PDF Download HTML

]" id="html" rel="external">HTML

[1]BAI Xue,YANG Yang,HUANG Tingting,et al.Comparison of Particle Size Distributions Measured by Laser Diffraction Method and Sieve-Pipette Method of Three Typical Soils in China[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2021,28(04):84-90.

Copy

Comparison of Particle Size Distributions Measured by Laser Diffraction Method and Sieve-Pipette Method of Three Typical Soils in China

Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume: 28 Number of periods: 2021 04 Page number: 84-90 Column: Public date: 2021-08-10

Title:: Comparison of Particle Size Distributions Measured by Laser Diffraction Method and Sieve-Pipette Method of Three Typical Soils in China

Author(s):: BAI Xue^1,2, YANG Yang^1,2, HUANG Tingting^1,2, WU Xintong^1,2, HE Tao^1,2, WANG Lijuan³, LIU Baoyuan²; (1.State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resources Ecology, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China; 2.School of Geography, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China; 3.Beijing Ming Tombs Forest Farm, Beijing 102200, China)

Keywords:: particle size distribution; laser diffraction method; sieve-pipette method; Chinese typical soils

CLC:: S152.3

DOI:: -

Abstract:: To investigate the differences of soil particle size distributions(PSD)measured by laser diffraction method(LDM)and the sieve-pipette method(SPM), eight size fractions of 250～2000 μm, 100～250 μm, 53～100 μm, 20～53 μm, 10～20 μm, 5～10 μm, 2～5 μm and <2 μm in three typical soils in China, i.e., black, cinnamon and purple soils were analyzed using LDM and SPM, and the particle size distributions were systematically compared. The results showed that in contrast to SPM, LDM consistently overestimated the fractions of 10～20 μm, 5～10 μm and 2～5 μm and underestimated the clay fractions <2 μm. Although the magnitude of either overestimation or underestimation varied among soil types, the absolute differences of particle fractions measured by LDM and SPM generally increased, as the particle size decreased. For the size fractions >20 μm, by comparison, the proportions determined by LDM could be higher or lower than, or statistically similar with those by SPM, depending on soil types. In the sieved particles of 250～2 000 μm and 100～250 μm obtained by SPM, LDM detected 34.6%～70.1% and 58.1%～70.6% of the corresponding size fractions, respectively, whereas, for those suspensions of the particles <100 μm obtained by SPM, LDM detected 52.7%～98.4% of the corresponding size fractions. The larger particles determined by LDM mostly fell in their neighboring size fractions, and the corresponding percentages exhibited increasing trends as the particle size decreased. The disparate soil PSDs measured by LDM and SPM result from the non-spherical shapes of the soil particles, especially the fine ones, and the specific difference depends on variation among soil types and size fractions.

References:: [1] Gee G W, Bauder J W. Particle-size Analysis[M]∥Klute A. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Madison WI, USA: Soil Science Society of America, 1986.
[2] Jonasz M. Size, Shape, Composition and Structure of Microparticles from Light Scattering[M]∥Syvistki J P M. Principles, Methods, and Application of Particle Size Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
[3] Yang Y, Wang L, Wendroth O, et al. Is the laser diffraction method reliable for soil particle size distribution analysis[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2019,83(2):276-287.
[4] Yang X L, Zhang Q Y, Li X Z, et al. Determination of soil texture by laser diffraction method[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2015,79(6):1556-1566.
[5] Bittelli M, Andrenelli M C, Simonetti G, et al. Shall we abandon sedimentation methods for particle size analysis in soils[J] Soil and Tillage Research, 2019,185:36-46.
[6] Konert M, Vandenberghe J. Comparison of laser grain size analysis with pipette and sieve analysis: a solution for the underestimation of the clay fraction[J]. Sedimentology, 1997,44(3):523-535.
[7] Taubner H, Roth B, Tippokotter R. Determination of soil texture: comparison of the sedimentation method and the laser-diffraction analysis[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 2009,172(2):161-171.
[8] Buurman P, Pape T, Reijneveld J A, et al. Laser-diffraction and pipette-method grain sizing of Dutch sediments: correlations for fine fractions of marine, fluvial, and loess samples[J]. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences, 2001,80(2):49-57.
[9] Wischmeier W H, Smith D D. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide to Conservation Planning[R]∥USDA-NRCS. Agriculture Handbook 537. Washington DC, USA:1978.
[10] Lane L J, Nearing M A. Water Erosion Prediction Project: Hillslope Profile Model Documentation[R]∥USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory. NSERL Report No.2. West Lafayette, IN, USA: 1989.
[11] 全国水土保持规划编制工作领导小组办公室,水利部水利水电规划设计总院.中国水土保持区划[M].北京:中国水利水电出版社,2016.
[12] 鲍玉海,丛佩娟,冯伟,等.西南紫色土区水土流失综合治理技术体系[J].水土保持通报,2018,38(3):143-150.
[13] Ry./zak M, Bieganowski A. Methodological aspects of determining soil particle-size distribution using the laser diffraction method[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 2011,174(4):624-633.
[14] 冯腾,陈洪松,张伟,等.激光粒度仪与沉降吸管法测定喀斯特地区土壤机械组成的对比研究[J].农业现代化研究,2013,34(1):100-103.
[15] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service(USDA-NRCS). National soil survey handbook, title 430-Ⅵ[EB/OL]. https:∥www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ref/?cid=nrcs142 p2_054242.
[16] 朱瑜,张卓栋,刘畅,等.激光粒度仪与吸管法测定土壤机械组成的比较研究:以不同退化程度栗钙土为例[J].水土保持研究,2018,25(3):62-67.
[17] 刘雪梅,黄元仿.应用激光粒度仪分析土壤机械组成的试验研究[J].土壤通报,2005,36(4):116-119.
[18] 杨金玲,张甘霖,李德成,等.激光法与湿筛—吸管法测定土壤颗粒组成的转换及质地确定[J].土壤学报,2009,46(5):772-780.
[19] Neumann A M, Kramer H J M. A comparative study of various size distribution[J]. Particle and Particle Systems Characterization, 2002,19(1):17-27.
[20] Sochan A, Bieganowski A, Bartmiński P, et al. Use of the laser diffraction method for assessment of the pipette method[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2015,79(1):37-42.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 2021-08-20