Abstract
Electronic particle counting and pipette size-analysis techniques are compared for their relative effectiveness in large-scale routine mud analysis. Optimum laboratory procedures for conducting electronic analyses with a Model TA Coulter Counter are presented. Comparative electronic and pipette analyses conducted on the same samples resulted in equivalent precision for both techniques. Results of electronic analyses consistently showed size distributions significantly coarser than those obtained by pipette analyses. The laboratory efficiency of the relatively rapid electronic technique is far superior to that of the pipette technique, although more extensive precautionary measures are required to maintain a high level of analytical accuracy and precision. The quality of electronic analyses largely depends upon the effectivenesses of standardized operational procedures established within the laboratory.
