This article should be cited as

Switzer, A.D., 2013. Measuring and analyzing particle size in a geomorphic context.
In: Shroder, J. (Editor in Chief), Switzer, A.D., Kennedy, D.M. (Eds.), Treatise on
Geomorphology. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, vol. 14, Methods in
Geomorphology, pp. 224–242.

Measuring and Analyzing Particle Size in a Geomorphic Context

Adam D Switzer

Earth Observatory of Singapore and Asian School of the Environment, Nanyang

Technological University, Singapore

Abstract
Measuring the particle-size distribution of sediments is a fundamental tool in
geomorphology. Boulder- and cobble-size material is generally measured by direct
measurement whereas a wide variety of techniques are available to determine grain-size
distributions for sand- to clay-dominated sediments. Commonly, a combination of methods
is needed and no particular technique can be considered 'more accurate' or 'more precise'
than another. This chapter reviews the main techniques used to obtain the particle-size
distribution of sediments samples and outlines some of the uses and limitations of each
technique along with a commentary on popular methods to present grain-size data.

Keywords
Cobble-cam; Folk; Geomorphology; Grain size; Particle size; Sedimentation; Settling
tube; Shepard; Sieving; Stokes law; Udden–Wentworth; Wolman pebble count

Glossary
ASTM - ASTM International, (formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)) is an international
standards organization that develops and publishes voluntary consensus technical standards for a wide range of
materials, products, systems, and services.
ISO - The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), is an international standard-setting body composed of
representatives from various national standards organizations.
LDA - Laser diffraction analysis (LDA) is a technique which utilizes properties of the diffraction patterns of a laser beam
passed through a substance, to measure the size of particles. Laser diffraction analysis is based on the principle that the
intensity of light scattered by a particle is directly proportional to the size of the particle. Commonly, the laser is passed
through the substance being examined, and the diffracted light focused onto a detector which measures the angular
distribution of the intensity of the scattered light.
PSA - In geomorphology, particle-size analysis (PSA) can be considered as any measurement of the size distribution of
individual particles in a soil or sediment sample.
PSD - The particle-size distribution (PSD) (also known as grain-size distribution) of a granular material (e.g., sediment) is
a list of values or a mathematical function that defines the relative amounts of particles present, sorted according to size.
SEM - Scanning electron microscopy.
Introduction
The grain or particle-size distribution (PSD) of sediments reflects relative energy and is
one of the fundamental environmental factors that control the erosion on the surface,
transport in the atmosphere, and water bodies and deposition of sediment particles, on the
Earth and other planetary bodies. Particle size is also relevant to many aspects of
engineering, petroleum, and agriculture industries (e.g., controls on aquifer porosity and
permeability in petroleum and groundwater studies). In most landform systems, the PSD of
constituent sediments reflects morphological characteristics associated with the physical
processes of landform development (e.g., Klingeman and Emmett, 1982,McCave and
Syvitski, 1991, Mason and Coates, 2001, Finkl, 2004, Buscombe and Masselink, 2006,
Cheetham et al., 2008 and Warrick et al., 2009). At any site of sediment mobility the PSD
varies considerably through space (e.g., bedforms and landforms) and time, thereby
exerting control over physical transport and sedimentation processes (Warrick et al.,
2009). The variety of grain sizes (Figure 1) encountered by geologists, geomorphologists,
and archeologists means that no one technique can be applied to all environments and
their associated landform components. It is generally desirable to have a convenient,
repeatable, precise, accurate, and representative means by which to assess sediment
grain sizes when reconstructing palaeoenvironments or investigating processes (see
discussions of Syvitski et al., 1991a, Syvitski et al., 1991b, Cheetham et al., 2008 and
Donato et al., 2009). Of course, the variety of landforms and sediments occurring in
depositional systems means that this desire must be traded against logistics of
collection/analysis, sample sizes, representativeness of samples collected versus results
obtained, and in many cases the economics of analysis. A myriad of PSA techniques are
available to the geomorphologist, particularly for those working with sand-sized material. A
number of papers exist that compare different techniques, and in many cases, comment
on the limitations or inaccuracies of one technique with respect to another (e.g., Agrawal et
al., 1991; McCave and Syvitski, 1991, Syvitski et al., 1991b and Konert and
Vandenberghe, 1997; McCave et al., 2006; Cheetham et al., 2008).

Figure 1. - A grain-size
comparator chart (to scale).
The chart shows the different
size fractions from silt (63 µm)
through to large cobbles (128–
256 mm). Such charts are
useful for field comparisons.
Measuring the Size of a Particle

Providing a definition for a ‘particle’ is not an easy task. According to the Dictionary
of Geological Terms, second editon (1984: 370), a particle is “a general term, used without
restriction as to shape, composition, or internal structure, for a separable or distinct unit of
rock e.g. a fragment or grain.” This differs slightly from ‘clasts,’ which are defined as “an
individual constituent grain, or fragment of a detrital sediment or sedimentary rock,
produced by the physical disintegration of a larger rock mass” by the same source (p. 90).
In geomorphology, the particles measured are generally composed of inorganic mineral
grains or rock fragments, although in some cases they may be organic. Some particles will
exhibit relatively molecular homogeneity (e.g., quartz grains) whereas others such as rock
fragments will be inhomogeneous in composition. Invariably, particles in most natural
sediments or soils will also be of varied density and shape (link to other chapter on shape).
This is problematic, particularly when analyzing platy sediments, carbonates, evaporates,
and sediments of highly variable density. One example is the analysis of carbonate grains
(see reviews in Folk and Robles, 1964; Kench and McLean, 1997; Kench, 1997) where the
vastly different densities and shapes occurring in biogenic sediments mean that
measurement devices and techniques will respond differently to the same particle. It is
therefore very important that any researcher compares the results from two different types
of sizing instruments. This chapter is not an attempt at an exhaustive review of the
problems and issues of particle-size analysis (PSA). Throughout the chapter problems that
arise with particular techniques or types of analysis will be considered. In such cases
some topical references will be cited. In order to contain the word length of this paper this
work will primarily deal with an assumption that the basic analysis needs of the reader
pertain to near-spherical grains of homogenous composition, for example, quartz sands.
Grain shape is also covered in detail elsewhere in this volume (link to other chapter on
shape).

Particle Size, Grain Size, and Particle Sizing

A comprehensive text edited by Syvitski, 1991a and Syvitski, 1991b shows that
although there are many methods for grain size, none have been adopted as a
comprehensive standard in sedimentology and geomorphology. One could argue that the
use of protocols of the International Standards Organization (ISO) or American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) are comprehensive standards (e.g., International Standard
Organization, 2009 and International Standard Organization, 1999a; ISO 9276-6, 2008
and ISO 13320, International Standard Organization, 1999a and International Standard
Organization, 1999b; ASTM, 2010) however, it is apparent that these standards are
primarily the result of a desire for consistent and comparable reporting procedures within
particular disciplines, rather than a result of applied research or a technical comparison of
applicability to particular situations.
The Imperfect Sphere: A Universal Problem in Geomorphology
Applying a single method or technique to particle size that is overlapping and
comparable is implausible as the universal technique would need to be equally applicable
to regular and irregular shapes. The simplest particle shape with respect to three-
dimensional geometry is a sphere, and visual inspection (microscopy or image analysis) is
the most straightforward measurement technique. When examining a sphere, its
perimeter, projected cross-sectional area, surface area, and volume can be described
unambiguously by one linear dimension (the diameter of the projected cross section)
provided you have a cross section through the mid-point of the sphere. Furthermore, a
sphere is the only shape that is geometrically isotropic, i.e., the projected cross-sectional
diameter remains constant regardless of the angle of view. The problem in the natural
world is that almost all natural particles project a different cross section at all angles of
view. As a result, for any nonspherical particle neither surface area nor volume can be
inferred from the projected cross section.

Overcoming the Irregularity of Particle Shape

The fact that an irregular particle can present a different cross section depending on
orientation is only one of the many measurement problems faced when determining
particle size. A second problem is that the cross section of an irregularly shaped particle
has different ‘diameters’ depending on where the chord is drawn (Webb, 2008). To
overcome this limitation and to simplify statistics many techniques assume sphericity and
as such produce an equivalent sphere value as all particle-sizing techniques aim to
provide a single number that is indicative of particle size. Most sizing techniques therefore
assume that the material being measured is spherical and report the particle size as the
diameter of the ‘equivalent sphere.’ In most cases the equivalent sphere approximation for
an irregularly shaped particle is dependent on the physical property measured by the
chosen technique (Figure 2). For example, laser diffraction techniques provide a diameter
of the sphere that yields an equivalent light scattering pattern to the particle being
measured.

