Perceiving the crust in 3D: A model integrating geological, geochemical, and geophysical data Virginia Strati1,2, Scott A. Wipperfurth3, Marica Baldoncini2,4, William F. McDonough3,5, Fabio Mantovani2,4 1INFN, Legnaro National Laboratories, Padua, Italy 2Department of Physics and Earth Sciences, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy 3Department of Geology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, 20742 USA 4INFN, Ferrara Section, Ferrara, Italy 5Department of Earth and Planetary Materials Science and Research Center for Neutrino 9 Science, Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8578, Japan

Geologic Setting Huang et al. 2014 Scott A. Wipperfurth - UMD Sudbury Crustal Signal 20 Jan. 2017

Huang et al. 2014 Interpolated reflection surveys, refraction surveys, interpreted cross sections Simplified geologic map of Ontario Huang et al. 2014 Scott A. Wipperfurth - UMD Sudbury Crustal Signal 20 Jan. 2017

Huang et al. 2014 Huang et al. 2014 Scott A. Wipperfurth - UMD Sudbury Crustal Signal 20 Jan. 2017

Huang et al. 2014 Estimated total geoneutrino signal: 40 +6.0-4.0 TNU Estimated near-field geoneutrino signal: 15.6 +5.3-3.4 TNU Lithologic unit of UC Vol. (%) U (ppm) Th (ppm) S(U+Th) [TNU] Tonalite/Tonalite gneiss (Wawa-Abitibi) 60.6 0.7 +0.5 -0.3 3.1 +2.3 -1.3 2.2 +1.4 -0.9 Central Gneiss Belt (Grenville Province) 30.2 2.6 +0.4 -0.4 5.1 +6.0 -2.8 2.1 +0.4 -0.3 (Meta)volcanic rocks (Abitibi sub-province) 2.9 0.4 +0.4 -0.2 1.3 +1.2-0.6 0.02 +0.01 -0.01 Paleozoic sediments (Great Lakes) 1.3 2.5 +2.0 -1.1 4.4 +1.6 -1.2 0.05 +0.04 -0.02 Granite or granodiorite (Wawa-Abitibi) 2.2 2.9 +1.6 -1.0 19.9 +8.4 -6.0 0.5 +0.2 -0.1 HS, Sudbury Basin 2.7 4.2 +2.9 -1.7 11.1 +8.2 -4.8 7.3 +5.0 -3.0 Sudbury Igneous Complex 0.1 2.3 +0.2 -0.2 10.6 +0.7 -0.7 0.8 +0.1 -0.1 Huang et al. 2014 Scott A. Wipperfurth - UMD Sudbury Crustal Signal 20 Jan. 2017

Huang et al. 2014 Sample Locations Scott A. Wipperfurth - UMD Sudbury Crustal Signal 20 Jan. 2017

Huang et al. 2014 Huronian Supergroup Signal 90% of signal from Huronian Supergroup within 25km of SNO+ Signal Total (%) Distance (km) from SNO+ detector Scott A. Wipperfurth - UMD Sudbury Crustal Signal 20 Jan. 2017

Geologic Model 112 Samples Sample/unit based on relative area 1:250,000 Geologic Map Ontario Base Map Original Simplified Sample locations are far from the detector. # of samples / formation is not uniform nor relative to formation area or volume. Furthermore, many samples are from major mining areas. Why are these areas enriched in Uranium and others are not? Is the area around Sudbury enriched as well? 112 Samples Sample/unit based on relative area Scott A. Wipperfurth - UMD Sudbury Crustal Signal 20 Jan. 2017

Geophysical Model Gravity Seismology Combination of gravity and seismic reflection surveys Seismology Thus we should concentrate our sampling in the nearest 25 km to SNO+ Huang et al., 2014 Olaniyan et al., 2015 Scott A. Wipperfurth - UMD Sudbury Crustal Signal 20 Jan. 2017

Geophysical Model Chelmsford Fm Onwatin Fm Onaping Fm Granophyre 9 defined units Chelmsford Fm Onwatin Fm Onaping Fm Granophyre Norite-gabbro Cartier granite Thus we should concentrate our sampling in the nearest 25 km to SNO+ Huronian Supergroup Upper Crust Middle Crust Central Gneiss Belt Gneiss Tonalite Suite Strati et al., 2017 submitted Scott A. Wipperfurth - UMD Sudbury Crustal Signal 20 Jan. 2017

Geochemical Model http://www.fe.infn.it/italrad N = 112 40 Measured U, Th, K abundance with High-purity Germanium gamma spectrometer (HPGe) and ~14 samples w/ ICPMS 30 Frequency 20 Thus we should concentrate our sampling in the nearest 25 km to SNO+ 10 100 101 102 ppm U Scott A. Wipperfurth - UMD Sudbury Crustal Signal 20 Jan. 2017

Geochemical Model Huronian Supergroup Uranium = 4.2 −1.7 +2.9 ppm This Study (N = 51) Huang et al., 2014 (N = 212) Uranium = 2.67 −1.62 +4.15 ppm Uranium = 4.2 −1.7 +2.9 ppm Thorium = 8.18 −5.35 +15.4 ppm Thorium = 11.1 −4.8 +8.2 ppm Potassium = 1.99 −1.16 +1.79 wt% Th/U = 2.64 Th/U = 3.55 K/U = 8370 Thus we should concentrate our sampling in the nearest 25 km to SNO+ * Best fit with log-normal distribution Scott A. Wipperfurth - UMD Sudbury Crustal Signal 20 Jan. 2017

Final Results Huang etal. 2013 Huang etal. 2014 This Study 2017 Model Type Global Local Very Local Signal 34 30.7 31.2 + sigma 6.3 6.0 8.6 - sigma 5.7 4.2 4.7 31.2+8.6-4.7 TNU We derived these similar lithologies from a geologic map produced by the Ontario Geologic Survey Lack physical geometry of Huronian Supergroup sub-groups Scott A. Wipperfurth - UMD Sudbury Crustal Signal 20 Jan. 2017

Conclusion Created crustal model using geophysics, geology, and geochemistry Huronian Supergroup constitutes largest source of signal and uncertainty at SNO+ Due to U & Th heterogeneity Future models require discretization of the Huronian Supergroup We derived these similar lithologies from a geologic map produced by the Ontario Geologic Survey Huang et al., 2014 This Study Scott A. Wipperfurth - UMD Sudbury Crustal Signal 20 Jan. 2017

Similar work in Japan… Geological Geochemical Geophysical Isozaki et al. 2010 Scott A. Wipperfurth - UMD Sudbury Crustal Signal 20 Jan. 2017

Summer Institute: Using particle physics to understand and image the Earth - v2.0 When: ~10 days in July, 2018 Where: Ferrara, Italy Focus on: Cosmogenic Isotopes Geoneutrino Neutrino Tomography Muonography Ask Bill McDonough or Fabio Mantovani for details Scott A. Wipperfurth - UMD Sudbury Crustal Signal 20 Jan. 2017