[R]. Medusa Systems BV, 2011.
[51]
Canciani A, Raquet J. Airborne magnetic anomaly navigation[J]. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2017, 53: 67-80.doi: 10.1109/TAES.2017.2649238.
doi: 10.1109/TAES.2017.2649238
[52]
Poddar S, Kumar V, Kumar A. A comprehensive overview of inertial sensor calibration techniques[J]. Journal of Dynamic Systems Measurements and Control, 2017, 139: 011006-011017.doi: 10.1115/1.4034419.
doi: 10.1115/1.4034419
[53]
Zhdanov M S, Wei L. Adaptive multinary inversion of gravity and gravity gradiometry data[J]. Geophysics, 2017, 82(6): 101-114.doi: 10.1190/geo2016-0451.1.
doi: 10.1190/geo2016-0451.1
[54]
Gao Q, Cheng D, Wang Y. A calibration method for the misalignment error between inertial navigation system and tri-axial magnetometer in three-component magnetic measurement system[J]. IEEE Sensors Journal, 2019, 19(24): 12217-12223.doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2019.2938297.
doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2019.2938297
