Replicability of aggregate disruption by sonication—an inter-laboratory test using three different soils from Germany

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Replicability of aggregate disruption by sonication—an inter-laboratory test using three different soils from Germany. / Graf-Rosenfellner, Markus; Kayser, Gilles; Guggenberger, Georg; Kaiser, Klaus; Büks, Frederik; Kaiser, Michael; Mueller, Carsten W.; Schrumpf, Marion; Rennert, Thilo; Welp, Gerhard; Lang, Friederike.

In: Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, Vol. 181, No. 6, 2018, p. 894-904.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Graf-Rosenfellner, M, Kayser, G, Guggenberger, G, Kaiser, K, Büks, F, Kaiser, M, Mueller, CW, Schrumpf, M, Rennert, T, Welp, G & Lang, F 2018, 'Replicability of aggregate disruption by sonication—an inter-laboratory test using three different soils from Germany', Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, vol. 181, no. 6, pp. 894-904. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201800152

APA

Graf-Rosenfellner, M., Kayser, G., Guggenberger, G., Kaiser, K., Büks, F., Kaiser, M., Mueller, C. W., Schrumpf, M., Rennert, T., Welp, G., & Lang, F. (2018). Replicability of aggregate disruption by sonication—an inter-laboratory test using three different soils from Germany. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 181(6), 894-904. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201800152

Vancouver

Graf-Rosenfellner M, Kayser G, Guggenberger G, Kaiser K, Büks F, Kaiser M et al. Replicability of aggregate disruption by sonication—an inter-laboratory test using three different soils from Germany. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. 2018;181(6):894-904. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201800152

Author

Graf-Rosenfellner, Markus ; Kayser, Gilles ; Guggenberger, Georg ; Kaiser, Klaus ; Büks, Frederik ; Kaiser, Michael ; Mueller, Carsten W. ; Schrumpf, Marion ; Rennert, Thilo ; Welp, Gerhard ; Lang, Friederike. / Replicability of aggregate disruption by sonication—an inter-laboratory test using three different soils from Germany. In: Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. 2018 ; Vol. 181, No. 6. pp. 894-904.

Bibtex

@article{b847b3cc4f7648fa806661e6db31ee5b,
title = "Replicability of aggregate disruption by sonication—an inter-laboratory test using three different soils from Germany",
abstract = "Sonication is widely used for disruption of suspended soil aggregates. Calorimetric calibration allows for determining sonication power and applied energy as a measure for aggregate disrupting forces. Yet other properties of sonication devices (e.g., oscillation frequency and amplitude, sonotrode diameter) as well as procedure details (soil-to-water ratio, size, shape, and volume of used containers) may influence the extent of aggregate disruption in addition to the applied energy. In this study, we tested potential bias in aggregate disruption when different devices or procedures are used in laboratory routines. In nine laboratories, three reference soil samples were sonicated at 30 J mL−1 and 400 J mL−1. Aggregate disruption was estimated based on particle size distribution before and after sonication. Size distribution was obtained by standardized submerged sieving for particle size classes 2000–200 and 200–63 µm, and by dynamic imaging for particles < 63 µm. Despite differences in sonication devices and protocols used by the participants, only 16 in 216 tests of samples of the size fractions 2000–200 and 200–63 µm were identified as outliers. For the size fraction < 63 µm, fewer outliers were detected (8 in 324 tests). Four out of nine laboratories produced more than two outliers. In these laboratories, sonication devices differed from the others regarding oscillation frequencies (24 or 30 kHz compared to 20 kHz), sonotrode diameters (10 and 14 mm compared to 13 mm), and sonication power (16 W compared to > 45 W). Thus, these sonication device properties need to be listed when reporting on sonication-based soil aggregate disruption. The overall small differences in the degree of disruption of soil aggregates between different laboratories demonstrate that sonication with the energies tested (30 and 400 J mL−1) provides replicable results despite the variations regarding procedures and equipment.",
keywords = "disaggregation, particle size fractions, reproducibility, round-robin test, ultrasound",
author = "Markus Graf-Rosenfellner and Gilles Kayser and Georg Guggenberger and Klaus Kaiser and Frederik B{\"u}ks and Michael Kaiser and Mueller, {Carsten W.} and Marion Schrumpf and Thilo Rennert and Gerhard Welp and Friederike Lang",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1002/jpln.201800152",
language = "English",
volume = "181",
pages = "894--904",
journal = "Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science",
issn = "1436-8730",
publisher = "Wiley - V C H Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Replicability of aggregate disruption by sonication—an inter-laboratory test using three different soils from Germany

AU - Graf-Rosenfellner, Markus

AU - Kayser, Gilles

AU - Guggenberger, Georg

AU - Kaiser, Klaus

AU - Büks, Frederik

AU - Kaiser, Michael

AU - Mueller, Carsten W.

