The paper presents an interesting case study for the scientific community, but before its publication I suggest some modifications to improve the readability and its scientific value in the specific topic:
1. I suggest to substitute the term ERI with the most commonly used ERT (Electrical Resistivity Tomography) term;
2. Why do the authors show only 2 different investigation depths for the EMI models? Can they add maps at 3 m and 4 m depth, for example?
3. I suggest to add a new figure showing the comparison between the 1D curves obtained extracting the resistivity or conductivity values from the ERT section at the depth of investigation of the CMD-Explorer ( 1.1m, 2.1m, 2.2 m, 3.3 m and 4.3m) and the same curves obtained by the EMI measurements obtained by inversion, for examples referred at the PTA hand auger soundings positions (see fig.3).
4. I suggest to indicate the location of the ERT line in the maps of CMD inversion (fig. 8) and put the units of the measurements in the map scales (resistivity or conductivity??) using the same color scale for the ERT section in Fig. 5 to improve the readability of the results.
5. I suggest to make reference to some other work in this area, e.g. the recent : Regularized solution of a nonlinear problemin electromagnetic sounding, G.P. Deidda, C. Fenu and G. Rodriguez, Inverse Problems 30 (2014) 125014, (27pp) doi:10.1088/0266-5611/30/12/125014 |