人工加样技术对激光衍射测量土壤粒度分布的影响

IF 3.8 2区 农林科学 Q2 SOIL SCIENCE
Stanislav Paseka
{"title":"人工加样技术对激光衍射测量土壤粒度分布的影响","authors":"Stanislav Paseka","doi":"10.1111/ejss.70196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Accurate determination of the soil particle size distribution (PSD) is critical for a wide range of environmental, agronomic, and geotechnical applications. Laser diffraction method (LDM) has gained popularity because of its speed and reproducibility; however, it remains sensitive to sample preparation and introduction methods. This study evaluated the impact of three manual dosing techniques on PSD results obtained via laser diffraction for seven USDA-classified soil types, with the pipette method used as a reference. Each technique (A: pipetted suspension; B: semiliquid paste; C: dried material) was applied to 1050 measurements. The results revealed a systematic underestimation of clay and overestimation of silt fractions across all LDM techniques, with Technique A yielding the highest relative standard deviation (average RSD for clay: 16.8%; sand: 26.9%). Techniques B and C showed markedly better repeatability (clay RSDs: 7.1% and 10.2%, respectively), with silt exhibiting the highest measurement precision overall (mean RSD: 6.7%). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) confirmed that the choice of dosing technique significantly affected the measured clay fraction (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), whereas no statistically significant differences were found for silt or sand. All the laser-based techniques misclassified the soil texture in the USDA triangle, with most samples shifting to silt-dominated groups regardless of the true origin. These findings highlight that while LDM itself introduces systematic biases in PSD estimation, the choice of manual dosing technique—particularly uncontrolled suspension pipetting (Technique A)—further amplifies measurement variability, rendering it unsuitable for high-precision applications. These findings highlight the strong influence of manual dosing on LDM outcomes and confirm the unsuitability of uncontrolled suspension pipetting (Technique A) in precision analysis. Recommendations are provided for standardized manual procedures that can improve reproducibility and classification accuracy in soil laboratories.</p>","PeriodicalId":12043,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Soil Science","volume":"76 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ejss.70196","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of Manual Sample Dosing Techniques on Soil Particle Size Distribution Measured via Laser Diffraction\",\"authors\":\"Stanislav Paseka\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ejss.70196\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Accurate determination of the soil particle size distribution (PSD) is critical for a wide range of environmental, agronomic, and geotechnical applications. Laser diffraction method (LDM) has gained popularity because of its speed and reproducibility; however, it remains sensitive to sample preparation and introduction methods. This study evaluated the impact of three manual dosing techniques on PSD results obtained via laser diffraction for seven USDA-classified soil types, with the pipette method used as a reference. Each technique (A: pipetted suspension; B: semiliquid paste; C: dried material) was applied to 1050 measurements. The results revealed a systematic underestimation of clay and overestimation of silt fractions across all LDM techniques, with Technique A yielding the highest relative standard deviation (average RSD for clay: 16.8%; sand: 26.9%). Techniques B and C showed markedly better repeatability (clay RSDs: 7.1% and 10.2%, respectively), with silt exhibiting the highest measurement precision overall (mean RSD: 6.7%). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) confirmed that the choice of dosing technique significantly affected the measured clay fraction (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), whereas no statistically significant differences were found for silt or sand. All the laser-based techniques misclassified the soil texture in the USDA triangle, with most samples shifting to silt-dominated groups regardless of the true origin. These findings highlight that while LDM itself introduces systematic biases in PSD estimation, the choice of manual dosing technique—particularly uncontrolled suspension pipetting (Technique A)—further amplifies measurement variability, rendering it unsuitable for high-precision applications. These findings highlight the strong influence of manual dosing on LDM outcomes and confirm the unsuitability of uncontrolled suspension pipetting (Technique A) in precision analysis. Recommendations are provided for standardized manual procedures that can improve reproducibility and classification accuracy in soil laboratories.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12043,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Soil Science\",\"volume\":\"76 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ejss.70196\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Soil Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.70196\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOIL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Soil Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.70196","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOIL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

准确测定土壤粒度分布(PSD)对于广泛的环境、农艺和岩土工程应用至关重要。激光衍射法(LDM)因其速度快、重现性好而得到广泛应用;然而,它仍然对样品制备和引入方法敏感。本研究以移液法为参照,评估了三种人工给药技术对7种美国农业部分类土壤类型激光衍射所得PSD结果的影响。每种技术(A:移液悬浮液;B:半液体膏状;C:干燥材料)应用于1050次测量。结果显示,在所有的LDM技术中,对粘土组分的系统性低估和对粉砂组分的系统性高估,其中技术a产生的相对标准偏差最高(粘土的平均RSD为16.8%,砂的平均RSD为26.9%)。方法B和方法C具有较好的重复性(粘土RSD分别为7.1%和10.2%),其中粉土的测量精度最高(平均RSD为6.7%)。单因素方差分析(ANOVA)证实,给药技术的选择显著影响了测量的粘土含量(p < 0.001),而在淤泥或沙子中没有发现统计学上的显著差异。所有基于激光的技术都错误地分类了美国农业部三角地区的土壤质地,大多数样本都转移到淤泥为主的群体,而不管真正的来源。这些发现强调,虽然LDM本身在PSD估计中引入了系统偏差,但手动给药技术的选择——特别是不受控制的悬液移液(技术A)——进一步放大了测量的可变性,使其不适合高精度应用。这些发现强调了人工给药对LDM结果的强烈影响,并证实了不受控制的悬浮移液(技术A)在精度分析中的不适用性。为标准化的手工程序提供了建议,这些程序可以提高土壤实验室的可重复性和分类准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Effect of Manual Sample Dosing Techniques on Soil Particle Size Distribution Measured via Laser Diffraction

Effect of Manual Sample Dosing Techniques on Soil Particle Size Distribution Measured via Laser Diffraction

Effect of Manual Sample Dosing Techniques on Soil Particle Size Distribution Measured via Laser Diffraction

Effect of Manual Sample Dosing Techniques on Soil Particle Size Distribution Measured via Laser Diffraction

Effect of Manual Sample Dosing Techniques on Soil Particle Size Distribution Measured via Laser Diffraction

Accurate determination of the soil particle size distribution (PSD) is critical for a wide range of environmental, agronomic, and geotechnical applications. Laser diffraction method (LDM) has gained popularity because of its speed and reproducibility; however, it remains sensitive to sample preparation and introduction methods. This study evaluated the impact of three manual dosing techniques on PSD results obtained via laser diffraction for seven USDA-classified soil types, with the pipette method used as a reference. Each technique (A: pipetted suspension; B: semiliquid paste; C: dried material) was applied to 1050 measurements. The results revealed a systematic underestimation of clay and overestimation of silt fractions across all LDM techniques, with Technique A yielding the highest relative standard deviation (average RSD for clay: 16.8%; sand: 26.9%). Techniques B and C showed markedly better repeatability (clay RSDs: 7.1% and 10.2%, respectively), with silt exhibiting the highest measurement precision overall (mean RSD: 6.7%). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) confirmed that the choice of dosing technique significantly affected the measured clay fraction (p < 0.001), whereas no statistically significant differences were found for silt or sand. All the laser-based techniques misclassified the soil texture in the USDA triangle, with most samples shifting to silt-dominated groups regardless of the true origin. These findings highlight that while LDM itself introduces systematic biases in PSD estimation, the choice of manual dosing technique—particularly uncontrolled suspension pipetting (Technique A)—further amplifies measurement variability, rendering it unsuitable for high-precision applications. These findings highlight the strong influence of manual dosing on LDM outcomes and confirm the unsuitability of uncontrolled suspension pipetting (Technique A) in precision analysis. Recommendations are provided for standardized manual procedures that can improve reproducibility and classification accuracy in soil laboratories.

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
European Journal of Soil Science
European Journal of Soil Science 农林科学-土壤科学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
4.80%
发文量
117
审稿时长
5 months
期刊介绍: The EJSS is an international journal that publishes outstanding papers in soil science that advance the theoretical and mechanistic understanding of physical, chemical and biological processes and their interactions in soils acting from molecular to continental scales in natural and managed environments.
×
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