Figure 2. - The primary goal of particle-sizing techniques is to provide a number indicative of the particle size.
However, particles are three-dimensional objects for which at least three parameters (length, breadth, and
height) are required for a complete description. Most sizing technques therefore assume that the material
being measured is spherical and report the particle size as the diameter of the ‘equivalent sphere’ which
would give the same response as the particle being measured. Courtesy of Alan Rawle, Malvern Instruments
Ltd.
Choosing the Right Particle-Sizing Technique or Instrument
The particle-sizing instrument and technique selected must be suitable for the
material to be measured and must also provide data to meet the specific needs of the
user. In some cases, this might mean fast, repeatable analyses, or it may mean high-
resolution and very accurate or precise results. In geomorphology and sedimentology, the
determination of the particle-size distribution alone is seldom the ultimate objective;
determining how a particle was transported or investigating the process of deposition or
landform development is generally the reason for the measurement. In this regard, the
characteristic actually being measured and related to size is commonly more important
than the actual particle size. However, particle size still remains one of the key
components in landscape reconstructions and process studies (Cheetham et al., 2008).
For example, sediment samples taken from river paleochannels are commonly analyzed
for PSD. Here, the primary interest is to characterize the deposition mechanism and
palaeoenvironments or to link process and landform together through physical properties.
For example, Chen et al. (1996) used grain size as a proxy for sedimentation velocity to
reconstruct the energy regime of paleochannels in northern China. All different particle-
sizing techniques are likely to produce different size results for the same particle, and all of
them are likely to be technically ‘correct.’ The best instrument for the application (the best
size definition) may be the one that most closely relates the ‘particle size’ to the application
of the user.

Sample Preparations: A General Note on Labeling and the Selection of Materials

for Particle-Size Analysis
In most geomorphology, sedimentology, or soil laboratories, numerous samples
enter the laboratory at any one time. A first step is to systematically check the material to
ensure legible identification numbers and labels are in place by laying out cores, sample
bags, bottles, or blocks of material sequentially. It is important to note external sample
identification and numbering, unless engraved on indestructible material, may become
unreadable (McManus, 1988). As a result relabeling with external or additional labels is
almost always needed (this is particularly the case for sandy samples). During this
checking process any gaps in a sampling sequence may also be identified and samples
lacking clear labels can be returned to their correct sequential position. If misplaced
samples cannot be identified with certainty, they have little value for subsequent analysis
and should be discarded.
In terms of PSD determination, further sample preparation depends on the form of
the size determination to be undertaken. For example, cobbles and pebbles may require
cleaning before examination. In most cases, washing in water is sufficient to remove mud
coatings (assuming data from the muds is unwanted). Conversely, sands derived from
oceanic, hypersaline or brackish conditions may contain quantities of salt within their pore
spaces that can become deposited during drying, cementing adjacent particles together,
and thus producing misleading analyses (see Loring and Rantala, 1992).
Where fine (mud) material is present, some techniques (e.g., sieve/pipette) require
a user to separate them by wet sieving so that the sands and mud fractions can be
examined separately using different techniques (see note in Box 1). In such cases it is
important that fine separation be carried out before drying of the sediment because silts
and clays can produce crusts or durable pellets on heating (McManus, 1988).
Although these crusts or pellets may break down to individual particles during
analysis, there is no guarantee that individual flakes of clay would become separated by
purely physical means. Combining these techniques may require dividing the sample into
two fractions to permit later recombination of the different analytical results.

Box 1 - A note of caution on salts and clays in saline environments

Fine-grained (silt and clay) samples collected from saline environments (e.g.,
estuaries, hypersaline lakes) can be problematic as the behavior of the finest size fractions
is partially determined by the relative concentration, and composition of salts in the
interstitial waters. The hydrochemistry partially determines if clays remain as discrete
particles or cluster together (forming flocs or aggregates) with diameters much larger than
the individual component particles. In such cases, washing the sample changes the salt
concentrations possibly inducing separation or aggregation of the particles (that in the
natural system would have been transported in a floc or aggregate). Hence the size
analysis may not be a true indicator of the relationship between the particles and their
dynamics. Although this issue is widely recognized, most researchers remove salts before
subjecting samples to water based treatments (e.g., pipette, hydrometer, or laser PSA).
Removal of water salts from fine sediments is best achieved using dialysis, although,
Buller and McManus (1979) suggested that washing sands three times with 1 L of
deionizer or distilled water will clean a 200 g sediment sample of salts. The issue of
removing salts is also discussed succinctly in the landmark paper on treating marine
sediments by Loring and Rantala (1992). This issue can also be partially overcome by
adding a dispersing agent to assist the separation of individual particles. However, a
caveat exists as some particles are transported and deposited as flocs. For example, on
the Cooper floodplain in Central Australia sediments in river channels and dunes are
characterized by clay-rich mud aggregates (or pellets) that exist in the river channels
(Nanson et al., 1986, Nanson et al., 1988 and Rust and Nanson, 1989) and in lunettes on
the lee side of playa lakes (e.g., Butler, 1956; Bowler, 1973)). In such a case the treatment
and process of disaggregating the sediments would not be reflective of the process of
bedload and aeolian transport of the aggregates. Those using settling characteristics (e.g.,
settling tube) for clays also face an additional hurdle, as clay particles will commonly
combine naturally to produce flocs or aggregates giving a misleading guide to the
dynamics of the depositional environment as flocs settle at greater rates than their
individual component particles. It is worthwhile to note that in almost all situations size
analysis of fine particles comes with inherent assumptions that present problems, as the
pre-analytical preparations can largely determine the results obtained.
Grain (Particle) Size Scales: The Udden–Wentworth Scale
The Udden–Wentworth scale (Table 1) has a relatively simple geometric
progression of sizes that are based on a logarithmic scale (phi (ϕ) scale) developed by
Krumbein (1934). The ϕ scale uses the (negative) logarithm to the base 2 of the grain
diameter (D, in millimeters) instead of simply the diameter itself, expressed as

This means that each size grade limit is twice as large as the next smaller grade
limit. For example, 32 mm is 25, 64 mm is 26, and so forth.

Using the phi scale also simplified the statistical computations popularized in the
1950s and 1960s (e.g., Folk, 1954, Folk, 1955 and Folk et al., 1970). Folk (1954)
developed and later refined a sediment textural classification scheme to describe mixtures
of mud, sand, and gravel that define the basic descriptive names for both unconsolidated
and lithified sediments. A modification of the phi scale in the 1960s generally agreed that
by adding a nominal value of Do=1 the phi system becomes dimensionless allowing it to
be correctly used for statistical analysis to derive factors such as the inclusive standard
deviation, skewness, and kurtosis of grain-size distributions ( McManus, 1963 and
Krumbein, 1964)

where Do is the diameter of a 1 mm grain.

The Udden–Wentworth scale was further modified in the late 1990s by Blair and
McPherson (1999) who upon recognizing that boulder sizes in natural environments can
range well beyond the 4.1 m maximum of the Udden–Wentworth scale, proposed an
expanded size scale to include mega-gravels up to an astonishing 1075 km in diameter
(see Chapter 14.13). Although the original and modified forms of Udden–Wentworth scale
remain the most popular scale in geomorphology, it is becoming apparent that the advent
of laser-based technologies, primarily developed from the materials engineering and
pharmaceutical industries, is reflected in a move to the practice of using microns (µm)
(e.g., Pye and Blott, 2004 and Cheetham et al., 2008).
Table 1. Comprehensive correlation table showing the relationships between phi sizes, millimeter diameters,
size classifications (Wentworth, 1922), and ASTM and Tyler sieve sizes. The table also shows the
corresponding intermediate diameters, grains per milligram, settling velocities, and threshold velocities for
traction
 Despite the general consensus on the Udden–Wentworth scale, a considerable and
long-running inconsistency remains. This relates to the finer fractions where despite
agreement on the form of the scale and grade boundaries in the coarser ranges, different
authors still place the silt-clay boundary variously at 2 µm (Briggs, 1977 and Friedman and
Sanders, 1978), which is a size commonly used by soil scientists, or at 4 µm, as in the
original Udden–Wentworth system (Tanner, 1969 and Pettijohn, 1975), or at 3.9 µm. The
same can be said for silt/sand boundary as summarized by a thought provoking, although
not terribly conclusive, discussion on this issue by Hesse (2003). The majority of
geomorphologists place the silt/sand boundary at 63 µm or 4 Phi (see Table 1).

Analytical Techniques
The following section reviews a number of common techniques for the analysis of
materials of different grain sizes. In some cases a step-by-step process is described, for
others references are supplied to key studies where step-by-step explanations can be
found.

Grain-Size Analysis of Gravel, Cobble, and Boulder Material

The task of obtaining accurate grain-size data from coarse sediments >64 mm can
be time-consuming and challenging. For example, Kellerhals and Bray (1971) and Adams
(1979) recommended that a sample mass for statistically acceptable sieve analysis of
cobble size material would range from tens to hundreds of kilograms depending on grain
size. Obviously, this is far more material than most researchers would like to extract from
the landscape. This appears excessive although it makes sense as sampling for PSA in
some environments (gravel-bed rivers, gravel beaches) is generally aiming to characterize
an extremely large population of sedimentary particles for which a complete census is
impractical. Sampling of coarse sediments must be random, comprise enough grains for
an adequate sample size, and be drawn from a relatively homogenous environment that is
representative of the landform in question. For environments dominated by sand-size
sediments and finer, it is relatively easy to obtain a large enough sample that can be
analyzed in the lab. In contrast, PSA analysis in environments dominated by gravel-,
cobble-, and boulder-size material commonly needs requisite sample sizes that are too
large or impractical to be transported off-site for measurement or logistically impractical to
sieve in the field.
The analysis of particle sizes of coarse unconsolidated sediments may be achieved
through direct measurement of individual pebbles, by pebble counts and more recently by
camera-based analysis (Warrick et al., 2007 and Warrick et al., 2009). Traditionally the
lengths of representative diameters or axes are determined with the aid of vernier calipers
(e.g., Briggs, 1977) by placing the particle (e.g., pebble) on a flat surface and measuring
the length of the intermediate axis, I. In this text we will use L, I, and S for large,
intermediate, and short axes, respectively (many studies use A, B, and C (e.g.,Switzer and
Burston, 2010)). The length of the largest axis, L, is always at right angles toI. A further
rotation of the particle by 90° about that axis reveals the shortest axis, S. Three mutually
perpendicular axes may be used to characterize the particle (Figure 3(a)). Averaging the
three lengths, I, L, and S, yields a mean diameter (DM) for the particle. Alternatively, a
mean diameter can be derived by immersing the pebble in water to determine the volume
of water displaced, from which the volumetric diameter is obtained (McManus, 1988).

