Path of Science: International Electronic Scientific Journal

The petroleum hydrocarbon contamination of shallow aquifers is a continuing problem in site characterisation because the geophysical signatures of hydrocarbon-bearing areas overlap with those of clean groundwater under certain geological and temporal conditions. This narrative review assesses the diagnostic capability of four classes of geophysical methods, electrical resistivity and induced polarisation, electromagnetic (ground penetrating radar, time-domain and frequency-domain electromagnetics), seismic, and combined multi-method methodologies, to distinguish between hydrocarbon and groundwater geophysical signatures at depths of 1-50 m onshore. Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were synthesised thematically between 2010 and 2025, with pre-2010 sources incorporated because no current substitute exists. Evidence was systematised by method class and evaluated for consistency, geographic coverage, and quality. The most field-proven combination was electrical resistivity imaging together with induced polarisation, but contamination age reverses the resistivity response between resistive and conductive conditions due to biodegradation. Ground penetrating radar eliminated thin layers of LNAPL that the resistivity techniques could not detect, but not where the conductivity of the subsurface was greater than 0.28 S/m. Seismic was used to map the structure rather than to perform outright fluid discrimination at low depths. Researchers obtained the most reliable discrimination results across different site conditions by using staged, multi-method workflows comprising structural characterisation, fluid-sensitive measurements, and geochemical validation. Practitioners examining contaminated sites should use ERT-IP as the primary screening tool, complement it with GPR when vadose-zone conditions are present, and verify the presence of the anomaly through targeted hydrochemical sampling.

1. Li, P., Karunanidhi, D., Subramani, T., & Srinivasamoorthy, K. (2021). Sources and consequences of groundwater contamination. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 80(1), 1–10. doi: 10.1007/s00244-020-00805-z

2. Kuppusamy, S., Maddela, N. R., Megharaj, M., & Venkateswarlu, K. (2020). Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons: Environmental Fate, Toxicity, and Remediation. Springer.

3. Kvenvolden, K. A., & Cooper, C. K. (2003). Natural seepage of crude oil into the marine environment. Geo-Marine Letters, 23(3–4), 140–146. doi: 10.1007/s00367-003-0135-0

4. Gaur, V. K., Sharma, P., Sirohi, R., Awasthi, M. K., Dussap, C., & Pandey, A. (2020). Assessing the impact of industrial waste on the environment and mitigation strategies: A comprehensive review. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 398, 123019. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123019

5. Eze, S. U., Ogagarue, D. O., Nnorom, S. L., Osung, W. E., & Ibitoye, T. A. (2021). Integrated geophysical and geochemical methods for environmental assessment of subsurface hydrocarbon contamination. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 193(7), 451. doi: 10.1007/s10661-021-09219-3

6. Sauck, W. A., Atekwana, E. A., & Nash, M. S. (1998). High Conductivities Associated With an LNAPL Plume Imaged by Integrated Geophysical Techniques. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 2(3), 203–212.

7. Atekwana, E. A., & Atekwana, E. A. (2009). Geophysical signatures of microbial activity at hydrocarbon contaminated sites: a review. Surveys in Geophysics, 31(2), 247–283. doi: 10.1007/s10712-009-9089-8

8. Deceuster, J., & Kaufmann, O. (2012). Improving the delineation of hydrocarbon‐impacted soils and water through induced polarisation (IP) tomographies: A field study at an industrial waste land. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 136, 25–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2012.05.003

9. Binley, A., Hubbard, S. S., Huisman, J. A., Revil, A., Robinson, D. A., Singha, K., & Slater, L. D. (2015). The emergence of hydrogeophysics for improved understanding of subsurface processes over multiple scales. Water Resources Research, 51(6), 3837–3866. doi: 10.1002/2015wr017016

10. Cassidy, N. J. (2007). Evaluating LNAPL contamination using GPR signal attenuation analysis and dielectric property measurements: Practical implications for hydrological studies. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 94(1–2), 49–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2007.05.002

11. Alao, J. O., Balarabe, B., Ayejoto, D. A., Abubakar, F., Otorkpa, O. J., & Eze, S. U. (2025). Evaluation of hydrocarbon and co-contaminants in groundwater and associated public health risks using electrical resistivity and hydrochemical data. Water Resources and Industry, 34, 100319. doi: 10.1016/j.wri.2025.100319

12. Blondel, A., Schmutz, M., Franceschi, M., Tichané, F., & Carles, M. (2014). Temporal evolution of the geoelectrical response on a hydrocarbon-contaminated site. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 103, 161–171. doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2014.01.013

13. Atekwana, E. A., Atekwana, E. A., Rowe, R. S., Werkema, D. D., & Legall, F. D. (2004). The relationship of total dissolved solids measurements to bulk electrical conductivity in an aquifer contaminated with hydrocarbons. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 56(4), 281–294. doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2004.08.003

14. Caterina, D., Orozco, A. F., & Nguyen, F. (2017). Long-term ERT monitoring of biogeochemical changes of an aged hydrocarbon contamination. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 201, 19–29. doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2017.04.003

15. Cassiani, G., Binley, A., Kemna, A., Wehrer, M., Orozco, A. F., Deiana, R., Boaga, J., Rossi, M., Dietrich, P., Werban, U., Zschornack, L., Godio, A., JafarGandomi, A., & Deidda, G. P. (2014). Noninvasive characterisation of the Trecate (Italy) crude-oil-contaminated site: links between contamination and geophysical signals. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 21(15), 8914–8931. doi: 10.1007/s11356-014-2494-7

16. Aal, G. Z. A., Slater, L. D., & Atekwana, E. A. (2006). Induced-polarisation measurements on unconsolidated sediments from a site of active hydrocarbon biodegradation. Geophysics, 71(2), H13–H24. doi: 10.1190/1.2187760

