Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:01:05.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laser-diffraction and pipette-method grain sizing of Dutch sediments: correlations for fine fractions of marine, fluvial, and loess samples

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2016

P. Buurman ,
Th. Pape ,
J.A. Reijneveld ,
F. de Jong  and
E. van Gelder
P. Buurman*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Soil Science and Geology, Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 37, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
Th. Pape
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Soil Science and Geology, Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 37, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
J.A. Reijneveld
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Soil Science and Geology, Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 37, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
F. de Jong
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Soil Science and Geology, Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 37, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
E. van Gelder
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Soil Science and Geology, Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 37, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
*corresponding author. e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

To evaluate correlations between silt and clay fractions determined by pipette method and laser diffraction, samples from Dutch fine marine, fluvial, and loess deposits were analysed by both methods. For fluvial deposits, correlations for fractions <2 and >50 μm were excellent (R2 > 0.95), those for 2–4, 4–8, 16–32 and 32–50 μm were satisfactory (R2 = 0.80 – 0.95), while that for the fraction 8–16 μm had an R2 of only 0.68. For marine deposits, correlations for <2 and >50 μm were in the same range, but those of all other fractions except 8–16 μm were lower. In the loess samples, correlations for all but the 8–16 μm fraction were unsatisfactory. Laser diffraction gave 42% of pipette clay in marine samples, and 62% in fluvial and loess samples if regressions are forced through 0. Sand fractions detected by laser diffraction were 107% of the sieve fraction in marine samples, and 99% in the fluvial samples. Correlations for fractions smaller than reference size are generally better than those for individual size fractions. Both the 2 μm and the 50 μm boundary cause problems in the comparison. The first because of platy shape of clay minerals, and the second due to both a change in method in the pipette/sieving procedure, and to non-sphericity of particles. Apparently, correlations for clay- and silt-size fractions obtained by pipette method and laser diffraction will be different for each type of sediment.

Keywords

clay fractionfluvial sedimentsgrain size distributionlaser diffractionloess sedimentsmarine sedimentspipette methodsilt fraction
Type
Research Article
Information
Netherlands Journal of Geosciences , Volume 80 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 49 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © Stichting Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 2001

References

Buurman, P., Pape, Th. & Muggier, C.C., 1997. Laser grain-size determination in soil genetic studies 1. Practical problems. Soil Science, 162:211–218.Google Scholar
Clemens, S.C. & Prell, W.L., 1990. Late Pleistocene variability of Arabian Sea summer monsoon winds and continental aridity: aeolian records from the lithogenic component of deep-sea sediments. Paleoceanography, 5:109–145.Google Scholar
Konert, M. & Vandenberghe, J., 1997. Comparison of laser grain size analysis with pipette and sieve analysis: a solution for the underestimation of the clay fraction. Sedimentology, 44:523–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loizeau, J.L., Arbouille, D., Santiago, S. & Vemet, J.P., 1994. Evaluation of a wide-range laser diffraction grain-size analyser for use with sediments. Sedimentology, 41:353–361.Google Scholar
Loveland, P.G. & Whalley, W.R., 1991. Particle size analysis. In: Smith, K.A. & Mullins, C.E. (eds). Soil Analysis - Physical Methods. Marcel Dekker (NewYork): 271–328.Google Scholar
McCave, I.N., Bryant, R.J., Cook, H.F., & Coughanowr, C.A., 1986. Evaluation of a laser diffraction size analyser for use with natural sediments. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 56:561–564.Google Scholar
McCave, I.N., Manighetti, B., & Robinson, S.G., 1995. Sonable silt and fine sediment size/composition slicing: parameters for paleo-current speed and paleoceanography. Paleoceanography, 10:593–610 Google Scholar
Muggler, C.C., Pape, Th. & Buurman, P., 1997. Laser grain-size determination in soil genetic studies 2. Clay content, clay formation, and aggregation in some Brazilian Oxisols. Soil Science, 162:219–228.Google Scholar
Müller, R.H. & Schuhmann, R., 1996. Teilchengrössenmessung in der Laborapraxis. Wissenschafliche Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (Stuttgart): 191pp.Google Scholar
Pape, Th, 1996. Sample preparation for grain-size determination by laser diffraction. In: Buurman, P., Van Lagen, B. & Veithorst, E.J. (eds.): Manual for Soil and Water Analysis. Backhuys Publishers (Leiden): 287–290.Google Scholar
Van Doesburg, J.D.J., 1996. Particle-size analysis and mineralogical analysis. In: Buurman, P., Van Lagen, B. & Veithorst, E.J.(eds.): Manual for Soil and Water Analysis. Backhuys Publishers (Leiden): 251–278 Google Scholar
Zonneveld, P.C., 1994. Comparative investigation of grain-size determination (sieve/Malvern). Report No. OP 6500, State Geological Survey, Haarlem, The Netherlands.Google Scholar