Figure 3. (a) The measuring approach to pebbles for a

Wolman pebble count. (b) Students conduct Wolman
pebble counts in the Ashop River, Derby County,
England. Photograph courtesy of Farah Alamgir,
Loughborough University.

Two techniques for gravel and cobble analysis

To negate the problem of transporting large amounts of gravel material to the
laboratory, geomorphologists have developed various field-sampling techniques and
protocols.  The most enduring of such protocols is the Wolman Pebble Count (Figure 3(b)),
primarily used in gravel-bed rivers (Wolman, 1954). This technique involves randomly
collecting and measuring at least 100 particles from a homogeneous area of a streambed
(similar analysis can be applied to mixed or gravel beaches (Jennings and Shulmeister,
2002;Miller et al., 2011)). Generally a grain-size distribution is developed as the cumulative
frequency of numbers of clasts of different size classes. If the sampled clasts are of the
same density, which will generally only be true if sampling clasts derived from one
homogenous lithology, the results obtained will be comparable to a distribution by weight
(Kondolf, 1997; Kondolf et al., 2003). If the target material (landform) is composed of
particle sizes of heterogeneous-composition material, or recognizable facies, the analysis
may be improved by collecting populations of particles from each facies before calculating
a weighted average of grain-size distribution with estimated proportions of the sampled
landform occupied by each facies. A detailed discussion of this issue is in Kondolf et al.
(2003).

Cobble cam: An example of new gravel-size analysis technologies

Cobble cam is relatively a new autocorrelation technique developed by Rubin

(2004) to measure grain-size of fluvial and coastal gravel bars using digital photographs
(Warrick et al., 2009). This technique uses digital photos that are obtained from ~1 m
above the ground surface of a landform containing granule- to cobble-sized sediment (e.g.,
a gravel bar). The cobble cam is calibrated with physical measurements of the
intermediate and long dimensions of clasts in the field that are compared to the short and
long axes, respectively, measured from the digital photographic images. In most cases
calibration curves for the autocorrelation technique are generated from a series of the
‘best-sorted’ (well-sorted) samples in the digital photographs (Warrick et al., 2007 and
Warrick et al., 2009). Further analysis of gravel and boulder materials in a geomorphic
context is provided in the paper of Felton (link to chapter on gravel).

Analytical Techniques for Materials Composed Primarily of Sand, Silt, and Clay
Geomorphological investigations of landforms composed primarily of sand, silt, and
clay material, generally require the routine application of PSA (see reviews of Syvitski,
1991a and Syvitski, 1991b; Cheetham et al., 2008).
Several methods of obtaining particle-size distribution data are presently available
for use in sandy/muddy sediments. These include sieve/hydrometer (combined), X-ray
attenuation, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), sedimentation, and laser diffraction
techniques. The particle-size distribution of sediments has many applications in
geomorphology, for example, in fluvial geomorphology the PSA of a candidate deposit
allows for the determination of the paleocurrent conditions required to quarry and transport
sediment grains (Hjulstrom, 1939, Moss, 1962, Moss, 1963 and Miller et al., 1977). Clearly
this is not the only consideration, as grain morphology (see Chapter 14.20) also affects a
particles resistance to entrainment in a fluid and its time in suspension (Folk, 1980;
McCave et al., 2006; Cheetham et al., 2008). In almost all aspects of geomorphology PSA
along with determinants of grain morphology and the analysis of sedimentary structures,
provide a primary diagnostic tools for the interpretation and reconstruction of
palaeoenvironments (e.g., Leopold et al., 1964,Moss, 1972, Reineck and Singh, 1975 and
Schumm, 1977; Folk, 1980; McCave and Syvitski, 1991, Lario et al., 2001, Miall, 2006 and
Cheetham et al., 2008).

Sieving
Sieving is perhaps the oldest and most traditional of the analytical techniques for
sand and gravel sized material (Krumbein and Pettijohn, 1961; Folk, 1980Buller and
McManus, 1979). With an appropriate stack of sieves (Figure 4), particles between 0.002
and 250 mm in size may be separated into regular size class intervals. Although it is
possible to sieve silt particles, sieving is primarily used for size determination of sand-sized
material or greater (McManus, 1988). Sieve screens for dry sieving are commonly made of
strong wire mesh of stainless steel or brass with finer wire meshes used for smaller
particles. In contrast, wet sieving equipment is generally stainless steel or plastic with
Nylon sieves.
Figure 4. Brass sieves of different sizes and a Retch™ sieve shaker. Sieving has been a fundamental grain-
size technique for the best part of a century.

Dry sieving
The coarsest sieve required is placed at the top of the stack in which the square
screen openings become progressively smaller down the stack. Sieving generally gives
the intermediate measure of a particle because of the way particles orient themselves to
pass through the mesh. The particle sieve size can either be defined as the smallest sieve
size through which a particle can pass (Dpass), or as the largest sieve size through which
the particle did not pass, the retaining sieve size (Dret). The number of sieves reflects the
number of size fractions and hence the relative level of analytical detail. Once the sample
is in place, the sieve stack is generally agitated by a mechanical shaker for a
predetermined time interval, usually 15–20 min. The material retained in each sieve is
commonly emptied onto a sheet of paper, by tapping gently in a direction diagonal to the
mesh and sweeping with appropriate sieve brushes to release particles that are stuck in
the mesh (McManus, 1988). Each fraction of sediment obtained is weighed (usually to
0.01 g). The sieve mesh sizes, raw weights, weight percentages, and cumulative
percentages, finer or coarser than the specific sieve, can then be calculated.

Potential errors in dry sieving

Dry sieving is subject to potential errors from many sources such as; particle
aggregation where aggregates form clusters considerably larger than the original single
component grains (this can be checked by hand lens or binocular microscope); incomplete
cleaning of the mesh (leftover particles can restrict the aperture spaces) and overloading
of sieves that can restrict the opportunity for particles to progress down the nest to the
appropriate mesh. McManus (1965) suggested that a sieve load should not exceed 4–6
grain diameters high. Overloading may also cause mesh distortion which also introduces
error. For sand samples 100 g of material is generally adequate for sieving but larger
weights are required for coarse gravelly deposits (McManus, 1988). Considerable
disagreement also exists on the standardization of sieving time (Lewis and McConchie,
1994a and Loizeau and Stanley, 1994; McManus, 1988; Dalsgaard et al., 1991). For most
purposes acceptable reproducibility of analyses is obtained after 20 min (Dalsgaard et al.,
1991).
Wet sieving
Since many types of sediments contain mixtures of coarse and fine particles, the
dry sieving technique may not be appropriate for examination of the finer parts of the
sample. Traditionally, the finer particles require other methods of analysis (e.g., pipette
analysis) for which the separation of coarse and fine fractions was customarily made at the
silt/sand boundary. To wet sieve samples, some workers dry the whole sediment sample
to a constant weight at ~110 °C before resaturating in water containing a dispersant such
as sodium hexametaphosphate (Calgon). The sample is then periodically stirred in water
for ~1 h before being washed through 2000 and 63 µm sieves until the water runs clear.
The total content of different fractions can be determined as the difference between the
initial and the retained material weights. Although this analysis comes with a cautionary
note, some clay sized particles can become structurally altered at ~100 °C; so if any
further study is to be undertaken on the clay fraction, this method may not be appropriate.
If further analysis is to be undertaken one can use two identical subsamples (one dried
and one not). This will allow the collection of an undisturbed mud fraction, whose
proportional contribution to the whole sediment is now known from the other subsample.

Sedimentation methods for sand, silt, and clay

Before the advent of particle-size analysis by laser, the grain-size analysis of silts
and clays was primarily based on indirect computations of diameters based on observation
of the grains in fluids or the response of the fluids to grain-induced displacement. These
methods are collectively known as sedimentation methods and are based on the speed
with which particles settle through fluids. Such information yields settling velocities from
which equivalent grain diameters are then computed.
Computation of the equivalent diameters from settling velocities of particles is based
on Stokes’ Law of settling which assumes that sediment particles are dominantly spheres
of identical densities (almost certainly not true for most natural sediments). Stokes’ law is
based on the principle that when a particle is in static water it settles at a constant velocity
during which the gravitational force exerted on the particle is balanced by fluid resistances
represented by viscosity and the particle-drag coefficient. The balance is normally
represented by the equation:

where V is the settling velocity, D the particle diameter (mm), ρs and ρ the densities
s

of the grain and water, respectively, g is the gravitational acceleration, and µ is the
dynamic viscosity of the fluid. The size can then be determined by reorganizing to
The pipette method
One inexpensive sizing technique for the mud fraction is the pipette method that
relies on the principle that particles in a dilute suspension settle through a column of water
at velocities that are dependent on their size (see Krumbein and Pettijohn, 1961). If the
sample behaves according to the Stokes Law then repeatedly sampling at a constant
depth in the water column yields progressively finer and finer sediments. Investigating the
temporal variations of particle concentrations at the set depth will indicate the relative
abundance of particles whose diameters may then be calculated. Standard tables of timing
are available (Table 2) although when applying Stokes’ Law the dynamic viscosity of the
water is important and it is therefore important to try to ensure thermal consistency as the
analysis may take several days.

