the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Particle size distributions in Earth Sciences: a review of techniques and a new procedure to match 2D and 3D analyses
Abstract. Particle size is an essential tool in many research areas spanning from Earth Sciences, Engineering, Material Sciences, Soil Sciences and Pharmacology, among others. Over the last decades, several techniques and methodologies have been developed to calculate particle size distributions on different sample types (i.e., cohesive versus loose), spanning from volumetric (3D) to image-aided (2D) analyses. Here, we (1) present a critical review of most commonly used techniques to calculate particle size distributions from cohesive and loose samples, and (2) we illustrate a new calculation formula to extract reliable 3D grain size distributions from 2D datasets. We propose the use of the “corrected volume-weighted mean diameter” (Dw), as a new particle size descriptor, which results from the summation of products between equivalent particle diameter and particle volume, divided by the total volume of analyzed particles. In this calculation, particles were approximated to perfect circles-spheres, but a shape correction factor was applied to consider deviations from the perfect spherical shape. We tested the accuracy of Dw calculation formula by analyzing 2D datasets acquired from thin sections of 5 selected granular sand samples having different mean grain diameters and grain size distributions (i.e., different sorting degree, grain size distribution width and skewness). Grains were manually digitized, and per each thin section more than 5,000 particles were acquired. Two-dimensional grain size distributions were cross-checked with the results provided via laser diffraction granulometry on the same samples and were compared with previously published and widely used calculation methods. Our promising results encourage the usage of Dw formula as it provides best matching results with 3D laser granulometry and needs basic input parameters that can be easily extracted from any image analysis software.
- Preprint
(5172 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(6793 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2636', Marco A. López-Sánchez, 20 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2636', Thomas Blenkinsop, 21 Dec 2023
This paper presents an intriguing idea to overcome the well known tomato salad problem: converting 2D grain size measurements into their 3D equivalent. The formula is simple, and its success is well tested by comparing the 2D measurements to results from laser granulometry. The answers make a compelling case for the method.
The paper is well illustrated and generally easy to follow, but it is written in a very exhaustive (and exhausting!) way, in which the results from each sample for each method are described in methodical but unnecessary detail. Hence the paper is far too long and should be revised to make it more accessible and increase its impact. A simple example is that individual results for the granulometry and the image analysis do not need to be presented as separate graphs. Figures 9 and 12 are unnecessary: all the information is captured and displayed more efficiently in Figures 10 and 14. As for the presentation of the results, far more use should be made of the tables: there is no need for text that is simply writing out what can be read in the tables. This text needs to be greatly reduced.
Another way in which the text cold be reduced is to remove most technical details of the samples and methods in section 4 to an appendix
One area where further clarity is required in the text is lines 471-477 describing how the grain size distributions were obtained from the raw numbers of equivalent area diameters.
Surprisingly there seems to be one critical table that is missing: the final comparison of the means from the two methods, which are summarised in the text in lines 839 – 851. This table should compare the 2D results with and without the optimum shape correction factors, as well as the error estimate.
Figure 11 is unnecessary. There are small corrections that could be made throughout the text to make it more readable: I have made suggestions on the attached file.
I look forward to seeing the final version of this useful paper.
- RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2636', Renée Heilbronner, 13 Jan 2024
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2636', Marco A. López-Sánchez, 20 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2636', Thomas Blenkinsop, 21 Dec 2023
This paper presents an intriguing idea to overcome the well known tomato salad problem: converting 2D grain size measurements into their 3D equivalent. The formula is simple, and its success is well tested by comparing the 2D measurements to results from laser granulometry. The answers make a compelling case for the method.
The paper is well illustrated and generally easy to follow, but it is written in a very exhaustive (and exhausting!) way, in which the results from each sample for each method are described in methodical but unnecessary detail. Hence the paper is far too long and should be revised to make it more accessible and increase its impact. A simple example is that individual results for the granulometry and the image analysis do not need to be presented as separate graphs. Figures 9 and 12 are unnecessary: all the information is captured and displayed more efficiently in Figures 10 and 14. As for the presentation of the results, far more use should be made of the tables: there is no need for text that is simply writing out what can be read in the tables. This text needs to be greatly reduced.
Another way in which the text cold be reduced is to remove most technical details of the samples and methods in section 4 to an appendix
One area where further clarity is required in the text is lines 471-477 describing how the grain size distributions were obtained from the raw numbers of equivalent area diameters.
Surprisingly there seems to be one critical table that is missing: the final comparison of the means from the two methods, which are summarised in the text in lines 839 – 851. This table should compare the 2D results with and without the optimum shape correction factors, as well as the error estimate.
Figure 11 is unnecessary. There are small corrections that could be made throughout the text to make it more readable: I have made suggestions on the attached file.
I look forward to seeing the final version of this useful paper.
- RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2636', Renée Heilbronner, 13 Jan 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
267 | 177 | 27 | 471 | 45 | 33 | 25 |
- HTML: 267
- PDF: 177
- XML: 27
- Total: 471
- Supplement: 45
- BibTeX: 33
- EndNote: 25
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1