Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 406

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Petrographic classification of sand and sandstone

Garzanti, Eduardo·2019·Earth-Science Reviews

Abstract

Abstract Petrographic classifications of sand and sandstone proposed more than half a century ago are still in use, although they were formulated at a time when depositional and post-depositional sedimentary processes were poorly understood, and before the relationships between tectonics and sedimentation could be interpreted in modern plate-tectonic terms. As a consequence, too many scientific articles and technical reports are still encumbered with obsolete concepts, graphical tools, and ambiguous terminology that make sediment descriptions awkward and misleading. A renovation that treasures the legacy of the pioneers is required. The descriptive petrographic classification of sand and sandstone proposed in this paper is based on the quasi-universally used Gazzi-Dickinson point-counting method, and simply translates into words ternary compositions of quartz, feldspar, and lithic fragments without introducing any new names. The classic QFL plot is subdivided into 15 fields - labelled by adjectives introduced long ago by K.A.W. Crook and endorsed by W.R. Dickinson and more recently by G.J. Weltje - which reflect relative abundances of the three main framework components (provided they exceed 10%QFL). According to standard use, the less abundant component goes first, the more abundant last (e.g., litho-feldspatho-quartzose composition translates into Q > F > L > 10%QFL). For lithic-rich sand and sandstone, information on the prevailing rock fragment type can be added by an additional free adjective (e.g., metamorphiclastic, carbonaticlastic), as proposed long ago by R.V. Ingersoll. For lithic-poor feldspatho-quartzose and quartzose sand and sandstone, further formal subdivisions are proposed based on the Q/F ratio, thus reaching a total of 18 compositional fields overall. Modern sand known to be derived from different source rocks and found in major world's rivers, deserts, and deep-sea fans fits in the pigeonholes defined by the relative abundance of quartz, feldspar, and lithic fragments. The aim of this classification is to restore directness in sandstone petrology, and to avoid ambiguities generated in the past by making reference to badly defined archetypes, such as greywacke or arkose, thus confusing petrographic composition with subjective considerations about plate-tectonic setting, texture, hydraulic behaviour, mechanical durability, or chemical durability in the illusion that a classification could be genetic at the same time as descriptive.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.12.014

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 64 references

Cited by

See all 406

Metadata

Authors
Garzanti, E.
Venue
Earth-Science Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
192
Pages
545-563
ISSN
0012-8252 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2906700722
Cited by
406
References
64
FWCI
20.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Petrographic classification of sand and sandstone. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.12.014
The paper
Garzanti, E. (2019). Petrographic classification of sand and sandstone. Earth-Science Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.12.014

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.