17. Orozco, A. F., Kemna, A., Oberdörster, C., Zschornack, L., Leven, C., Dietrich, P., & Weiss, H. (2012). Delineation of subsurface hydrocarbon contamination at a former hydrogenation plant using spectral induced polarisation imaging. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 136, 131–144. doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2012.06.001

18. Daniels, J. J., Roberts, R., & Vendl, M. (1995). Ground penetrating radar for the detection of liquid contaminants. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 33(1–3), 195–207. doi: 10.1016/0926-9851(95)90041-1

19. Porsani, J. L., Filho, W. M., Elis, V. R., Shimeles, F., Dourado, J. C., & Moura, H. P. (2004). The use of GPR and VES in delineating a contamination plume in a landfill site: a case study in SE Brazil. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 55(3–4), 199–209. doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2003.11.001

20. Chekirbane, A., Tsujimura, M., Kawachi, A., Lachaal, F., Isoda, H., & Tarhouni, J. (2014). Use of a time-domain electromagnetic method with geochemical tracers to explore the salinity anomalies in a small coastal aquifer in north-eastern Tunisia. Hydrogeology Journal, 22(8), 1777–1794. doi: 10.1007/s10040-014-1180-7

21. Li, J. (2012). Gas reservoir identification by seismic AVO attributes on fluid substitution. Applied Geophysics, 9(2), 139–148. doi: 10.1007/s11770-012-0323-7

22. Bachrach, R., & Nur, A. (1998). High-resolution of shallow-seismic experiments in sand; Part 1, Water table, fluid flow, and saturation. Geophysics, 63(4), 1225–1233. doi: 10.1190/1.1444423

23. Abbas, M., Jardani, A., Machour, N., & Dupont, J. (2017). Geophysical and geochemical characterisation of a site impacted by hydrocarbon contamination undergoing biodegradation. Near Surface Geophysics, 16(2), 176–192. doi: 10.3997/1873-0604.2017061

24. Kim, B., Joung, I. S., Yu, H., Jeong, J., Song, S. Y., Son, J., Yu, Y., Shin, J., Jo, H. Y., Kwon, M. J., & Nam, M. J. (2023). Delineation of LNAPL plumes in a clay-rich site in Gyeongsangnam-do Province, South Korea: integration of geophysical survey data with borehole data and soil sampling information. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 196(1), 47. doi: 10.1007/s10661-023-12202-9

25. Ntarlagiannis, D., Robinson, J., Soupios, P., & Slater, L. (2016). Field-scale electrical geophysics over an olive oil mill waste deposition site: Evaluating the information content of resistivity versus induced polarisation (IP) images for delineating the spatial extent of organic contamination. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 135, 418–426. doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2016.01.017

26. Reynolds, J. M. (2011). An Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geophysics (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

27. Atekwana, E. A., Sauck, W. A., & Werkema, D. D. (2000). Investigations of geoelectrical signatures at a hydrocarbon contaminated site. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 44(2–3), 167–180. doi: 10.1016/s0926-9851(98)00033-0

28. Annan, A. P. (2005). GPR methods for hydrogeological studies. In Water Science and Technology Library (pp. 185–213). doi: 10.1007/1-4020-3102-5_7

29. Wijewardana, Y. N. S., Shilpadi, A. T., Mowjood, M. I. M., Kawamoto, K., & Galagedara, L. W. (2017). Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) responses for sub-surface salt contamination and solid waste: modelling and controlled lysimeter studies. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 189(2), 57. doi: 10.1007/s10661-017-5770-4

30. McNeill, J.D. (1994) Principles and Application of Time Domain Electromagnetic Techniques for Resistivity Sounding. Technical Note TN-27, Geonics Ltd.

31. El-Kaliouby, H., & Abdalla, O. (2015). Application of time-domain electromagnetic method in mapping saltwater intrusion of a coastal alluvial aquifer, North Oman. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 115, 59–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2015.02.003

32. Fatti, J. L., Smith, G. C., Vail, P. J., Strauss, P. J., & Levitt, P. R. (1994). Detection of gas in sandstone reservoirs using AVO analysis: a 3-D seismic case history using the Geostack technique. Geophysics, 59(9), 1362–1376. doi: 10.1190/1.1443695

33. Jin, H., Liu, C., & Guo, Z. (2024). Gas prediction in tight sandstones based on the rock-physics-derived seismic amplitude variation versus offset method. Petroleum Science, 21(6), 3951–3964. doi: 10.1016/j.petsci.2024.06.006

34. Steeples, D. W. (2005). Shallow seismic methods. In Water Science and Technology Library (pp. 215–251). doi: 10.1007/1-4020-3102-5_8

35. Haines, S. S., & Ellefsen, K. J. (2010). Shear-wave seismic reflection studies of unconsolidated sediments in the near surface. Geophysics, 75(2), 59–66. doi: 10.1190/1.3340969

36. Haeni, F. P. (1986). Application of seismic refraction methods in groundwater modelling studies in New England. Geophysics, 51(2), 236–249. doi: 10.1190/1.1442083

37. Onyebueke, E. O., Manzi, M. S. D., & Durrheim, R. J. (2018). High-resolution shallow reflection seismic integrated with other geophysical methods for hydrogeological prospecting in the Nylsvley Nature Reserve, South Africa. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 15(6), 2658–2673. doi: 10.1088/1742-2140/aadbe3

38. Cunningham, K. J. (2013). Integrating seismic-reflection and sequence-stratigraphic methods to characterise the hydrogeology of the Floridan aquifer system in southeast Florida. Antarctica is a Keystone in a Changing World. doi: 10.3133/ofr20131181