Table 2. Withdrawal times and depth tables for 20, 24, and 32 °C based on Krumbein and Pettijohn
(1961) andMilner, 1962a and Milner, 1962b). Times are in hours (h) minutes (min) and seconds (s)

Generally a pipette is inserted slowly and gently into the fluid until the inlet is at a
given distance below the surface. An initial volume is withdrawn (e.g., 20 ml) at the given
time from the start of settling (based on Stokes law). The sediment-laden fluid is then
released into a small labeled beaker with excess particles washed into the beaker using
distilled water. Successive samples are extracted from the suggested depth in the column
at time intervals which calculations reveal particles of known diameter (see Table 2
afterKrumbein and Pettijohn, 1961). The number of aliquots extracted relates to the
completeness of the dataset. To determine silt and clay content at 20 °C one needs only
withdraw samples at 20 s at 20 cm for silt (4 phi) and 2 h and 3 min at 10 cm for clay (8
phi). The beakers containing the sampled fluids are then dried to constant weight before
weighing. A small correction may be needed for dispersant and this is achieved by
comparing the weights of successive withdrawals as both contain the same amount of
dispersant ( 2% of the original amount of dispersant powder). Since each aliquot is 2% of
the original sediment water mixture a simple calculation will give the full size distribution
based on continued withdrawals to the finest required size. The total weight of sediment
undergoing analysis should be 50 times the sediment extracted in the initial (58 s) sample.
Commonly a stable temperature may be possible but not to the required 20 °C. Tables
have been established for other temperatures (Table 2) where the different viscosities
require the reduction or extension of sampling times. The quantities of initial sample used
vary, although generally 10 and 20 g l−1 give the most satisfactory reproducibility. Higher
concentrations can be hindered by settling convection where upward motion of circulating
waters impedes settling (Kuenan, 1968). The main advantage of this simple technique is
that it requires little specialist equipment and is relatively easy to do.

The sedimentation tube

The  second technique based on settling velocity is the sedimentation tube, which
unlike the pipette technique that is confined to analysis of silts and clays, can be applied to
sand samples as well. The roots of this popular technique can be traced back to the early
twentieth century (e.g., Emery, 1938). The technique is based on the principle that
particles released simultaneously at the top of a large, broad water-filled tube settle out
into a smaller diameter tube at the base. Initially the heights of accumulation at known time
intervals are measured by optical micrometer, pan collection, or cameras and the particle
sizes calculated (Dyer et al., 1996). The introduction of pressure transducers and electrical
recorders to determine the temporal variations of weight in the water column were also
significant advances (e.g., Zeigler et al., 1960). The growing popularity of laser- and
image-based grain-size analysis techniques has meant that this method is not as
prominent as it used to be although several companies still make instruments of this type
(e.g., the sedimentometer by Topas).
As in the pipette method, the particles are released from the water surface,
generally by holding 2–5 g of wet sample on a plate and lowering into the water column.
The sample is kept small to minimize hindered settling which can decrease settling
velocities and give unrepresentative results (Richardson and Zaki, 1954). The tube
diameter is also important, particularly for coarse sediments (Channon, 1971).
Sedimentation tubes also need static water conditions and since most are at least 2 m in
height they can develop internal convection currents unless maintained in thermally stable
conditions (see discussion of Dyer et al., 1996).
The interpretation of data from sedimentation tubes is complex because although
individual particles may permit confident calculation of particle diameters, the behavior of
clusters of particles of a range of sizes is less easy to calculate (Dyer et al., 1996).
Traditionally individual tubes are calibrated against well characterized particles, such as
single spheres (e.g., Zeigler and Gill, 1959) or clusters of spheres of single sizes and
combinations of sizes (e.g., Schlee, 1966). Recently international comparative calibration
exercises have occurred (e.g., Dyer et al., 1996 and Agrawal and Pottsmith, 2000 for
marine and estuarine sedimentation).
Generally the particle sizes in the sediment are calculated from the settled sample
weight at specific time intervals. The measured settling velocities are converted into
‘equivalent sedimentation diameters,’ or the diameters of spheres settling at the same rate
as the natural particles being tested (e.g., Gibbs et al., 1971). In a noted advance Baba
and Komar (1981) set about investigating the settling of natural quartz sands in an attempt
to derive intermediate diameters from settling tubes that could be compared and combined
with sieve analysis. Their work resulted in a paper by Komar and Cui (1984), which
extended the work of Gibbs et al. (1971) and enabled the calculation of intermediate grain
diameters (McManus, 1988). Although some early comparisons of sizes determined by
sieving and settling techniques suggested that settling techniques overestimated the size
of fines and under-estimated the size of sands (e.g., Sengupta and Veenstra, 1968 and
Sanford and Swift, 1971) and the application of correction factors allowed the comparison
of intermediate diameters from both sieving and settling techniques within appropriate
error (Komar and Cui, 1984). These authors did note some deviations related to heavy
minerals grains with densities considerably greater than quartz and to minerals whose
shapes differ from the spherical (e.g., mica flakes) (Box 2).

Box 2 Problems with sedimentation techniques and fine-grained natural material

Unfortunately, as particles decrease in diameter, they become increasingly
cohesive as surface ionic charges grow in relative significance. In rivers and estuaries,
these materials commonly form flocs or aggregates with strong inter-particle cohesion. A
solution lies in the use of the natural waters in which sediment and ionic concentrations
may be high (Peirce and Williams, 1966; Dalsgaard et al., 1991). Other problems are
encountered where organic particles interfere in sedimentation (Duck, 1983). This
limitation can be partially overcome by using a dispersing agent during sample
preparation. Sodium hexametaphosphate solution is perhaps the most popular dispersing
agent, and it can be made up in the laboratory or one can use commercially available
mixtures, like Calgon.

Laser diffraction analysis (LDA)

LDA has become increasingly popular over the past 15 years as a method for the
analysis of particle-size distribution of sediments and soils. A variety of instruments have
been developed by different manufacturers (e.g., Beckman-Coulter, Malvern, Retsch,
Horiba), which vary in terms of the range of sizes that can be analyzed and the diversity of
options for data processing. Standard operating procedures for laser diffraction analysis
have also been published (e.g., International Standard Organization, 1999a,International
Standard Organization, 1999b and ASTM, 2010), although they are fairly generalized and
aimed mainly at industrial powders rather than natural soils and sediments. The LDA
technique works on the principle that a laser directed through a cell will be diffracted by
particles that pass through the beam. The instrument measures the particle-size
characteristics of a sediment sample using the principles of laser diffraction and relies on
the fact that the diffraction angle is directly proportional to the particle size. In all
instruments the angle and intensity of laser light scattered by a suspended sediment
sample are selectively measured and are generally converted to a volume distribution
based primarily on the Mie optical theory (some machines e.g., Malvern Mastersizer 2000
can be set to use Fraunhofer) (de Boer et al., 1987). Previous work has shown that, if
appropriate sample preparation and handling procedures are employed, laser diffraction
provides a precise method for the analysis and comparison of sediments, soils and similar
material (Blott and Pye, 2006; Pye and Blott, 2004 and Cheetham et al., 2008). However,
less attention has been given to the question of ‘accuracy’, although it has long been
recognized that there will be significant differences between results obtained using laser
diffraction compared with other methods (Agrawal et al., 1991 and Agrawal and Pottsmith,
2000). Many authors have also shown that laser diffraction underestimates the amount of
clay compared with pipette and hydrometer analysis (e.g., McCave et al., 1986, Loizeau et
al., 1994, Konert and Vandenberghe, 1997, Beuselinck et al., 1998, Beuselinck et al.,
1999a and Beuselinck et al., 1999b), and significant differences have also been noted
between laser diffraction and sieving results for some sands (e.g., Shillabeer et al., 1992,
Konert and Vandenberghe, 1997 and Hayton et al., 2001). In contrast, recent work by
Cheetham et al. (2008) showed that the use of LDA for fluvial sands produced precise and
repeatable results when compared to other techniques.

General process for LDA analysis

Background measurements are generally taken on the suspension medium
(characteristically water) based on recommendations from the manufacturer. To assess
the comparability of samples prepared using different methods of dispersion, two sample
sets can be analyzed. The first set is agitated under ultrasound for 1 min or until the
sample is visibly disaggregated. The other group can be treated with 50 ml of 0.1% sodium
hexametaphosphate and soaked overnight.
Commonly, the samples are added to the instrument using a large beaker or
dispersion bath and agitated by ultrasound until the laser obscuration is in the optimum
range for the instrument. Too high obscuration levels results in inter-particle interference
whereas too low obscuration leads to poor signal-to-noise ratio. The data output can then
be grouped according to standard outputs including, standard sieve-size fractions for
correlation  statistics (Folk, 1980; Tanner, 1991a and Tanner, 1991b; Christiansen and
Hartmann, 1991), Percent volume data can also be used (see later Section).

