From: PO3::"QUATERNARY@MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA" "Research in Quaternary Science" 12-FEB-1996 14:02:00.49 To: Multiple recipients of list QUATERNARY CC: Subj: Particle Size - Digest Hi, A number of people have either asked me to forward a list of the responses I had to my recent query, or else display a digest on the listserv. I'll post all the responses so far in order that those wishing to discuss specific machines can contact other users. Again, I'll be in touch with those people who replied individually in time (soon!). I hope people do not object to their email addresses being passed on in this way. Many thanks once again to all those who took the trouble to reply. Regards, Steve Nolan snolan@liv.ac.uk ********************* Dear Dr. Nolan, I have a Spectrex laser particle counter. I am not sure how it compares to yours, but we have gone through many trials and tribulations trying to find a consistent and reproducible method of analysis. If I can be of any help let me know. Howard Mooers Howard Mooers, Heller Professor of Geology Department of Geology 230 Heller Hall 10 University Drive University of Minnesota Duluth, MN 55812 e-mail hmooers@d.umn.edu ******************** > I'd like to get in touch with other users of the Coulter LS130 laser > diffraction analyser, or other laser diffraction analysers (Malvern etc), > primarily to discuss methods of sample introduction, splitting etc. In our lab we have a Labtec 1000 Particle Size analyser, manufactured by Lazentec. It operates a bit differently from your standard laser analyser in that it estimates particle size from the reflected light pulse, rather than by diffraction. Although the finest channel size is labeled "<0.7 um" I don't believe it sees anything finer than 0.5 um. The instrument is fast, and yields fairly reproducible results, but is restricted to the silt/fine sand range, and I am not sure I have confidence in the ability of the algorithm that reconstructs the particle size distribution from the raw data to handle unusual particle distributions and types. > I'm working on deep-sea sediments, using particle size as a proxy for > bottom-current strength, although in terms of the procedural techniques > I'm interested in this is fairly irrelevant! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Only to a certain extent. You are interested in reconstructing flow conditions, and you therefore need to measure particles in the terms of their hydrodynamic equivalence, rather than specific physical dimensions (a large, flat mica grain may have a larger volume than a tiny heavy- mineral grain, but both may settle under the same conditions). Clearly you need an instrument that gives you the best estimate of hydrodynamic equivalence. (By the way, my PhD thesis was also on using particle size as a proxy for paleocurrents, so I had to consider a number of related issues.) > All my samples are less than > 63 microns, and I'm particularly interested in the 10-63 micron fraction. > I'm aware that many laser diffraction analysers have problems `seeing' the > clay fraction, and this is something I'm interested in discussing. > There doesn't seem to be any literature relating specifically to the LS130, > although I have one reference to the LS100. I am unfamiliar with this model. I believe you would find that most of the grain size gurus would advocate using the Sedigraph analyser because it measures hydrodynamic particle size, and determines the *complete* particle distribution, including clays. However, it too has its drawbacks, such as large sample size requirements, longer measurement time, cost, and technical complexity. Alternatively, you could consider a combination of techniques, such as a good old fashioned settling tube estimate of silt+clay, and clay, followed by an instrumental analysis of the silt size fraction. -- _/ _/_/_/ _/_/ Brian J. Haskell _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Limnological Research Center _/ _/_/_/ _/ University of Minnesota _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ 310 Pillsbury Drive. S.E. _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ Minneapolis, MN 55455-0219 Telephone: (612) 624-7005 Fax: (612) 625-3819 ********************* From: Bernard Dennielou To: snolan@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK Subject: Re: Particle Size Dear Steve, It's nice to hear from people brainstorming on my topic. I am also a user of the Coulter LS130 and also interested in particle size as a proxy of bottom-current strength and its changes in time. For sampling, as i can, i sample wet sediment right on the core and I try to take the amount needed for the measurement. This is easy to estimate with experience, the coarser the sediment is the more you need. As the sediment is not disturbed it is representative of the texture. Then I mix it with water and pour this in the "tank". I use ultrasound for 10 seconds before the measurement, I did the simplest I could. I used ultrasounds to disperse the particles (may be it's only for not feeling guilty of not doing it!). You are right, the LS130 is, not blind, but miopic in seeing the clay fraction, probably because these size classes are too close to the laser wavelength. I also noticed that below 1 um the result depends on the optical model. Anyway as the 10-60 um fraction is the one relevant to detect bottom currents activity it's