Flume‐ and field‐based evaluation of a time‐integrated suspended sediment sampler for the analysis of sediment properties. Issue 9 (12th February 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Smith, Tyler B.; Owens, Philip N.
• Is Part Of: Earth surface processes and landforms. Volume 39:Issue 9(2014)
• Page Start: 1197
• Page End: 1207
• Publication Date: 2014-02-12
• Subjects: Geomorphology -- Periodicals; 551.4
• DOI: 10.1002/esp.3528
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0197-9337

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title>ABSTRACT</title> <p>Suspended sediment has been identified as a vector for nutrient and contaminant transport in the fluvial environment. A time‐integrated sampler (the Phillips sampler), which emerged over a decade ago as a cost‐effective tool for <italic>in situ</italic> suspended sediment collection, is increasingly being used to collect samples for the analysis of sediment properties such as particle size composition, and nutrient and contaminant concentrations. This study evaluates the sampler under both flume and field conditions for efficiency in the mass and grain size of the suspended sediment collected. The sampler was tested in a flume using both kaolinite and sediment samples (sieved to < 180 µm) collected from the Quesnel River, British Columbia, Canada. In the kaolinite trails, the sampler preferentially collected coarser grain sizes compared to the original sediment, probably due to finer sediment remaining in suspension and therefore passing through the sampler, and also possibly due to flocculation of the kaolinite upon introduction to the flume. Conversely, the sampler collected river sediment that was finer than the original sediment, probably due to some settling of coarser sediment observed at the bottom of the flume. Once allowance was made for these operational issues associated with the flume, maximum sediment mass efficiency for kaolinite and river sediment was 43% and 87%, respectively. Sediment collected by the time‐integrated sampler during field deployment and adjacent channel bed sediment were also compared. The sampler collected sediment with a representative grain size distribution. However, there were differences in the geochemical (arsenic and selenium) concentrations of channel bed sediment and sediment collected by the Phillips sampler which may be a function of differences in the behavior of geochemical elements associated with the two types of sediment. This work suggests that further research is needed to evaluate the role of the Phillips sampler in collecting sediment for contaminant and nutrient analysis. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</p> </abstract>