激光衍射干湿筛分法与比重计法在沙质生物滞留土介质粒度分析中的比较

Joseph S. Smith, R. Andrew Tirpak, William R. Osterholz, Ryan J. Winston
{"title":"激光衍射干湿筛分法与比重计法在沙质生物滞留土介质粒度分析中的比较","authors":"Joseph S. Smith,&nbsp;R. Andrew Tirpak,&nbsp;William R. Osterholz,&nbsp;Ryan J. Winston","doi":"10.1002/saj2.70079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Standardization of particle size analysis (PSA) is crucial to ensure the proper blending of stormwater filter media such as bioretention soil media (BSM). BSM typically contains &gt;80% sand and is amended with organic matter and fines (silt and clay) to support pollutant removal. However, there is currently no standardized PSA method to verify whether BSM meets design specifications. This study compares three PSA methods—hydrometer, dry sieving with laser diffraction (DS + LD), and wet sieving with laser diffraction (WS + LD)—to evaluate their accuracy and repeatability for analyzing sandy BSM. Twenty-seven BSM samples were collected from three bioretention cells in Ohio. Substantial variability in results was observed depending on the BSM sample mass used in the hydrometer method. Triplicate BSM analyses by both DS + LD (83.9 ± 1.7% sand, 9.6 ± 3.0% silt, 6.5 ± 2.7% clay) and WS + LD (84.1 ± 1.7% sand, 10.6 ± 2.2% silt, 5.3 ± 1.7% clay) demonstrated high intra- and inter-method agreement, especially for sand content. The hydrometer and WS + LD methods were the most consistent for measuring clay content. We recommend measuring the sand and fines fractions separately after appropriate dispersion when conducting PSA on sandy soils like BSM. Although PSA requires additional time and cost, ensuring the proper delivery of well-characterized BSM outweighs the costs of potential bioretention cell clogging and reconstruction. The method used for BSM textural analysis should be reported by laboratories and on delivery of BSM. Future research should focus on BSM pretreatment methods prior to analysis of the mineral fraction to establish a standardized method for BSM PSA.</p>","PeriodicalId":101043,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings - Soil Science Society of America","volume":"89 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/saj2.70079","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing dry and wet sieving with laser diffraction to the hydrometer method for particle size analysis of sandy bioretention soil media\",\"authors\":\"Joseph S. Smith,&nbsp;R. Andrew Tirpak,&nbsp;William R. Osterholz,&nbsp;Ryan J. Winston\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/saj2.70079\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Standardization of particle size analysis (PSA) is crucial to ensure the proper blending of stormwater filter media such as bioretention soil media (BSM). BSM typically contains &gt;80% sand and is amended with organic matter and fines (silt and clay) to support pollutant removal. However, there is currently no standardized PSA method to verify whether BSM meets design specifications. This study compares three PSA methods—hydrometer, dry sieving with laser diffraction (DS + LD), and wet sieving with laser diffraction (WS + LD)—to evaluate their accuracy and repeatability for analyzing sandy BSM. Twenty-seven BSM samples were collected from three bioretention cells in Ohio. Substantial variability in results was observed depending on the BSM sample mass used in the hydrometer method. Triplicate BSM analyses by both DS + LD (83.9 ± 1.7% sand, 9.6 ± 3.0% silt, 6.5 ± 2.7% clay) and WS + LD (84.1 ± 1.7% sand, 10.6 ± 2.2% silt, 5.3 ± 1.7% clay) demonstrated high intra- and inter-method agreement, especially for sand content. The hydrometer and WS + LD methods were the most consistent for measuring clay content. We recommend measuring the sand and fines fractions separately after appropriate dispersion when conducting PSA on sandy soils like BSM. Although PSA requires additional time and cost, ensuring the proper delivery of well-characterized BSM outweighs the costs of potential bioretention cell clogging and reconstruction. The method used for BSM textural analysis should be reported by laboratories and on delivery of BSM. Future research should focus on BSM pretreatment methods prior to analysis of the mineral fraction to establish a standardized method for BSM PSA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101043,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings - Soil Science Society of America\",\"volume\":\"89 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/saj2.70079\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings - Soil Science Society of America\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/saj2.70079\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings - Soil Science Society of America","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/saj2.70079","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

粒径分析(PSA)的标准化对于确保雨水过滤介质(如生物滞留土介质(BSM))的适当混合至关重要。BSM通常含有80%的沙子,并添加有机物和细粉(淤泥和粘土)来支持污染物的去除。然而,目前还没有标准化的PSA方法来验证BSM是否符合设计规范。本研究比较了比重计法、激光衍射干筛法(DS + LD)和激光衍射湿筛法(WS + LD)三种PSA法分析砂质BSM的准确性和可重复性。从俄亥俄州的3个生物滞留细胞中采集了27份BSM样本。根据比重计方法中使用的BSM样品质量,观察到结果的实质性变化。DS + LD(83.9±1.7%砂,9.6±3.0%粉土,6.5±2.7%粘土)和WS + LD(84.1±1.7%砂,10.6±2.2%粉土,5.3±1.7%粘土)的三次BSM分析表明,方法内和方法间的一致性很高,特别是在砂含量方面。比重计法和WS + LD法测定粘土含量最一致。我们建议在对BSM等沙质土壤进行PSA时,在适当分散后分别测量砂和细粒组分。虽然PSA需要额外的时间和成本,但确保正确递送具有良好特征的BSM比潜在的生物保留细胞堵塞和重建的成本要高。用于BSM结构分析的方法应由实验室报告并在BSM交付时报告。未来的研究应侧重于BSM的预处理方法,然后再进行矿物组分的分析,以建立BSM PSA的标准化方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing dry and wet sieving with laser diffraction to the hydrometer method for particle size analysis of sandy bioretention soil media

Standardization of particle size analysis (PSA) is crucial to ensure the proper blending of stormwater filter media such as bioretention soil media (BSM). BSM typically contains >80% sand and is amended with organic matter and fines (silt and clay) to support pollutant removal. However, there is currently no standardized PSA method to verify whether BSM meets design specifications. This study compares three PSA methods—hydrometer, dry sieving with laser diffraction (DS + LD), and wet sieving with laser diffraction (WS + LD)—to evaluate their accuracy and repeatability for analyzing sandy BSM. Twenty-seven BSM samples were collected from three bioretention cells in Ohio. Substantial variability in results was observed depending on the BSM sample mass used in the hydrometer method. Triplicate BSM analyses by both DS + LD (83.9 ± 1.7% sand, 9.6 ± 3.0% silt, 6.5 ± 2.7% clay) and WS + LD (84.1 ± 1.7% sand, 10.6 ± 2.2% silt, 5.3 ± 1.7% clay) demonstrated high intra- and inter-method agreement, especially for sand content. The hydrometer and WS + LD methods were the most consistent for measuring clay content. We recommend measuring the sand and fines fractions separately after appropriate dispersion when conducting PSA on sandy soils like BSM. Although PSA requires additional time and cost, ensuring the proper delivery of well-characterized BSM outweighs the costs of potential bioretention cell clogging and reconstruction. The method used for BSM textural analysis should be reported by laboratories and on delivery of BSM. Future research should focus on BSM pretreatment methods prior to analysis of the mineral fraction to establish a standardized method for BSM PSA.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信