Other PSA techniques

Other techniques used in geomorphology include electrical zone sensing (EZS), X-
Ray sedimentation and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The EZS approach is based
on the Coulter principle (e.g., Coulter counter) where a sample is dispersed at low
concentration in an electrolytic (i.e., conducting) solution, and is then drawn through a
small aperture (sensing zone) that has electrodes on either side of it. As each particle
enters the sensing zone it causes a temporary change in the measured electrical
impedance across the opening. The amplitude of this impedance pulse is proportional to
the particle's volume and hence, can be used to infer size. Potential errors come from the
coincident passage of two or more particles through the sensing zone as this can cause
the instrument to count the combined pulse height of multiple small particles as a single
large particle, thereby skewing the size distribution. A second potential problem in EZS,
which is also a concern in LDA, is particle asymmetry where flaky particles (e.g., clays)
rotate as they pass through the aperture leading to potential oversizing (Milligan and
Krank, 1991).
 The X-ray sedimentation technique for determining the relative mass distribution of
a sample by particle size is based on two physical principles: sedimentation theory and the
absorption of X-radiation.

These two theories are embodied in an analytical instrument called the SediGraph.
Any particle settling in a liquid will achieve a terminal velocity when the gravitational force
balances the buoyancy and drag forces on the particle. This is dependent on the size and
the density of the particle, and the density and viscosity of the liquid. A beam of photons
(X-rays, in this case) passing through a medium is attenuated in proportion to the path
length through the medium, its concentration, and the extinction coefficient of the medium
(Coakley and Syvitski, 1991). Using Stokes and Beer-Lambert laws mean that
interpretation of raw data is achieved to determine the relationship between the basic
measurements and the reported size distribution (Loveland and Whalley, 2001).
SEM can be used to count the number of particles in different size fractions (Ly,
1978; Goldberg and Richardson, 1989). This type of analysis is a time-consuming
technique, but it can be sped up by using a grid of set scale and choosing a field of view
with a specific magnification then counting particles of a particular size fraction (Cheetham
et al., 2008). Automated microscopy and image-analysis techniques can provide a means
of repeatable and routine characterization of particle size and shape using automated
microscopy and image-analysis techniques. Commonly, particle shape information is
generated from the analysis of thousands of particles and displays of particle size and
shape data are s  upported by images of all the particles to provide further visual
understanding of the measurement data (Goldberg and Richardson, 1989). A number of
shape parameters can also be calculated for each particle in order to increase the
sensitivity of the analysis to subtle variations in particle morphology (Cheetham et al.,
2008).

Interpretation of Particle-Size Data

Although the analysis of particle size in sediments is commonly used in the
identification of sedimentary environments, landforms, and facies in a variety of
depositional settings (e.g., Folk and Ward, 1957, Huang and Goodell, 1967, De Falco et
al., 2006, Nichol et al., 2007 and Donato et al., 2009) a considerable variability remains in
presentation techniques. The pioneering work by Udden (1914), Wentworth (1922),
Krumbein, 1934 and Krumbein, 1938, Inmam (1952), and Folk and Ward (1957)
established descriptive statistics that are still used in geomorphology and sedimentology to
characterize particle-size distributions (i.e., sorting, skewness, and kurtosis) (see Table 3
and glossary).
 Table 3. Grain-size parameters and their common indicative meaning

Use of Bivariate Plots (Scattergraphs)

Numerous approaches have been utilized to interpret particle-size data in
geomorphology. Commonly, summary statistics (mean grain size, sorting, skewness, and
kurtosis) of particle-size distributions (Folk, 1980 and Folk and Ward, 1957) have been
plotted on bivariate scattergrams, from which researchers have identified graphic
envelopes within which deposits of particular environments are plotted (Mason and Folk,
1958, Friedman, 1961 and Friedman, 1967, 1979; Moilola and Weiser, 1968, Buller and
McManus, 1972, Tanner, 1991a, Tanner, 1991b, Duck, 1994 and Lario et al., 2002).
Several other approaches are reviewed in detail by Syvitski, 1991a and Syvitski, 1991band
Gale and Hoare (1991). Despite the extent and detail of PSA investigations over the last
100 years, most attempts to determine the environment of deposition from particle-size
data are primarily site specific and are generally inadequate as an unequivocal means of
palaeoenvironmental reconstruction. However, it is clear that particle-size data obtained by
any means can be used in conjunction with other evidence to determine the environment
of deposition of a sedimentary body or landform. For a discussion on bivariate plots the
reader is referred to Tanner (1991a) who acknowledges the inherent problems faced when
using such plots and examined methods that may assist in the resolution of the
environment of deposition.
Scattergraphs and Ternary Diagrams
For many years sedimentologists and geomorphologists have attempted to use
scattergraphs of grain-size data to distinguish between different depositional environments
or landforms. No universal models exist to distinguish past depositional environments
using these graphic presentation approaches (McManus, 1988 and Lario et al., 2002).
Samples are generally plotted onto ternary plots (Figure 5) or scattergraphs (bivariate
plots). Attempts to discriminate between different depositional settings, via bivariate plots,
are based on the primary assumption that the statistical parameters reliably reflect
differences in sediment transportation and deposition (Sutherland and Lee, 1994a and
Sutherland and Lee, 1994b). Many studies have tried to make environmental sense from
bivariate plots of parameters that describe the sample size spectrum (Stewart, 1958,
Friedman, 1961, Friedman, 1967, Buller and McManus, 1972, Friedman and Sanders,
1978, Tanner, 1991a and Tanner, 1991b) and the success has been varied for several
reasons, such as over-simplified discrimination, for example, beach versus river where
dunes and other depositional settings are ignored (Socci and Tanner, 1980). For example,
inclusive mean and inclusive mean standard deviation were plotted from samples taken
from a Holocene paleoestuary that contained two overwash sandsheets (Switzer et al.,
2005). The analysis clearly distinguished the overwash sandsheets from estuarine muds,
hill-slope materials and floodtide deltaic sediments (Figure 6). This is not always the case
and the comparison between mean grain size and sorting is generally over simplified and
in most cases there is a clear covariance between mean grain size and sorting (Tucker,
1990). Griffiths (1967) explained that as both mean grain size and sorting are hydraulically
controlled in most environments the best-sorted sediments in almost all environments will
have mean grain size in the range of fine sand sizes.
Figure 5. Tripartite sediment classification schemes for sediments. Most geomorphologists use one of the
systems described either by Shepard (1954) or Folk, 1954 and Folk, 1980. The original scheme by Shepard
(1954)does not allow for sediments with significant amounts of gravel and was subsequently modified by the
addition of a second ternary diagram to account for the gravel fraction (Schlee, 1973). The system devised
by Folk, 1954 and Folk, 1980 is also based on two triangular diagrams and has 21 categories. Folk's scheme
stresses gravel focusing on high velocity flows whereas Shepard's classification scheme emphasizes the
ratios of sand, silt, and clay because they reflect sorting and reworking (Poppe et al., 2000). Courtesy of
USGS.

Figure 6. A scattergram of inclusive mean (Inc

Mean ϕ) and inclusive mean standard deviation (Inc
Std Dev ϕ) of samples taken from a Holocene
estuary fill thatcontains two overwash sandsheets (
Switzer et al., 2005). Grain populations indicative of
overwash sandsheets, estuarine muds, hillslope
materials, and floodtide deltaic sediments are
identified.
Recent Advances in Data Presentation
Where PSA plays a major role in the analysis most researchers will find that
conventional graphical summary statistics such as graphical mean, median, mode,
standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis are still the preferred method of displaying
PSDs (e.g., Folk, 1966, 1980; Griffiths, 1967, Friedman and Sanders, 1978 and Wang and
Ke, 1997; Al-Zamel et al., 2007 and Mwakumanya and Bdo, 2007). This is despite the
noted limitations of such statistics to adequately characterize the grain-size distribution
(Blott and Pye, 2001).
Recent work has seen some notable attempts at new analysis and display
techniques (e.g., Donato et al., 2009). This is primarily a result of recent advances in
instrumentation (e.g., LDA) that mean it is now possible to analyze many samples
economically. Many researchers have noted that PSD from a considerable number of
sedimentary environments are required before a statistically significant application of
derived statistical parameters could be used to characterize environmental trends (e.g.,
Ward, 1980, McLaren, 1981, McLaren and Bowles, 1985, Donato et al., 2009 and
Pilarczyk et al., 2011).
Those familiar with grain-size analysis statistics are fully aware that the use of these
statistics was not developed for use in a particular facies or landform analysis framework
but was primarily developed for the ease of calculation and characterization of the PSD
from graphical cumulative frequency curves. As such, the derived statistics were simply a
convenient way of working with the data (primarily from sieving and pipette at the time). In
geomorphology, the statistical parameters used in the middle of the twentieth century have
persisted. This is in spite of significant advances in technology (i.e., laser particle-size
analysis) that have greatly enhanced the ability to characterize large quantities of PSD
data. This can now be done with considerable statistical rigor using modern computing.

