## 5 Discussion: Comprehensive Analysis of Turkey EQ
In addition, by grouping the anomalies according to their time of appearance (with respect to the mainshock origin time t\({}_{0}\), in abscissa) and their altitude (in ordinate), we can notice (Figure 25) that, also in the case of the major Turkey EQ, we find the following:  
* According to the seismic models, the emergence of lithospheric activity (the decreasing of \(b\)-value as stress increases) dates back even years before the great seismicity;
* Ionospheric anomalies are much more numerous than atmospheric ones but begin to appear more frequently within a few months to weeks before the mainshock;
* Moreover, some satellite anomalies appear well before atmospheric anomalies so they should be produced with another kind of coupling, which is not the progressive one from the lithosphere to atmosphere and ionosphere, but it is more direct. As in [80], if we remove these anomalies (those indicated in bold in Table 3) from the general trend of Figure 25, this appears with less oscillating parts. Figure 24: Comprehensive cumulative number of all anomalies. The red curve represents the best exponential fit, while the black curve is the best power-law fit. The type of anomaly is also indicated in correspondence with each point. These outcomes empirically strengthen at least two ways in the LAIC process: one from the lithosphere, through the atmosphere, to the ionosphere (\"thermodynamic\" or \"diffusive-delayed\" coupling); and another directly from the lithosphere to ionosphere (\"direct\" or electromagnetic coupling). The former one may correspond to the chemical channel or acoustic gravity channel of the [19] model, which takes place close to the surface of the Earth; the latter one does not practically interact with the atmosphere and is likely related to the EM coupling channel, impacting the magnetic field and ionospheric parameters, causing the precipitation of particles near, and around, the main earthquake. Here, we try to go a little deeper into the phenomena that occur in the earthquake enucleation zone, focusing on the chemical role of fluids in the processes of generation of the coupling, as, for example, modelled by [1; 19]. Specifically, among the anomalies coming from below, it is interesting to mention a mechanism detailed in [21]. It describes principally the active contribution of water chemistry in the earthquake nucleation zone: this mechanism lays the foundation for explaining the onset (and the time scales) of chemical and thermodynamic phenomena, and probably some of the electromagnetic anomalies, found in the observables above the Earth's surface. According to this model, the near-simultaneous CO\({}_{2}\), SO\({}_{2}\), and CO release data indicate that an intense flux of discharging fluids has been observed during the main shock preparation phase. Some authors report recognised chemical anomalies during the preparatory phase in air, CO and SO\({}_{2}\) in [81], and groundwaters, the Na, Cl, and SO\({}_{4}\) ion in [82]. The presence of a temporary higher content of SO\({}_{4}\) ion in groundwater should be the result of the reaction of an SO\({}_{2}\)-rich fluid that interacted with the groundwater. SO\({}_{2}\) reacted with H\({}_{2}\)O, thus forming the SO\({}_{4}\) ion. Given the deeper origin of fluids generally rich in components usually not detected at that level at the surface, namely, SO\({}_{2}\), CO\({}_{2}\), and CO (last one originated in horizons depleted in O\({}_{2}\)) could indicate a temporary increase of permeability due to microcrack formations and fracture coalescence around the deep nucleation zone. This nucleation zone could follow the [PERSON] mechanism of dilatancy diffusion [20] if and only if water is present in that rock volume. Assuming that supercritical water is present, given the temperature at that depth, the initially trapped water undergoes a series of chemical and physical modifications that produce the separation of some elements, some of which separate in supercritical aggregation states.