AU - Schrumpf, Marion

AU - Rennert, Thilo

AU - Welp, Gerhard

AU - Lang, Friederike

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Sonication is widely used for disruption of suspended soil aggregates. Calorimetric calibration allows for determining sonication power and applied energy as a measure for aggregate disrupting forces. Yet other properties of sonication devices (e.g., oscillation frequency and amplitude, sonotrode diameter) as well as procedure details (soil-to-water ratio, size, shape, and volume of used containers) may influence the extent of aggregate disruption in addition to the applied energy. In this study, we tested potential bias in aggregate disruption when different devices or procedures are used in laboratory routines. In nine laboratories, three reference soil samples were sonicated at 30 J mL−1 and 400 J mL−1. Aggregate disruption was estimated based on particle size distribution before and after sonication. Size distribution was obtained by standardized submerged sieving for particle size classes 2000–200 and 200–63 µm, and by dynamic imaging for particles < 63 µm. Despite differences in sonication devices and protocols used by the participants, only 16 in 216 tests of samples of the size fractions 2000–200 and 200–63 µm were identified as outliers. For the size fraction < 63 µm, fewer outliers were detected (8 in 324 tests). Four out of nine laboratories produced more than two outliers. In these laboratories, sonication devices differed from the others regarding oscillation frequencies (24 or 30 kHz compared to 20 kHz), sonotrode diameters (10 and 14 mm compared to 13 mm), and sonication power (16 W compared to > 45 W). Thus, these sonication device properties need to be listed when reporting on sonication-based soil aggregate disruption. The overall small differences in the degree of disruption of soil aggregates between different laboratories demonstrate that sonication with the energies tested (30 and 400 J mL−1) provides replicable results despite the variations regarding procedures and equipment.

AB - Sonication is widely used for disruption of suspended soil aggregates. Calorimetric calibration allows for determining sonication power and applied energy as a measure for aggregate disrupting forces. Yet other properties of sonication devices (e.g., oscillation frequency and amplitude, sonotrode diameter) as well as procedure details (soil-to-water ratio, size, shape, and volume of used containers) may influence the extent of aggregate disruption in addition to the applied energy. In this study, we tested potential bias in aggregate disruption when different devices or procedures are used in laboratory routines. In nine laboratories, three reference soil samples were sonicated at 30 J mL−1 and 400 J mL−1. Aggregate disruption was estimated based on particle size distribution before and after sonication. Size distribution was obtained by standardized submerged sieving for particle size classes 2000–200 and 200–63 µm, and by dynamic imaging for particles < 63 µm. Despite differences in sonication devices and protocols used by the participants, only 16 in 216 tests of samples of the size fractions 2000–200 and 200–63 µm were identified as outliers. For the size fraction < 63 µm, fewer outliers were detected (8 in 324 tests). Four out of nine laboratories produced more than two outliers. In these laboratories, sonication devices differed from the others regarding oscillation frequencies (24 or 30 kHz compared to 20 kHz), sonotrode diameters (10 and 14 mm compared to 13 mm), and sonication power (16 W compared to > 45 W). Thus, these sonication device properties need to be listed when reporting on sonication-based soil aggregate disruption. The overall small differences in the degree of disruption of soil aggregates between different laboratories demonstrate that sonication with the energies tested (30 and 400 J mL−1) provides replicable results despite the variations regarding procedures and equipment.

KW - disaggregation

KW - particle size fractions

KW - reproducibility

KW - round-robin test

KW - ultrasound

U2 - 10.1002/jpln.201800152

DO - 10.1002/jpln.201800152

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85053874846

VL - 181

SP - 894

EP - 904

JO - Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science

JF - Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science

SN - 1436-8730

IS - 6

ER -

ID: 238950687