Comparison of Pipette and Laser Diffraction Methods in Determining the Granulometric Content of Fluvial Sediment Samples
Nowadays there is a growing demand for rapid and accurate determination of grain size distribution. The conventional pipette method is time-consuming and provides less detailed data compared to recently introduced methods. However, in Hungarian practice the pipette method is still considered to be t...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Szeged
2013-11-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Environmental Geography |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.2478/jengeo-2013-0006 |
| _version_ | 1817976282818805760 |
|---|---|
| author | Kun Ágnes Katona Orsolya Sipos György Barta Károly |
| author_facet | Kun Ágnes Katona Orsolya Sipos György Barta Károly |
| author_sort | Kun Ágnes |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Nowadays there is a growing demand for rapid and accurate determination of grain size distribution. The conventional pipette method is time-consuming and provides less detailed data compared to recently introduced methods. However, in Hungarian practice the pipette method is still considered to be the standard one, as there are a long series of measurements, and grain size thresholds used in sedimentology and soil sciences are based on this approach. The aim of our research was to determine the comparability of the laser diffraction method (LDM) with the conventional pipette method (PM), in order to investigate the controversial question on the interchangeability of the two methods. Based on our measurements on some representative fluvial sediment samples, we found that the largest difference in results can be expected in the silty grain size range. However if the main fractions (clay, silt, sand) are considered the methods provided similar very results, and correlation factors were above 0.92. In all, the LDM has a clear advantage because of its speed, reproducibility and fewer possibilities for operator failure. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T22:01:35Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-c3d998c6e12248e796acacba1131bcb9 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2060-467X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T22:01:35Z |
| publishDate | 2013-11-01 |
| publisher | University of Szeged |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Environmental Geography |
| spelling | doaj.art-c3d998c6e12248e796acacba1131bcb92022-12-22T02:28:05ZengUniversity of SzegedJournal of Environmental Geography2060-467X2013-11-0163-4495410.2478/jengeo-2013-0006Comparison of Pipette and Laser Diffraction Methods in Determining the Granulometric Content of Fluvial Sediment SamplesKun Ágnes0Katona Orsolya1Sipos György2Barta Károly3Department of Physical Geography and Geoinformatics, University of Szeged, Egyetem u. 2-6, H-6722 Szeged, HungaryDepartment of Physical Geography and Geoinformatics, University of Szeged, Egyetem u. 2-6, H-6722 Szeged, HungaryDepartment of Physical Geography and Geoinformatics, University of Szeged, Egyetem u. 2-6, H-6722 Szeged, HungaryDepartment of Physical Geography and Geoinformatics, University of Szeged, Egyetem u. 2-6, H-6722 Szeged, HungaryNowadays there is a growing demand for rapid and accurate determination of grain size distribution. The conventional pipette method is time-consuming and provides less detailed data compared to recently introduced methods. However, in Hungarian practice the pipette method is still considered to be the standard one, as there are a long series of measurements, and grain size thresholds used in sedimentology and soil sciences are based on this approach. The aim of our research was to determine the comparability of the laser diffraction method (LDM) with the conventional pipette method (PM), in order to investigate the controversial question on the interchangeability of the two methods. Based on our measurements on some representative fluvial sediment samples, we found that the largest difference in results can be expected in the silty grain size range. However if the main fractions (clay, silt, sand) are considered the methods provided similar very results, and correlation factors were above 0.92. In all, the LDM has a clear advantage because of its speed, reproducibility and fewer possibilities for operator failure.https://doi.org/10.2478/jengeo-2013-0006laser diffraction methodpipette methodfluvial sedimentsgrain size distribution |
| spellingShingle | Kun Ágnes Katona Orsolya Sipos György Barta Károly Comparison of Pipette and Laser Diffraction Methods in Determining the Granulometric Content of Fluvial Sediment Samples Journal of Environmental Geography laser diffraction method pipette method fluvial sediments grain size distribution |
| title | Comparison of Pipette and Laser Diffraction Methods in Determining the Granulometric Content of Fluvial Sediment Samples |
| title_full | Comparison of Pipette and Laser Diffraction Methods in Determining the Granulometric Content of Fluvial Sediment Samples |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Pipette and Laser Diffraction Methods in Determining the Granulometric Content of Fluvial Sediment Samples |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Pipette and Laser Diffraction Methods in Determining the Granulometric Content of Fluvial Sediment Samples |
| title_short | Comparison of Pipette and Laser Diffraction Methods in Determining the Granulometric Content of Fluvial Sediment Samples |
| title_sort | comparison of pipette and laser diffraction methods in determining the granulometric content of fluvial sediment samples |
| topic | laser diffraction method pipette method fluvial sediments grain size distribution |
| url | https://doi.org/10.2478/jengeo-2013-0006 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kunagnes comparisonofpipetteandlaserdiffractionmethodsindeterminingthegranulometriccontentoffluvialsedimentsamples AT katonaorsolya comparisonofpipetteandlaserdiffractionmethodsindeterminingthegranulometriccontentoffluvialsedimentsamples AT siposgyorgy comparisonofpipetteandlaserdiffractionmethodsindeterminingthegranulometriccontentoffluvialsedimentsamples AT bartakaroly comparisonofpipetteandlaserdiffractionmethodsindeterminingthegranulometriccontentoffluvialsedimentsamples |