Using Modern PSD Datasets

Most modern instrumentation (e.g., LDA) can provide the complete PSD in a high
resolution, precisely measured and easily comparable form that is then available for a
variety of statistical analysis using multivariate techniques (e.g., cluster analysis) that
make the identification of PSA determined facies and environments possible. Rapid
analysis of PSDs can now also provide abundant data for high-resolution grain-size
studies on cores and surface samples that with the benefit of multivariate statistics and 3D
surface plots allows better characterization of sedimentary processes (e.g., Beierle et al.,
2002, Van Hengstum et al., 2007 and Donato et al., 2009) Combining the PSD data with
other relevant data (e.g., texture, carbonate content, faunal data) can adequately
discriminate landforms and environments (e.g., Switzer et al., 2005 and Switzer and
Jones, 2008; Pilarczyk et al., 2011; Van Hengstum et al., 2011).

In one recent example Donato et al. (2009) tested a new technique using PSD data and
multivariate cluster analysis (Q-mode) to define modern environmentally defined facies
distributions determined in Sur Lagoon, Oman. In this example they used blind clustering
of PSD data and compared it to surface topography, remote sensing and visual field
surveys. This allowed a comparison of the PSD data to the mapped distribution of
sedimentary facies to determine the effectiveness of PSD for determining lagoon sub-
environments in the geological record (see previous work by Loizeau and Stanley,
1993,1994). Donato et al. (2009) found that surface plots of PSD data allowed a qualitative
interpretation of the characteristics of the entire PSD that can provided key insights into
depositional processes and the dynamics of modern environmental conditions. This
method is especially useful for distinguishing multiple sedimentary processes, which can
appear as additional modes within the PSD (see studies of Pilarczyk et al., 2011; Van
Hengstum et al., 2011). Given the ease at which large amounts of particle size data can
now be obtained, such techniques can now be applied to most depositional environments
and landforms at high spatial or temporal resolution. Donato et al. (2009)noted that a
combination of conventional summary statistics with PSD surface plots increases the utility
of PSA as a paleoenvironmental proxy for identifying changes in clastic and organic
depositional processes in lake sequences. Similar approaches have since been applied to
other environments. One example of recent application is in the investigation of paleo-
landforms in coastal karstic basins (Figure 7) by Van Hengstum et al. (2011). In this
example, sediment particle size is plotted down core using size as the x axis, depth down
core as the y axis and volume as the z axis. The different modes are visible in many cases
and this technique shows particular promise for polymodal sediments.

The Same but Different: A Concluding Note on Comparing Different Techniques

In a recent commentary on the ‘correctness’ of the results obtained for particle-size
measurements by two or more different analytical techniques, Webb (2008) stated that
“Provided that the instruments used are capable of producing high-quality data, the
pertinent questions, then, are, ‘was the sample properly prepar  ed and properly presented
to the instrument,’ and ‘were the analytical parameters applied correctly’” (Webb, 2008: 3).
If the answer to both is ‘yes,’ then both analytical results probably are equally correct; they
are just expressed in different terms. Recent reviews clearly show that some Earth
scientists still express concern about comparisons of particle-sizing results by different
techniques (see discussion of Cheetham et al., 2008). The techniques commonly
compared are sieving, sedimentation, imaging (including microscopy and machine vision),
EZS, and light scattering (laser diffraction). Invariably, the determination of any particle-
size distribution on the same sediment sample by all of these techniques and others will, in
all cases where the samples are not perfect spheres of homogenous weight and
composition, yield different results for mean size, modal size, and quantity distribution by
size. So which technique is ‘correct’ or provides the most ‘accurate’ representation of the
sediment population? If the sample is prepared properly and the analytical parameters are
correctly applied then all the answers are ‘correct,’ but they are just measuring different
things and applicants of these techniques must be aware of the limitations of each
technique. It is clear that geomorphologists must consider factors other than size or
sample preparation that could affect the reported size value. Generally errors from these
sources are associated with nonspherical particles, variation in particle density or even the
inappropriate application of the measuring instrument (e.g., Sieves for coralline sands (see
discussion of Kench, 1997)).

Figure 7. Sediment particle size data from a coastal karst basin in Bermuda from Van Hengstum et al.
(2011). Sediment samples are plotted down core using size as the x axis, depth down core as the y axis and
volume as the z axis. This technique is based on the work of Bierle (2001) and shows particular promise for
presenting data where high resolution sampling has been conducted on polymodal sediments. Modified and
reproduced from van Hengstum, P.J., Scott, D.B., Gröcke, D.R., Charette, M.A., 2011. Sea level controls
sedimentation and environments in coastal caves and sinkholes. Marine Geology 286(1–4), 35–50.
References

Adams, J. 1979 Gravel size analysis from photographs. ASCE Journal of the Hydraulics Division, 10510, 1247-1255

Agrawal, Y. C., and Pottsmith H. C.. 2000 Instruments for particle size and settling velocity observations in sediment
transport. Marine Geology 168, 1-4, 89-114

Agrawal, Y.C., McCave, I.N. and Riley, J.B. 1991 Laser diffraction style analysis. In: Principles, Methods and
Applications of Particle Size Analysis Ed. J.P.M. Syvitski, pp. 119-128. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Al-Zamel, A., Al Sarkawi, M., and Khader, S. 2007 Coastal geomorphology, hydrodynamics, and biofacies in the intertidal
and subtidal areas of Umm Al-Namil Island, Kuwait Bay, Kuwait. Journal of Coastal Research. 23, 501-514

ASTM Standard C33E112 – 2010 Standard Test Methods for Determining Average Grain Size Using Semiautomatic
and Automatic Image Analysis ASTM International West Conshohocken, Pennslvania, USA DOI: 10.1520/E1382-
97R10

Baba, J. and Komar, P.D. 1981 Measurements and analysis of settling velocities of natural quartz sand grains. Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology 51, 631-640

Beierle, B.D., Lamoureux, S.F., Cockburn, J.M.H, and Spooner, I. 2002 A new method for visualizing sediment particle
size distributions. Journal of Paleolimnology. 27, 279-283

Beuselinck, L., Govers, G., Steegen, A., Hairsine, P. B. and Poesen, J. 1999 Evaluation of the simple settling theory for
predicting sediment deposition by overland flow. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 24, 11: 993-1007

Beuselinck, L., Govers, G. and Poesen, J. 1999 Assessment of micro-aggregation using laser diffractometry. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms 24, 1: 41-49

Beuselinck, L., G. Govers, J. Poesen, G. Degraer, and L. Froyen. 1998 Grain-size analysis by laser diffractometry:
Comparison with the sieve-pipette method. Catena 32, 3-4: 193-208

Blair, T. C. and McPherson, J. G. 1999 Grain-size and textural classification of coarse sedimentary particles. Journal of
Sedimentary Research 691, 6-19

Blott, S.J., and Pye, K. 2001 Gradistat: a grain size distribution and statistics package for the analysis of unconsolidated
sediments. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26, 1237-1248

Blott, S.J., and Pye, K. 2006 Particle size distribution analysis of sand-sized particles by laser diffraction: an experimental
investigation of instrument sensitivity and the effects of particle shape. Sedimentology 53, 671-685

Bowler,J.M., 1973. Clay dunes: their occurrence, formation and environmental significance. Earth Science Reviews 9,
315–338.
Briggs, D. 1977 Sediments. In: Sources and Methods in Geography, Butterworth-Heinemann London, UK. 128pp

Buller, A.T. and McManus, J. 1972 Simple metric sedimentary statistics used to recognise different environments.
Sedimentology 18, 1-21

Buller, A.T. and McManus, J. 1979 Sediment sampling and analysis. In: Estuarine Hydrography and Sedimentation Ed:
K.R. Dyer, 87-130. Cambridge University Press, UK

Buscombe, D., and Masselink, G. 2006 Concepts in gravel beach dynamics Earth Science Reviews 79, 1-2, 33-52

Channon, R.D. 1971 The Bristol fall column for coarse sediment grading. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 41, 867-870

Cheetham, M. D., Keene, A. F. Bush, R. T. Sullivan, L. A. and Erskine, W. D. 2008. A comparison of grain-size analysis
methods for sand-dominated fluvial sediments. Sedimentology 55, 6

Dalsgaard, K., Jensen, J.L. and Sorensen, M. 1991 Methodology of sieving small samples and calibration of sieve set.
In: Theory, Methods and Applications of Particle Size Analysis Ed; J. P. M.Syvitski, pp. 64-75. Cambridge University
Press, New York

de Boer, G.B.J., de Weerd, C., Thoenes D., Goossens, H.W.J. 1987 Laser diffraction spectrometry: Fraunhofer versus
Mie scattering, Particle Characteristics 4, 14-19
De Falco, G., Baroli, M., Murru, E., Piergallini, G., and Cancemi, G., 2006 Sediment analysis evidences two different
depositional phenomena influencing seagrass distribution in the Gulf of Oristano Sardinia, Western Mediterranean.
Journal of Coastal Research. 22, 1043-1050

Donato, S. V., Reinhardt, E. G., Boyce, J. I., Pilarczyk, J. E., and Jupp. B. P. 2009. Particle-size distribution of inferred
tsunami deposits in Sur Lagoon, Sultanate of Oman. Marine Geology 257, 1-4, 54-64