no problem (variations inside this fraction do not depend on the accuracy in mesuring the clay content). As Brian Haskell says in his mail the most important in reconstructing bottom currents conditions is the hydrodynamic property the particle and its size is only one factor determining this property. I am working on deep-sea sediments from Azores Islands area. It means carbonate rich (70-80%) composed of nannofossils and foraminifera. One of my problems is to study paleobottom-currents from sortables silts (after McCave et al. 1995 in palaeoceanography), and I will try to assess paleaocurents strength from the size distribution of foraminifera (size>50um). For this i had to calculate the grain size distribution of carbonates from the grain size distribution of bulk sediment and of the residual (carbonate free) phase. The problem was the inconsistancy between the grain size distribution in volume % and the carbonate content in weight % but I think I found a way to resolve this problem, it considers the nature, the shape of carbonates and the principles of the analysis. Don't hesitate to ask me questions and to do remarks, I am writing my Phd thesis and I am glad to hear things that gives me food for thought. Bernard Bernard Dennielou IFREMER DRO/GM BP 70 29280 PLOUZANE CEDEX Tel: (33) 98 22 46 90 Fax: (33) 98 22 45 70 ******************** To: snolan@liverpool.ac.uk From: manley@middlebury.edu (Pat Manley) Subject: malvern Dear Stephen, I just recently did a multitude of samples from the Amazon deep-sea fan for an ODP project. I used the Malvern MasterSizer E. My samples ranged in size from 2 - 8.5 phi. In a comparison study I did with the sedigraph, modes were similar but the %clay/silt/sand ratios were distinctly different. Adrain Cramp at Univ. at Cardiff was going to do an intercompariosn of the various machines including the colter counter. You might contact him at SGLAC@CARDIFF.AC.UK. If you would like some of my comparison data, please let me know. Pat Manley ******************* To: snolan@liverpool.ac.uk From: skene@agc.bio.ns.ca (Kenneth Skene) Subject: Coulter LS130 Dear Steve: Through the grapevine, I got your request for information on the Coulter LS130 and a couple of names around Halifax came to mind. Tim Milligan (Bedford Institute of Oceanography): Tim.Milligan@scotia.dfo.ca Paul Hill (Dept. of Oceanography, Dalhousie University): Paul.Hill@Dal.Ca Both of these guys work on particle aggregation theory complemented by lab and field work. Hope this helps Ken *************************** * ____ * * <<<--- * Kenneth Skene * | * Department of Oceanography * \\\\\ | ///// * Dalhousie University * \\\\\ // \\ ///// * Halifax NS CANADA B3H 4J1 * \\\\\ ///// * tel 902 426-3438 (BIO) * \\\\\ ///// * 902 494-3670 (Dal) * // \\ * fax 902 426-4104 (BIO) * /// \\\ * 902 494-3877 (Dal) * /// \\\ * e-mail: skene@agc.bio.ns.ca * || || * * // \\ * * * *********** ******************* Dear Mr. Nolan, I saw your message on the Quaternary listserv. I will be using a Malvern laser diffraction particle sizer to work on particle size analysis of aeolian sediments from dust storms. I don't know if this is of any interest or relevance to your work or not. We need to do powder-in-air analysis only, because many of the samples contain a significant fraction of water-soluble evaporite grains. So far, I am just starting my work, by refurbishing and getting the instrument running; it has been in storage here for several years, and we need to link it up to a new computer. However, I have assembled a very large bibliography of all the studies I could find in just about any field of people who have done laser diffraction particle sizing studies. I just got via Interlibrary Loan a book edited by Barth titled "Modern Methods of Particle Size Analysis." Have you seen this? If not, I could check to see if there is a section on the instruments you are using. Feel free to keep in touch. Also, if you hear from any other users of the Malvern instruments- especially the 2600- please let me know who they are. Thank you. Sincerely, Dr. Thomas E. Gill Wind Erosion Research Unit U.S. Department of Agriculture (Agricultural Research Service) Route 3, Box 215 Lubbock, Texas 79401 USA email: tgill@mail.csrl.ars.usda.gov ******************** To: snolan@liverpool.ac.uk From: Douglas_R_Hardy@VALLEY.NET (Doug Hardy) Subject: particle size analysis Greetings- I've been meaning to get back to you, since your 1-18 message on the Quaternary List about particle sizers. Yes, I would be very interested in communicating with other users of laser diffraction instruments. In the past, I have considered setting up such a user group myself. We have an LS200, which expands upon the range of the LS100, and only considers particles larger than 0.45 micrometers. After much fiddling around, we are just now starting to use it on an operational basis. I agree with you that it would be helpful to discuss methods of sample splitting, introduction, dispersion, etc., as these greatly affect the instrument performance. I gather from your message that you were trying to establish interest in communication, rather than seeking responses specific to the methods issues. Please keep me posted about any future discussion. Thanks, Doug Hardy ***************************************************************** Douglas R. Hardy phones: (802) 649-1829 Dept. of Geosciences (413) 545-0659 Box 35820 fax: (413) 