The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of laser grain size analysis with pipette and sieve analysis: a solution for the underestimation of the clay fraction
Abstract
Classically, the grain size of soil and sediment samples is determined by the sieve method for the coarse fractions and by the pipette method, based on the ‘Stokes’ sedimentation rates, for the fine fractions. Results from the two methods are compared with results from laser diffraction size analysis, which is based on the forward scattering of monochromatic coherent light. From a point of view of laboratory efficiency, the laser sizing technique is far superior. Accuracy and reproducibility are shown by measurements on certified materials. It appears that laser grain size measurements of certified materials correspond very well with the certificated measurements. Tests were also done on a set of randomly selected sediments of fluvial, aeolian and lacustrine origin. Except for the (<2 μm) clay fraction, there is a coarsening of the mean diameter of one to two size classes (0.25 ɛ), caused by the non‐sphericity of the particles. The platy form of the clay particles induces considerable differences (eight size classes) between pipette and laser measurements: the <2 μm grain size, defined by the pipette method corresponds with a grain size of 8 μm defined by the Laser Particle Sizer for the studied sediments. Using a higher grain size level for the clay fraction, when laser analysis is applied, enables workers in the geological and environmental field to compare classical pipette analysis with a laser sizing technique.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Gee, G. W., & Or, D. (2002) · SSSA Book Series · doi:10.2136/sssabookser5.4.c12 · Cited by 964
Scattering matrices of mineral aerosol particles at 441.6 nm and 632.8 nm
Volten, H., Muñoz, O., Rol, E., de Haan, J. F., Vassen, W., Hovenier, J. W., Muinonen, K., & Nousiainen, T. (2001) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2001jd900068 · Cited by 435
Lombardo, U., Canal-Beeby, E., Fehr, S., & Veit, H. (2011) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2010.09.022 · Cited by 76
Sediment sorting at the Sand Motor at storm and annual time scales
Huisman, B. J. A., de Schipper, M. A., & Ruessink, B. G. (2016) · Marine Geology · doi:10.1016/j.margeo.2016.09.005 · Cited by 52
Castilla-Beltrán, A., Hooghiemstra, H., Hoogland, M. L. P., Pagán-Jiménez, J., van Geel, B., Field, M. H., Prins, M., Donders, T., Herrera Malatesta, E., Ulloa Hung, J., et al. (2018) · Anthropocene · doi:10.1016/j.ancene.2018.05.003 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- KONERT, M., & VANDENBERGHE, J.
- Venue
- Sedimentology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-06
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 523-535
- ISSN
- 0037-0746 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-3091
- OpenAlex
- W2133732249
- Cited by
- 1,133
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 28.39
- 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: Comparison of laser grain size analysis with pipette and sieve analysis: a solution for the underestimation of the clay fraction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-3091.1997.d01-38.x
- The paper
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3091.1997.d01-38.x
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.