Muhammad Sarim

Thank you for your question. There are many people using the Mastersizer (generic) for measuring soils and sediments. Your first port of call should be the Malvern Panalytical HelpDesk or your local sales and service personnel (should be a label on the instrument).

A useful document (part of a book – Chapter 3) can be found with a web search):

https://lawr.ucdavis.edu/classes/ssc220/MLJacksonCh3.pdf

This excellent chapter appears to have been written by M L Jackson, UC Davis. From there we have appropriate size classes (I have adapted the last class):

Coarser sands 100+ μm

Very fine sand 100 to 50 μm

Coarse silt 50 to 20μm

Medium silt 20 to 5 μm

Fine silt 5 to 2 μm

Coarse clay 2 to 0.2 μm

Medium clay 0.2 to 0.08 μm

Fine clay < 0.08 μm

Looks like you have a material with high clay content. Indeed, visual analysis of your plot appears to show 100% (by volume) < 60 μm. The Malvern Panalytical website is another excellent source of data with webinars and application notes. For example:

Size and shape characterization in soils and sediments

https://www.malvernpanalytical.com/en/learn/events-and-training/webinars/W120209SizeShapeCharacterizationSoilSediments.html

Now you don’t have to work this through on the instrument to classify your materials. There are a number of custom reports (including Phi charts and similar) that have been designed that allow this to be easily seen. See Slide Custom reports at 01:10:32 in the webinar mentioned above. You will need to know how to import a format in the .pag report into your MS2000 software. Read the manual and we/I can send on the appropriate report. One is attached with the original Malvern report and one adapted to convert the result into soils/sediments data. Or post the .mea (raw data) file and I can do this for you. I have one example I’ve created (not from a soil but a powder coating that I had accessible).

There are a number of concerns on your report which shows some training will be in order. You’re measuring material < 25 μm and thus the optical properties are useful. I can’t believe that you’re working with a black powder (Fraunhofer). A clay model of 1.56/1.0/1.33 would be more appropriate as the starting point for a robustness test.

MS2000 – excellent, but legacy, instrument: manufacture was ended over 7 years ago. Some support can be offered but service reliant now on availability of parts. Many parts such as laser and power supply (always replaced as one) are available but certain electronic components (e.g. 16 MB memory chips) become harder and harder to source). Your institute should be budgeting for a replacement (the Mastersizer 3000)

Muhammad Sarim

You'll need to add a report file (.pag) such as that attached to the software. Can you do this?

Dear Alan F Rawle Thank you so much for such a detail explanation. The data i am working on is a part of an ocean exploration project. Because of the COVID-19 restriction, i didn't get the chance to work on the Mastersizer 2000 machine. I only received the .mea file and the Mastersizer software package for interpreting the data i received. Indeed you are right that Mastersizer 3000 is a needed upgrade for our lab and we have already submitted a request for the new model, hopefully it will be approved in the next semester.

As for the data analysis, I am a beginner to this software and the data. I have calculated the mean grain size and mode but i am confused in calculating the sorting information from the received .mea file. The grain size is in the range of silt and clay with very minute fraction of sand.

I will go through the custom report of the webinar and try to understand the method.

Thanks again for such a detail answer.

Alan F Rawle I don't know how to add the report file to the software. I can send you the .mea file in your inbox and you can have a look at it.

Hello Muhammad Sarim - the pag file contains the information for the report, for example the layout. There should be a special folder where there files are stored,, similar to the way this is handled in the Zetasizer software.

https://www.materials-talks.com/how-can-i-customize-a-report-for-the-zetasizer/

If this does not help, reach out to the help desk https://www.materials-talks.com/help-for-my-instrument-one-step-away/

Ulf Nobbmann

Hi Ulf & Happy New Year. This one has been solved using PM's. Helpdesk also recommended for training issues... I have some custom soils reports for MS2000 that have been utilized. Also mentioned that MS3000 should be budgeted for now as MS2000 legacy.

Thanks, Alan F Rawle and Ulf Nobbmann for all your help on this one. Both Andy Dorman will run with this from here. Kind Regards, Mark

Hello, Muhammad Sarim I am your local Account Manager for Malvern Panalytical living here in Vancouver, BC. I would be happy to help with any questions you might have about Particle Size in general and the Mastersizer is specific. If you need an upgrade quote for the trade-up from Mastersizer 2000 to Mastersizer 3000 I can also help with that. Please let me know how I might be able to help. Kind Regards, Mark

Hello, Muhammad Sarim the .mea file generally by default enlist whole spectrum of size classes, making it difficult to sort the data according to user. However, the software does allow to sort/display the result according to the users defined range.

To do so, you just have to define "User sizes". The option is available in the "Edit" tab on the left upper-side of the screen. Here you can customize the sizes according to your need (Edit > User sizes). Here you can edit an existing size or generate a new size if you wish. You can save tour size classes if you want. When you have modified the list, just press "Ok". Now it will show according to your defined size class.

You now have successfully sorted your grain size data!

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Arindam Sarkar

Yes, you are correct. However, the use of the 'User Sizes' function can provide (pseudo-?/apparent and not real) problems. The standard format (in line with ISO9276-2 format) is a logarithmic (we use 100 log-spaced size bands) x-(size) axis and a linear y-(quantity; Q3 is volume/mass) vertical axis. Changing the size bands (e.g. to a few sieve size bands) provides histogram data that looks strange (even though it's correct) and if one was to calculate new means and other data (medians, percentiles, and so on) then they wouldn't agree with the correct values splined off the continuous density distribution. For example, in a reduction to absurdity argument, everything measured on the Mastersizer 2000 (range 0.02 - 2000 microns) would have an 'average' size of approximately 1mm (or 1000 microns). [Because if we say 'all the material falls in the range 0.02 - 2000 microns' and we take a single channel in this range then the (simple, arithmetic) average is (0.02 + 2000)/2 or ~ 1000 microns. This is clearly absurd and the argument can be extended to 2 or more arbitrarily selected size bands].

I attach one result where a single size band has been combined with the adjacent one - the graph 'looks peculiar' even though it's correct - the area under the histogram is key. And, be aware that this is a math/statistical 101 error (frequency and histogram display of data) and not a particle sizing or Malvern Panalytical issue.