Remote Sensing Detection of Gases and Surface Anomalies as Potential Seismic Precursors

References

1. Akhoondzadeh, M. [2024]. Earthquake prediction using satellite data: Advances and ahead challenges. Advances in Space Research.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Akhoondzadeh, M. and Marchetti, D. [2023]. Study of the preparation phase of Turkey's powerful earthquake (February 6th, 2023) by a geophysical multi-parametric fuzzy inference system. Remote Sensing, 15(9), 2224.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Cui, Y., Huang, J., Zeng, Z. and Zou, Z. [2024]. CO emissions associated with three major earthquakes occurring in diverse tectonic environments. Remote Sensing, 16(3), 480.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Cui, Y., Ouzounov, D., Hatzopoulos, N., Sun, K., Zou, Z. and Du, J. [2017]. Satellite observation of CH4 and CO anomalies associated with the Wenchuan MS 8.0 and Lushan MS 7.0 earthquakes in China. Chemical Geology, 469, 185–191.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Cui, Y., Sun, F., Huang, J., Jiang, L., Zou, Z. and Du, J. [2024]. Variations in CH4 and CO2 emissions linked to tectonic deformation: Insights from satellite observations. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 25(4).
   [Google Scholar]
6. Hooper, A., Zebker, H., Segall, P. and Kampes, B. [2004]. A new method for measuring deformation on volcanoes and other natural terrains using InSAR persistent scatterers. Geophysical Research Letters, 31(23), L23611.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Huang, Y., Cui, J., Zhima, Z., Jiang, D., Wang, X. and Wang, L. [2024]. Construction of a fine extraction process for seismic methane anomalies based on remote sensing: The case of the February 6th, 2023, Türkiye–Syria earthquake. Remote Sensing, 16(16), 2936.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Khan, M.M., Ghaffar, B., Shahzad, R., Khan, M.R., Shah, M., Amin, A.H., Eldin, S.M., Naqvi, N.A. and Ali, R. [2022]. Atmospheric anomalies associated with the 2021 Mw 7.2 Haiti earthquake using machine learning from multiple satellites. Sustainability, 14(22), 14782.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Meng, Q. and Zhang, Y. [2021]. Discovery of spatial-temporal causal interactions between thermal and methane anomalies associated with the Wenchuan earthquake. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 230(1), 247–261.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Panchal, H., Saraf, A.K., Das, J. and Dwivedi, D. [2022]. Satellite-based detection of pre-earthquake thermal anomaly, coseismic deformation, and source parameter modelling of past earthquakes. Natural Hazards Research, 2, 287–303.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Pechnikov, A. [2025]. PyGMTSAR (Python InSAR) [Software]. INSAR.dev.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Pulinets, S. and Ouzounov, D. [2010]. Lithosphere-Atmosphere–Iono-sphere Coupling (LAIC) model – A unified concept for earthquake precursors validation. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 41(4–5), 371–382.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Velázquez-Bucio, M.M., Ferrario, M.F., Lacan, P., Muccignato, E., Pizza, M., Sridharan, A., Porfido, S., Gopalan, S., Núñez-Meneses, A. and Michetti, A.M. [2024]. Environmental effects and ESI-07 intensity of the Mw 7.7, September 19th, 2022, Michoacán, Mexico, earthquake. Engineering Geology, 343, 107776.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Wright, T.J. [2002]. Remote monitoring of the earthquake cycle using satellite radar interferometry. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 360(1801), 2873–2888.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Xu, X., Chen, S., Yu, Y. and Zhang, S. [2021]. Atmospheric anomaly analysis related to Ms > 6.0 earthquakes in China during 2020–2021. Remote Sensing, 13(20), 4052.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Zheng, C., Cui, Y., Jiang, L., Huang, J., Sun, F., Zou, Z. and Du, J. [2023]. Variations of multiple gaseous emissions associated with the great Sumatra earthquakes in 2004 and 2005. Chemical Geology, 618, 121311.
    [Google Scholar]