Comparison of laser diffractometry and pipetting methods for particle size determination: A pilot study on the implications of result discrepancies on soil classification

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216305%3A26110%2F24%3APU154991" target="_blank" >RIV/00216305:26110/24:PU154991 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/saj2.20791" target="_blank" >https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/saj2.20791</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20791" target="_blank" >10.1002/saj2.20791</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Comparison of laser diffractometry and pipetting methods for particle size determination: A pilot study on the implications of result discrepancies on soil classification

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

In recent decades, the determination of particle size distribution (PSD) using the laser diffraction method (LDM) has become increasingly common, supplanting traditional sedimentation techniques. Advances in everything from sample preparation to software settings have been realized globally, whether through recommendations from laser diffraction (LD) manufacturers or through user experiences. These developments seek to enhance accuracy and diminish the uncertainties associated with new methodologies. Particularly in the determination of PSD using LDM on various LD instruments and in comparison with the sieve-pipette method (SPM), discrepancies in PSD frequently arise. This article aims to mitigate these discrepancies by predefining parameters, specifically through the adjustment of LD software settings and sample preparation (employing a uniform set of dispersed samples in potassium hydroxide) on two widely used LD instruments for soil measurements: Mastersizer 3000 and Analysette 22. Additionally, these samples were analyzed using the traditional SPM (ISO 11277, 1998), with the results from LDM and SPM subsequently compared. The paper also explores the impact, range of user options, and limitations of predefined software settings on both LD instruments. Eighty soil samples were analyzed for PSD, collected from arable land in the cadastral area of Hru & scaron;ky, district of B & rcaron;eclav (Czech Republic), in spring 2022, from depths of 0- to 10-cm and 10- to 20-cm. Significant differences in PSD were confirmed, although the trends of the grain size distribution curves were very similar to those of LDM. Results from the Mastersizer underestimated the clay fraction by an average of 17% compared to SPM, at the expense of the sand fraction, whereas the silt fraction was underestimated by a maximum of 4%. Conversely, Analysette 22 overestimated the silt fraction by an average of 37% at the expense of the sand fraction, confirming only a slight difference in the clay

Název v anglickém jazyce

Comparison of laser diffractometry and pipetting methods for particle size determination: A pilot study on the implications of result discrepancies on soil classification

Popis výsledku anglicky

In recent decades, the determination of particle size distribution (PSD) using the laser diffraction method (LDM) has become increasingly common, supplanting traditional sedimentation techniques. Advances in everything from sample preparation to software settings have been realized globally, whether through recommendations from laser diffraction (LD) manufacturers or through user experiences. These developments seek to enhance accuracy and diminish the uncertainties associated with new methodologies. Particularly in the determination of PSD using LDM on various LD instruments and in comparison with the sieve-pipette method (SPM), discrepancies in PSD frequently arise. This article aims to mitigate these discrepancies by predefining parameters, specifically through the adjustment of LD software settings and sample preparation (employing a uniform set of dispersed samples in potassium hydroxide) on two widely used LD instruments for soil measurements: Mastersizer 3000 and Analysette 22. Additionally, these samples were analyzed using the traditional SPM (ISO 11277, 1998), with the results from LDM and SPM subsequently compared. The paper also explores the impact, range of user options, and limitations of predefined software settings on both LD instruments. Eighty soil samples were analyzed for PSD, collected from arable land in the cadastral area of Hru & scaron;ky, district of B & rcaron;eclav (Czech Republic), in spring 2022, from depths of 0- to 10-cm and 10- to 20-cm. Significant differences in PSD were confirmed, although the trends of the grain size distribution curves were very similar to those of LDM. Results from the Mastersizer underestimated the clay fraction by an average of 17% compared to SPM, at the expense of the sand fraction, whereas the silt fraction was underestimated by a maximum of 4%. Conversely, Analysette 22 overestimated the silt fraction by an average of 37% at the expense of the sand fraction, confirming only a slight difference in the clay

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

40104 - Soil science

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach

Rok uplatnění

2024

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL

ISSN

0361-5995

e-ISSN

1435-0661

Svazek periodika

89

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

1

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

16

Strana od-do

„“-„“

Kód UT WoS článku

001377183600001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—