545-1200 Morrill Science Center e-mail: douglas.r.hardy@valley.net Univ. of Massachusetts dhardy@climate1.geo.umass.edu Amherst MA 01003 recent work: http://climate4.geo.umass.edu (under construction) ***************************************************************** To: snolan From: eleonard@cc.colorado.edu (Eric Leonard) Subject: Re: Particle Size - Thanks Dear Dr. Nolan - Somehow I must have missed your initial request on the Quaternary listserver. We are in the process of reseraching automated particle-size instrumentation for a purchase later in the year. Although I don't know what the precise question you asked on the listserver, I think some of the responses might be of interest to us in our attempt to educate ourselves about the relative merits and deficiencies of the various instruments available. If this is the case, I woul appreciate it greatly if you could forward any of the responses to me. Thanks very much, Eric Leonard Colorado College ******************** Hello- I would be very interested in some of the responces you received. If you could forward the useful ones I would be grateful. My project has not started yet and I still have time to make changes. Thank you- -- Sean Rockwell Ryan _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ University of South Carolina _/ _/ _/ _/ Dept. of Geological Sciences _/ _/ _/ _/ Columbia, SC 29208 USA _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ +1 803 777 5202 (office) ryan@epoch.geol.sc.edu (email) +1 803 777 6610 (fax) http://platypus.cs.sc.edu/~ryan (web) ******************** That's it! From: PO3::"QUATERNARY@MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA" "Research in Quaternary Science" 11-MAR-1996 12:12:55.11 To: Multiple recipients of list QUATERNARY CC: Subj: grain size Dear All I am a PhD student at Liverpool university, who has recently embarked on grain size analysis of a loess section from luochuan using our coulter. I'm intrigued/interested/concerned, at the maximum grain sizes being given. The max and mean grain size has been previously used as a proxy for max and mean wind strength. Apparently without any supporting calculation that it is possible to transport >100 micron particles thousands of miles from their source (inner mongolian, Gobi deserts etc) and by what mechanism. It seems to me that to be able to show whether this transport is possible I need a greater understanding of the source area or areas.Western papers on loess generally seem to avoid the problem of variations in source area during different climate regimes. I belive that in general the source area/areas stay the same but I would welcome any information anyone could give me relating to distal sources, local sources and the effects of climatic change in those areas. An intermediate guide to long range eolian sediment transport in cold climate environments would also be very useful. There are many papers regarding hot climates e.g Sahara, but is there a difference in the mechanisms between cold and hot climates? If anyone could suggest a meaningful equation with the relavant constants for particle tranport between these environments (and the effects of changing climate on the parameters) I would be eternally grateful. Eleanor Parker Geography Dept Liverpool University email e.j.parker@liv.ac.uk From: PO4::"QUATERNARY@MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA" "Research in Quaternary Science" 11-MAR-1996 14:07:21.50 To: Multiple recipients of list QUATERNARY CC: Subj: Re: grain size >Somehow work into your model that not all pollen grains are spheres. The >reason that pollen grains >100 micrometers can "fly" is because of the >enhanced surface to weight ratio, that is, having bladders. As far as I >can think, bladder-type grains (Pinaceae) are the only wind-borne pollen >grains to fly the aforementioned distances. Someone pls enlighten me if I >am incorrect.............. Pinaceae are the principal grains that are picked up in long-distance transport of this type, but I've gotten occasional grains of Ephedra (Mormon Tea, Ephedraceae) in northern Alaska, and I understand grains of Juglans and Aesculus have been swept up from the lower elevations of the west flank of the Sierra Nevada of California and blown over the mountains and off into the desert basins on the eastern side of the mountains (Estella Leopold's work). None of these, however, have been statistically significant occurrences, though. - Bob Nelson *********************************************** Alter Ego: The Mad Viking! Robert E. Nelson, Chair Phone: [207] 872-3247 Department of Geology FAX: [207] 872-3555 Colby College e-mail: renelson@colby.edu 5804 Mayflower Hill Drive Waterville, Maine 04901-8858 "Good science consists mostly of play disguised as work." - E. O. Wilson *********************************************** From: PO2::"QUATERNARY@MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA" "Research in Quaternary Science" 11-MAR-1996 13:13:58.99 To: Multiple recipients of list QUATERNARY CC: Subj: Re: grain size Dear Eleanor, Somehow work into your model that not all pollen grains are spheres. The reason that pollen grains >100 micrometers can "fly" is because of the enhanced surface to weight ratio, that is, having bladders. As far as I can think, bladder-type grains (Pinaceae) are the only wind-borne pollen grains to fly the aforementioned distances. Someone pls enlighten me if I am