Donato, S. V., Reinhardt, E. G. Boyce, J. I. Rothaus, R. and Vosmer. T. 2008. Identifying tsunami deposits using bivalve
shell taphonomy. Geology 36, 3: 199-202

Duck, R.W. 1983 Settling velocity analysis of fine grained, freshwater sediments: a cautionary note. Journal of Water
Resources 2, 23-29

Duck, R. W. 1994 Application of the QDa-md method of environmental discrimination to particle size analyses of fine
sediments by pipette and sedigraph methods: A comparative study. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 19, 6:
525-529

Dyer, K.R., Cornelisse, J., Dearnaley, M.P., Fennessy, M.J., Jones S.E., Kappenberg, J., McCave, I.N., Pejrup, M., Puls,
W., Van Leussen, W., and Wolfstein, K., 1996 A comparison of in situ techniques for estuarine floc settling velocity
measurements Journal of Sea Research, 36, 1-2, 15-29

Emery, K. O. 1983 Rapid method of mechanical analysis of sands. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. 8, 105-111

Finkl, C.W. 2004 Coastal classification: Systematic approaches to consider in the development of a comprehensive
scheme. Journal of Coastal Research 20, 166-213

Folk, R.L. 1954 The distinction between grain size and mineral composition in sedimentary rock nomenclature. Journal of
Geology, 62, 4, 344-359

Folk, R.L. 1955 Student operator error in determination of roundness, sphericity and grain size. Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology 25, 297-301

Folk, R.L. 1966 A review of grain-size parameters. Sedimentology, 6, 73-93

Folk, R.L., Andrews, P.B. and Lewis, D.W. 1970 Detrital sedimentary rock classification and nomenclature for use in
New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics. 13, 937-968

Folk, R.L. and Ward, W.E. 1957 Brazos River bar: a study in the significance of grain size parameters. Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology 27, 3-26

Folk, R.L., 1974, The petrology of sedimentary rocks: Hemphill Publishing Company, Austin 182 pp.

Friedman, G .M. 1967 Processes and statistical parameters compared for size frequency distribution of beach and river
sands. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 37, 327 - 354

Friedman, G.M. 1961 Distinction between dune, beach and river sand from their textural characteristics. Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology 31, 514-529

Friedman, G.M. and Sanders, J.E. 1978 Principles of Sedimentology. Wiley, New York. USA

Gale, S.J. and Hoare, P.G. 1991. Quaternary Sediments. Wiley, Chichester and New York, USA 323pp

Gibbs, R.J., Mathews, M.D. and Link, D.A. 1971 The relationship between sphere size and settling velocity. Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology 41, 7-18

Griffiths, J.C., 1967. Scientific Method in Analysis of Sediments. McGraw-Hill, New York. USA 508 pp

Hayton, S., Nelson, C.S., Ricketts, B.D., Cooke, S. and Wedd, M.W., 2001. Effect of mica on particle-size analyses using
the laser diffraction technique. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 71 3: 507-509.

Hesse , P.P., 2003. The bigness question. Quaternary Australasia, 211: 6-8

Hjulstrom, F., 1939 Transportation of detritus in moving water. In: Trask, P.D. Ed., Recent Marine Sediments. American
Association of Petrology and Geology, Tulsa, USA pp. 5-31

Huang, T.C., and Goodell, H.G., 1967. Sediments of Charlotte harbor, Southwestern Florida. Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology. 37, 449-474
Inmam, D.L. 1952 Measures for describing the size distribution of sediments. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. 22, 125-
45

International Standard Organization 2009 Soil quality -- Determination of particle size distribution in mineral soil material -
- Method by sieving and sedimentation. ISO 11277:2009. International Standard Organization, Geneva. Reproduced
by the British Standards Institution, Milton Keynes, 34 pp.

International Standard Organization 1999a Particle Size Analysis – Laser Diffraction Method. Part 1. General Principles.
ISO 13320-1. International Standard Organization, Geneva. Reproduced by the British Standards Institution, Milton
Keynes, 34 pp.

International Standard Organization 1999b Particle Size Analysis – Laser Diffraction Method. Part 2. Validation of
Inversion Procedures. ISO 13320-2. International Standard Organization, Geneva. Reproduced by the British
Standards Institution, Milton Keynes.

International Standard Organization 2008 ISO 9276-6: Representation of results of particle size analysis - Part 6:
Descriptive and quantitative representation of particle shape and morphology.

Jennings, R., and Shulmeister, J. 2002. A field based classification scheme for gravel beaches. Marine Geology, 1863-4,
211-228

Kellerhals R, Bray DI. 1971. Sampling procedures for coarse fluvial sediments. American Society Civil Engineers Journal
of the Hydraulics Division 97: 1165–1179

Klingeman PC, Emmett WW. 1982, Gravel bedload transport processes. In Gravel Bed Rivers, Hey RD, Bathurst JC,
Thorne CR eds. Wiley: Chichester; 141–179

Komar, P.D. and Cui, B. 1984 The analysis of grain-size measurements by sieving and settling-tube techniques. Journal
of Sedimentary Petrology 54, 603-614

Kondolf, G. M., T. E. Lisle, and G. M. Wolman. 2003 Bed sediment measurement. Chapter 13 in G. M. Kon-dolf and H.
Piégay, editors. Tools in fluvial geomorphology Wiley, New York USA.

Kondolf, G. M. 1997. Application of the pebble count: Notes on purpose, method, and variants. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 33, 1: 79-87

Konert, M., and J. Vandenberghe. 1997. Comparison of laser grain size analysis with pipette and sieve analysis: A
solution for the underestimation of the clay fraction. Sedimentology 44, 3: 523-535

Krumbein, W.C., 1934. Size frequency distributions of sediments. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 10, 57-69

Krumbein, W.C., 1938. Size frequency distributions of sediments and the normal phi curve. Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology 8, 84-90

Krumbein, W.C. and Pettijohn, F.l. 1961 Manual of Sedimentary Petrography. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York USA.

Krumbein, W.C. 1964 Some remarks on the phi notation. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 34, 195-196

Lario, J., C. Zazo, A. J. Plater, J. L. Goy, C. J. Dabrio, F. Borja, F. J. Sierro, and L. Luque. 2001. Particle size and
magnetic properties of holocene estuarine deposits from the doñana national park SW iberia: Evidence of gradual
and abrupt coastal sedimentation. Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie 45, 1: 33-54

Lario, J., Spencer, C., Plater, A.J., Zazo, C., Goy, J.L., and Dabrio, C.J., 2002. Particle size characterisation of Holocene
back-barrier sequences from North Atlantic coasts SW Spain and SE England Geomorphology 42, 25-42

Last, W.M. 1982 Holocene carbonate sedimentation in Lake Manitoba, Canada. Sedimentology, 29, 691-704

Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G., and Miller, P., 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology W.H. Freeman and Company,
522 p.

Lewis, D.W. 1984 Practical Sedimentology. Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg. USA 213pp

Loizeau, J. L., and Stanley, D. J. 1994. Bottom sediment patterns evolving in polluted Mariut lake, Nile delta, Egypt.
Journal of Coastal Research, 102, 416-439
Loizeau, J. L. and Stanley, D. J. 1993. Petrological-statistical approach to interpret recent and subrecent lagoon
subfacies, Idku, Nile delta of Egypt. Marine Geology, 1111-2, 55-81

Loizeau, J., Arbouille, D., Santiago, S., and Vernet, J. 1994. Evaluation of a wide range laser diffraction grain size
analyser for use with sediments. Sedimentology, 412, 353-361

Loring, D.H., and Rantala, R.T.T. 1992. Manual for the geochemical analyses of marine sediments and suspended
particulate matter. Earth Science Reviews, 324, 235-283

Mason T and Coates TT. 2001, Sediment transport processes on mixed beaches: a review for shoreline management.
Journal of Coastal Research 17, 645–657

Mason C. C., and Folk , R. L, 1958 Differentiation of beach, dune, and aeolian flat environments by size analysis,
Mustang Island, Texas Journal of Sedimentary Petrology , 28, 211-226

McCave, I.N., Hall, I.R. and Bianchi, G.G. 2006 Laser versus settling velocity differences in silt grainsize measurements:
estimation of palaeocurrent vigour. Sedimentology, 53, 919-928

McCave, I.N. and Syvitski, J.P.M. 1991 Principles and methods of geological particle size analysis. In: Principles,
Methods and Applications of Particle Size Analysis Ed. J.P.M. Syvitski, pp. 3–21. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK

McCave, I. N., Bryant, R. J., Cook, H. F., Coughanowr, C. A. 1986: Evaluation of a laser-diffraction-size analyzer for use
with natural sediments. Journal of Sedimentary Reearch. 56, 561-564

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 6th Editon, 2002

P.A. McLaren, 1981 Interpretation of trends in grain-size measurements. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 51 , pp.
611–624.

P.A. McLaren and Bowles, D. 1985 The effects of sediment transport on grain-size distributions. Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology, 55, 4, 457–470.

McManus J. 1988 Grain size determination and interpretation. In Techniques in Sedimentology, Ed. Tucker M Blackwell,
Oxford, UK 63–85.

