the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
How do we make a scan of Earth’s oceanic crust?
Abstract. Like computed tomography (CT) scans used in medicine to look inside human bodies, marine seismologists conduct controlled-source experiments to understand the characteristics of the oceanic lithosphere (rigid outer Earth's layer) that covers >70 % of the surface of our planet. While at sea aboard a research vessel, using the air compressed in an array of stainless-steel cylinders, we produce small earthquakes in the form of air bubbles that propagate through the water, Earth's crust, and mantle and return to be recorded by the instruments we place in the water column or on the seafloor. Although the technique was developed in the 1950s and has been extensively used by academia and industry for decades, it has remained obscured, primarily because it is conducted offshore, out of sight. To expose the less-known technique and show it as a possible career path, we designed a playful model that encourages interaction. Together with the model, we present fundamental Earth processes and the methods we use to explore them, followed by video materials we recorded at sea while collecting the data. Furthermore, to quantitatively evaluate our effort, we constructed age-adapted control quizzes completed by the participants before and after the workshop. These quizzes were designed to assess the student's understanding of the concepts, providing a clear measure of the workshop's effectiveness. We have already conducted the workshop package at several outreach events. Without any exception, the results of the quizzes show that students of ages (9–18 years improved their overall knowledge covered by the experiment. This result is a signal that supports the effectiveness of 'learning by doing' science in a playful, interactive way.
- Preprint
(3961 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(59 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 17 Dec 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4799', Sima Mousavi, 04 Nov 2025
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Milena Marjanovic, 05 Nov 2025
reply
Dear Dr. Mousavi,
We would like to thank you for your positive comments regarding our work and constructive suggestions for improving our manuscript. Each of the concerns you raised, we address below and make the adequate changes in the manuscript (which are also inserted here):
- Please explain what "fast," "ultrafast," and "slow" represent in Figure 1 and clarify them in the text.
To address this comment, we include a description of the fast-ultaslow spreading rates in the figure caption as follows:
The subduction zones (locations where oceanic plate is sliding under the continental) and mid-ocean ridges (locations where two plates are separating) is outlined and defined in Legend; The shades of gray color represent the variation of full spreading rate along mid-ocean ridges (in millimeters per year); based on the spreading rate we can distinguish the following categories: fast spreading with the spreading rate >80 mm/yr, intermediate ones with spreading rate between 40 and 80 mm/yr, slow-spreading centers with the rate varying from 20-40 mm/yr and ultraslow where the plates are separating at the rate <20 mm/yr.
Line 28 - we have already conducted -> we conducted
We modified the text accordingly.
Line 65 - Could you briefly explain whether there is a difference in data quality between dynamite and air-bubble sources? It would also be helpful to mention whether air bubbles have any environmental impact on marine life, similar to or different from dynamite.
Most comparison studies (conducted in the 1980s and 1990s) suggest that for short source-receiver offsets (i.e., multi-channel seismic), the signal produced by air guns is preferable with respect to the signal from dynamite sources. The benefits of lower frequencies and higher pressure that characterise the signal from the dynamic source become valuable for the wide-angle reflection/refraction at offsets greater than 150 km.
As elaborating on the differences is out of the scope of this study, in the text we simplify to:
"Theoretical calculations showed that although the mean pressure produced by air bubbles is ~8% of that of the signal produced by dynamite, for most of the surveys the former signal is more coherent (Staples et al., 1999). In addition, it is less dangerous for the source operation team aboard the vessel and less harmful for the ocean fauna."
To highlight that air guns still carry specific risks for marine life, in Section 3.2, we also add:
"As mentioned in the Introduction section, the harmful effects of seismic activity were significantly reduced by introducing the system of air guns instead of dynamite; however, the hazard to marine life is still present. To mitigate this, protocols for obtaining permits for seismic activities in specific areas are implemented, and the presence of a mammal observer team has become indispensable for every controlled-source seismic survey. "
Line 87 - qualitatitevly -> qualitatively and Line 90 – concived > conceived
Corrected.
Line 313 - Interesting psychological observation :)
Thank you!
Line 341 - What would you do to improve students' understanding of wave propagation in future sessions?
This is a very important remark, and to address it, we add the following sentence (and we will definitely include the simulation when conducting the experiment next time) :
"To address this gap in understanding, we consider including simplified simulations of the wave propagation during the introduction session."
Line 423 - audience > audience
Corrected.
Line 434 - What changes would you make to the quizzes?
For the meaningful improvement, we will need to work more closely with the schools, foremost to adapt the quizzes to the age of the participants (for instance, we propose one set of questions for the age range from 9 to 12, which may not be ideal); also, we noticed that multiple-choice questions pose problems for the evaluation.
Following the above, in the text we insert the following sentence:
"In parallel, we will also work on improving the quizzes by collaborating more closely with school teachers to adapt them to the school curriculum. In addition, we will eliminate multiple-choice questions as they pose problems at the evaluation stage (currently, the answer is considered correct if at least two correct answers are selected). "
Once again, thank you for your encouraging evaluation. We hope we have addressed all your concerns.
Kind regards,
Milena Marjanovic on behalf of the authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4799-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Milena Marjanovic, 05 Nov 2025
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 153 | 43 | 13 | 209 | 28 | 9 | 8 |
- HTML: 153
- PDF: 43
- XML: 13
- Total: 209
- Supplement: 28
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This manuscript is a valuable contribution to geoscience education and public engagement. It combines a hands-on experimental model with quantitative assessment in a way that is new for Marine Geosciences. The approach is engaging, innovative, and clearly shows educational value and outreach impact. The paper fits well within the scope of Geoscience Communication.
Below are comments and questions to improve clarity and completeness.
I enjoyed reading the introduction and found the video material excellent, it brings the experiment to life and effectively demonstrates the hands-on nature of the activity.
I appreciate the use of the Spilhaus projection in Figure 1. it’s a great choice for communicating the oceanic perspective.
Please explain what “fast,” “ultrafast,” and “slow” represent in Figure 1 and clarify them in the text.
Line 28 - we have already conducted -> we conducted
Line 65 - Could you briefly explain whether there is a difference in data quality between dynamite and air-bubble sources? It would also be helpful to mention whether air bubbles have any environmental impact on marine life, similar to or different from dynamite.
Line 87 - qualitatitevly -> qualitatively
Line 90 – concived > conceived
Line 313 - Interesting psychological observation :)
Line 341 - What would you do to improve students’ understanding of wave propagation in future sessions?
Line 423 - audience > audience
Line 434 - What changes would you make to the quizzes?