incorrect. You do not mention the time-frame involved in your study. If we are dealing with the Cenozoic or Mesozoic then perhaps wind is not the only mechanism for transport, perhaps ancient rivers emptying into lakes hundreds of miles distant, that subsequently dried, and winds picked up and retransported the grains into your Quaternary? loess. S. >Dear All > >I am a PhD student at Liverpool university, who has recently embarked on >grain size analysis of a loess section from luochuan using our coulter. I'm >intrigued/interested/concerned, at the maximum grain sizes being given. The >max and mean grain size has been previously used as a proxy for max and >mean wind strength. Apparently without any supporting calculation that >it is possible to transport >100 micron particles thousands of miles from >their source (inner mongolian, Gobi deserts etc) and by what mechanism. >It seems to me that to be able to show whether this transport is possible >I need a greater understanding of the source area or areas.Western papers on >loess generally seem to avoid the problem of variations in source area during >different climate regimes. I belive that in general the source area/areas >stay the same but I would welcome any information anyone could give me >relating to distal sources, local sources and the effects of >climatic change in those areas. An intermediate guide to long range >eolian sediment transport in cold climate environments would also be very >useful. There are many papers >regarding hot climates e.g Sahara, but is there a difference in the mechanisms >between cold and hot climates? If anyone could suggest a meaningful equation >with the relavant constants for particle tranport between these environments >(and the effects of changing climate on the parameters) I would be >eternally grateful. > > >Eleanor Parker >Geography Dept >Liverpool University > >email e.j.parker@liv.ac.uk Scott T. Clay-Poole, Ph.D. Botany/Pollen Paleoecology P.O. Box 47331, WSDOT Olympia, Washington, 98504-7331 U.S.A. sclay@wsdot.wa.gov http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/eesc/environmental/Communications.htm From: PO4::"QUATERNARY@MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA" "Research in Quaternary Science" 11-MAR-1996 14:07:21.50 To: Multiple recipients of list QUATERNARY CC: Subj: Re: grain size >Somehow work into your model that not all pollen grains are spheres. The >reason that pollen grains >100 micrometers can "fly" is because of the >enhanced surface to weight ratio, that is, having bladders. As far as I >can think, bladder-type grains (Pinaceae) are the only wind-borne pollen >grains to fly the aforementioned distances. Someone pls enlighten me if I >am incorrect.............. Pinaceae are the principal grains that are picked up in long-distance transport of this type, but I've gotten occasional grains of Ephedra (Mormon Tea, Ephedraceae) in northern Alaska, and I understand grains of Juglans and Aesculus have been swept up from the lower elevations of the west flank of the Sierra Nevada of California and blown over the mountains and off into the desert basins on the eastern side of the mountains (Estella Leopold's work). None of these, however, have been statistically significant occurrences, though. - Bob Nelson *********************************************** Alter Ego: The Mad Viking! Robert E. Nelson, Chair Phone: [207] 872-3247 Department of Geology FAX: [207] 872-3555 Colby College e-mail: renelson@colby.edu 5804 Mayflower Hill Drive Waterville, Maine 04901-8858 "Good science consists mostly of play disguised as work." - E. O. Wilson *********************************************** From rodbelld@GAR.UNION.EDUWed Aug 14 14:23:49 1996 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 13:31:20 -0230 From: "Donald T. Rodbell" Reply to: Research in Quaternary Science To: Multiple recipients of list QUATERNARY Subject: Re: grain size analysis >Does anyone out there know of a lab that will do grain >size analysis of small quantities (< 5 grams) of fine grained >(dominantly silt-clay) sediment? > >Thanks in advance! > >Ian Spooner, Assistant Professor >Department of Geology, Acadia University >Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada. >B0P 1X0 >ph. (902) 542-2201 x1312 >fax (902) 542-1454 >Email ian.spooner@acadiau.ca In response to Ian Spooner's query regarding particle size analysis for small samples, there are several laboratories in NY and New England that have set up laser diffraction particle size analyzers, which can analyze very small samples. One of these is at the University of Massachusetts, one is at Hamilton College (upstate NY), and I will be setting up such an instrument here at Union College in the upcoming weeks. Addresses for UMass and Hamilton are as follows: University of Masachusetts lab: Dr. Douglas R. Hardy phone: (802) 649-1829 or Dept. of Geosciences (413) 545-0659 Box 35820 fax: (413) 545-1200 Morrill Science Center E-mail: douglas.r.hardy@valley.net Univ. of Massachusetts dhardy@climate1.geo.umass.edu Amherst MA 01003 recent work: http://climate4.geo.umass.edu/ Hamilton College: Dr. Eugene Domack Geology Department Hamilton College Clinton, NY 13323 edomack@hamilton.edu 315-859-4741 I hope these are helpful! Donald T. Rodbell Department of Geology Butterfield Hall Union College Schenectady, N.Y. 12308-2311 email: rodbelld@gar.union.edu Phone: 518-388-6034 FAX: 518-388-6789