CHENG Peng, GAO Shu, LI Xu sheng. Evaluation of a Wide Range Laser Particle Size Analyses and Comparison with Pipette and Sieving Methods[J]. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 2001, 19(3): 449-455.
| Citation:
|
CHENG Peng, GAO Shu, LI Xu sheng. Evaluation of a Wide Range Laser Particle Size Analyses and Comparison with Pipette and Sieving Methods[J]. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 2001, 19(3): 449-455.
|
Evaluation of a Wide Range Laser Particle Size Analyses and Comparison with Pipette and Sieving Methods
- 1.
Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao,Shandong 266071;
- 2.
Department of Urban and Resources, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093
- Received Date: 2000-05-09
- Rev Recd Date:
2000-09-19
- Publish Date:
2001-09-10
-
Abstract
It is important to examine the performance of a laser particle size analyser and understand the discrepancy between it and pipette and sieving methods. In the present study, the results obtained using a Cials 940 L are evaluated and compared with pipette and sieving methods using natural and artificial sediment samples. Two procedures were used to test the reproducibility of Cilas 940 L, which show that the variability of statistical parameters (mean, sorting, skewness and kurtosis) is low,indicating that the reproducibility of Cilas 940 L is satisfactory. According to the measurement of 15 mud samples, the laser sizer underestimates the fraction of clay particles with an efficiency of detection proportional to the clay content determined from pipette analysis. The results obtained with the Cilas 940 L show somewhat greater mean size and lower sorting than the pipette method. The results of measurement on glass particles by Cilas 940 L are in agreement with the sieving method but have larger mean sizes and lower sorting than sieving analysis for natural sediment. Differences in the results between the laser method and pipette/sieving methods may be attributed to the various principles of the methods and the particle property (e.g. non sphericity of particles). For a geologist, it should be realized that there are limitations of modern instruments,and the grain size data obtained by different methods must be utilized and analysed in an appropriate way.
-
References
|
[1]
|
1.Comillault J Partide size analyzer 1972
2.Weiss E L;Frock H N Rapid analysis of particle-size distributions by laser light scattering[外文期刊] 1976
3.Swithenbank J;Beer J M;Taylor P S;Abbot D, McCreath G C Alaser diagnostic technique for themeasurement of droplet and particlesize distributions[A]
4.Weiner B B Particle and spray sizing using laser diffractkon 1979
5.Agrawal Y C;Riley J B Optical particle sizing for hydrodynamics based on near forward scattering1984
6.McManus J Grain size deter mi nation and interpretation 1988
7.McCave IN;BryantRS;Cook H F;Coughanowr C A. Evaluation of a laser-diffraction-size analyser for use with natural sediments 1986
8.Loizeau J L;Arbouille D;Santiago S;Vetoet J P. Evaluation of a wide range laser diffraction grain size aalyser for use with sediments 1994
9.Jomssz M Size, shape, composition and structure of microparticles from light scattering 1991
10.deBoerGBJ;deWeerd C;Thoenes D;Goossens H W J. Laser diffraction spectrometry: Fraunhofer diffraction versus Mie scattering 1987
11.Bayvel L P;Jones A R Electromagnetic scattering and its applications 1981
12.Agrawal YC;McCaveIN;RileyJB Laser diffraction size analysis 1991
13.Konert M;Vandenderghe J Comparison of laser grain size analysis with pipette and sieve analysis:a solution for the underestimation of the clay fraction 1997
14.Shillabeer N;Hart B;RiddleAM The use of a mathemmatical model to c ompare particle size data derived by dry sieving and laser analysis 1992
15.成都地质学院陕北队沉积岩(物)粒度分析及其应用 1978
16.SingerJ K;Anderson J B;Ledbetter M T An assessment of analytical techniques for the size analysisof fine-grained sediments. J 1988
17.Syvitski JPM;Leblanc K W G;AspreyKW Interlaboratory instru-mernt calibration expeririment 1991 |
-
-
Proportional views
-
DownLoad: