2015
DOI: 10.1002/2014wr015697
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of fluvial suspended-sediment concentrations and particle-size distributions measured with in-stream laser diffraction and in physical samples

Abstract: Laser-diffraction technology, recently adapted for in-stream measurement of fluvial suspended-sediment concentrations (SSCs) and particle-size distributions (PSDs), was tested with a streamlined (SL), isokinetic version of the Laser In Situ Scattering and Transmissometry (LISST) for measuring volumetric SSCs and PSDs ranging from 1.8 to 415 lm in 32 log-spaced size classes. Measured SSCs and PSDs from the LISST-SL were compared to a suite of 22 data sets (262 samples in all) of concurrent suspendedsediment and… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
60
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
1
60
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Although benchtop instruments may be able to measure over a wider size range, the LISST 100X was chosen for its in‐situ deployment capability. This instrument has been evaluated and used extensively for freshwater systems (Agrawal & Hanes, ; Czuba, Straub, Curran, Landers, & Domanski, ; Filippa et al, ; Guo & He, ; Williams, Walling, & Leeks, ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although benchtop instruments may be able to measure over a wider size range, the LISST 100X was chosen for its in‐situ deployment capability. This instrument has been evaluated and used extensively for freshwater systems (Agrawal & Hanes, ; Czuba, Straub, Curran, Landers, & Domanski, ; Filippa et al, ; Guo & He, ; Williams, Walling, & Leeks, ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Czuba et al . [] studied mass density in a survey of a number of U.S. rivers with a LISST‐SL, and reported a substantially reduced “effective” density as a nation‐wide average. In the case of present data, for a cross comparison, USGS personnel employed P‐61 samplers to grab water samples to get independent measures of mass concentrations.…”
Section: Field Measurements Of Sediment Size Distribution and Concentmentioning
confidence: 60%
“…Czuba et al . [] postulate this reduced apparent density being due to flocculation, shape effects, or unmeasured size fractions. Felix et al .…”
Section: Field Measurements Of Sediment Size Distribution and Concentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, the measurement range is 2.07-350 µm with limitations on the actual concentrations: inaccuracies may rise from multiple light scatter and too low scatter, which fix low and high threshold concentrations, respectively [44]. These limitations rise doubts on the opportunity of having detailed PSDs carefully profiled with punctual sampling by a LISST-SL rather than an estimation of sand and clay-silt concentrations along beams by applying an acoustic method.…”
Section: Recommendationsmentioning
confidence: 99%