McManus, D.A. 1965 A study of maximum load for small diameter sieves. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 35, 792-796.

McManus, D.A. 1963 A criticism of certain usage of the phi notation. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 33, 670-674.

Miall, A.D. 2006 The Geology of Fluvial Deposits: Sedimentary Facies, Basin Analysis and Petroleum Geology. Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, Germany

Miller, M.C., McCave, I.N. and Komar, P.D. 1977 Thresholds of sediment motion under unidirectional currents.
Sedimentology, 24, 507-527.

Miller, I.M., Warrick, J.A., and Morgan, C. 2011. Observations of coarse sediment movements on the mixed beach of the
Elwha Delta, Washington Marine Geology 201-214

Milner, H.B. 1962a Sedimentary Petrography, Volume I: Methods in Sedimentary Petrography. Allen and Unwin, London,
UK

Milner, H.B. 1962b Sedimentary Petrography, Volume II: Principles and Applications. Allen and Unwin, London, UK

Moilola, R.l. and Weiser, D. 1968 Textural parameters: an evaluation. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 38, 45-53.

Moss, A.J. 1962 The physical nature of common sandy and pebbly deposits Part I. American Journal of Science 260,
337-373.

Moss, A.J. 1963 The physical nature of common sandy and pebbly deposits part II. American Journal of Science 261,
297-343.

Moss, A.J., 1972. Bed-load sediments. Sedimentology, 18, 159-219.

Mwakumanya, M.A., Bdo, O. 2007 Beach morphological dynamics: A case study of Nyali and Bamburi beaches in
Mombasa, Kenya Journal of Coastal Research 23, 2, 374-379
Nichol, S.L., Lian, O.B., Horrocks, M., and Goff, J.R., 2007 Holocene record of gradual, catastrophic, and human-
influenced sedimentation from a backbarrier wetland, northern New Zealand. Journal of Coastal Research 23, 605-
617.

Peirce, T.J. and Williams, D.J .A. 1966 Experiments on certain aspects of sedimentation of estuarine muds. Proeedings
of. Institute of Civil Engineers, 54, 391-402

Pettijohn, F.J. 1975 Sedimentary Rocks 3rd edn. Harper and Row, London. UK

Pilarczyk, J. E., E. G. Reinhardt, J. I. Boyce, H. P. Schwarcz, and S. V. Donato. 2011. Assessing surficial foraminiferal
distributions as an overwash indicator in Sur Lagoon, Sultanate of Oman. Marine Micropaleontology 80, 3-4, 62-73

Poppe, L.J., Eliason, A.H., Fredericks, J.J., Rendigs, R.R., Blackwood D. and Polloni, C.F. Grain-size analysis of marine
sediments: methodology and data processing U.S Geological Survey open-file report 00-358

Pye K. and Blott S.J., 2004 Particle size analysis of sediments, soils and related particulate materials for forensic
purposes using laser granulometry Forensic Science International 144 2004 19–27

Reineck, H.E. and Singh, LB. 1975 Depositional Sedimentary Environments. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany
Richardson, J.F. and Zaki, W.N. 1954 Sedimentation and fluidisation. Transactions of Institute Chemical Engineers 32,
35-51

Rubin, DM, 2004, A simple autocorrelation algorithm for determining grain size from digital images of sediment Journal of
Sedimentary Research, 74, 160-165

Sanford, R.B. and Swift, D.J .P. 1971 Comparison of sieving and settling techniques for size analysis, using a Bepthos
rapid sediment analyser. Sedimentology, 7, 257-264

Schlee, J. 1966 A modified Woods Hole rapid sediment analyser. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 36, 404-413

Schumm, S.A., 1977. The Fluvial System. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 338 pp.

Sengupta, S. and Veenstra, H.J. 1968 On sieving and settling techniques for sand analysis. Sedimentology, 11, 83-98.

Shepard, F.P., 1954, Nomenclature based on sand-silt-clay ratios: Journal Sedimentary Petrology, v. 24, p. 151-158.

Shillabeer N., Hart B. and Riddle A.M. 1992 The use of a mathematical model to compare particle size data derived by
dry-sieving and laser analysis Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 35, 1, 105-111

Socci A. and Tanner, W.F. 1980 Little known but important papers on grain-size analysis Sedimentology 1980 27, 231-
232

Stewart, H.B. Jr 1958 Sedimentary reflections on depositional environments in San Miguel Lagoon, Baja, California,
Mexico. Bulletin American Asssociation of Petroleum Geologists 42, 2567-2618.

Sutherland, R. A., and Cheing-Tung Lee. 1994. Application of the log-hyperbolic distribution to hawaiian beach sands.
Journal of Coastal Research, 102, 251-262.

Sutherland, R. A., and Cheing-Tung Lee. 1994. Discrimination between coastal subenvironments using textural
characteristics. Sedimentology, 416, 1133-1145.

Switzer, A. D., and Burston J. M.. 2010. Competing mechanisms for boulder deposition on the southeast Australian
coast. Geomorphology 114, 1-2: 42-54

Switzer, A. D., and Jones B. G.. 2008. Large-scale washover sedimentation in a freshwater lagoon from the southeast
Australian coast: Sea-level change, tsunami or exceptionally large storm? Holocene 18, 5: 787-803

Switzer, A. D., Pucillo, K. Haredy, R. A. Jones, B. G. and Bryant E. A. 2005 Sea level, storm, or tsunami: Enigmatic sand
sheet deposits in a sheltered coastal embayment from southeastern New South Wales, Australia. Journal of Coastal
Research 21, 4: 655-663

Syvitski, J.P.M. ed. 1991. Principles, Methods and Application of Particle Size Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
New York. 368 p.

Syvitski, J.P.M. 1991. Factor analysis of size frequency distributions: significance of factor solutions based on simulation
experiments. In: J.P. Syvitski ed. Principles, Methods and Application of Particle Size Analysis.
Syvitski, J.P.M., Asprey, K.W. and Clattenburg, D.A. 1991. Principles, design and calibration of settling tubes. In: J.P.M.
Syvitski ed. Principles, Methods and Application of Particle Size Analysis. Cambridge University Press. New York. p.
45-63. Cambridge University Press, N.Y., 249-263.

Syvitski, J.P.M., LeBlanc, K.W.G. and Asprey, K.W. 1991. Inter-laboratory, inter-instrument calibration experiment. In:
J.P.M. Syvitski ed. Principles, Methods and Application of Particle Size Analysis. Cambridge University Press. New
York. p. 174-193.

Tanner, W.F. 1969 The particle size scale. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. 39, 509-512.

Tanner WF. 1991a. Suite statistics: the hydrodynamic evolution of the sediment pool. In Principles, Methods and
Applications of Particle Size Analysis, Syvitski JPM ed. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; 225–236.

Tanner WF. 1991b. Application of suite statistics to stratigraphy and sea-level changes. In Principles, Methods and
Applications of Particle Size Analysis, Syvitski JPM ed. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; 283–292.

Tucker, M., 1990 Techniques in sedimentology. Wiley - Blackwell Publications 408p

Udden, J.A., 1914, Mechanical composition of clastic sediments: Geological Society of America Bulletin, 25, 655–744.

Van Hengstum, P. J., E. G. Reinhardt, J. I. Boyce, and C. Clark. 2007. Changing sedimentation patterns due to historical
land-use change in Frenchman's Bay, Pickering, Canada: Evidence from high-resolution textural analysis. Journal of
Paleolimnology 37, 4: 603-618.

van Hengstum, P. J., D. B. Scott, D. R. Gröcke, and M. A. Charette. 2011. Sea level controls sedimentation and
environments in coastal caves and sinkholes. Marine Geology 286, 1-4: 35-50

Wang Y. and X. Ke, 1997 Grain-size characteristics of the extant tidal flat sediments along the Jiangsu coast, China.
Sedimentary Geology, 112, 1-2,105–122.

Ward, P.R.B. 1980 Laboratory measurement of sediment by turbidity. Journal of Hydraulic Division American Society
Civil Engineers 106 HY6 1041-1053

Warrick, J.A., George, D.A., Stevens, A.W., Eshleman, J., Gelfenbaum, G., Kaminsky, G. M., Schwartz, A.K., and
Bierne, M., 2007, revised 2010, Beach morphology monitoring in the Elwha River littoral cell, 2004-2009: U.S.
Geological Survey, Data Series 288, v. 1.1, 59 p. and data folder [http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/288/].

Warrick, J. A., Rubin, D. M., Ruggiero, P., Harney, J. N., Draut, A. E. and Buscombe. D. 2009. Cobble cam: Grain-size
measurements of sand to boulder from digital photographs and autocorrelation analyses. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 34, 13: 1811-1821

Webb P.A. Interpretation of Particle Size Reported by Different Analytical Techniques Micromeritics Instrument Corp. 10p

Wentworth C.K., 1922, A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments: Journal of Geology, 30, 377-392.

Wolman M.G.,1954 A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union
EOS, 35 1954, pp. 951–956.

Zeigler, J.M. and Gill, A. 1959 Tables and graphs for the settling velocity of quartz in water, above the range of Stoke's
Law. Refs No. 59-36, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

Zeigler, J.M., Whitney, G.G. and Hayes, C.R. 1960 Woods Hole Rapid Sediment Analyser. Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology 30, 490-495.