Islam 1

Comparison of Conductivity Levels Between Beach Zones & Correlation Between

Conductivity and Particle Size of Sand

Abstract:
Electrical conductivity is the ability of the electrical currents to be conducted and transmitted in
the sand. Electrical conductivity reveals physical properties of a sand sample, such as texture and
an estimate of the particle size of the sand. This helps to also determine the porosity and its
properties of the sand, as porosity has a direct relationship with conductivity as well. Altogether,
it can help determine the best usage of the sand and how well it can hold nutrients and even
contaminants, as studying sands in-depth can help improve the environment of beaches. Students
at the Marine Academy of Technology and Environmental Science (MATES) collected samples
at 2 locations, Ship Bottom and Harvey’s Cedar. 3 groups collected a sample from each of the 4
zones across each location. The sand samples were later run through a conductivity test and a
sieve machine in order to differentiate the composition regarding phi sizes. To analyze the data,
an ANOVA-single factor test was run through the conductivities by zone of each site for
comparison. It showed to be significantly different. When graphing the data values of both sites,
there was an inverse relationship between sand particle size and conductivity for both sites.

Background:
Soil conductivity, specifically electrical conductivity, is the ability of the electrical

currents to be conducted and/or transmitted in the sand. Electrical conductivity can reveal

physical properties of a sand sample, such as texture and an estimate of the particle size of the

sand. This is crucial as it can help determine how easy or difficult it is for a certain sand sample

to retain nutrients. For example, nutrients are difficult to be kept in sandy soils due to its

inefficiency in holding cations. Electrical conductivity can vary throughout the beach, as particle

sizes can vary throughout the beach and its zones. Porosity, the amount of spaces in a sand, has a

direct relationship with conductivity. However, porosity can change in sand when the granules

increase, and become lowered. Porosity can help tell a lot about the beach environment, such as

erosion and the sand’s efficiency to hold both contaminants and nutrients. This is comparing

conductivities between sites and understanding the correlation between conductivity and sand

size is crucial. To further compare conductivities between the beach zones, samples of sand were
 Islam 2

collected throughout. To determine a correlation between the samples and its conductivity,

samples were further looked into by particle size in relation to conductivity.

Methodology:

Students from the “Research Methods and Field Ecology” class at MATES gathered sand

samples from Ship Bottom on April 25, 2023 and Harvey’s Cedar on May 11, 2023. Sand

samples were collected from Ship Bottom around 11:45 AM across 4 beach zones. Three groups

collected samples from different parts of each zone, and each collection site’s coordinates were

recorded (Figure 1). It was fairly sunny with high tides. Sand samples were collected from

Harvey’s Cedar across 4 beach zones as well. Three groups collected samples from different

parts of each zone and recorded the coordinates (Figure 2). Likewise to Ship Bottom, it was

sunny but had some high tides here and there.

To measure each zone, a tape measure was used across the latitude of the beach. Then,

using a silver pipe, 100 grams of sand were taken from each zone from the beach. The pipe was

placed into the sand and dug into the sand, collecting 100 grams through the pipe. The sample

was placed into a plastic bag through the opening, marked with the group name and coordinates

where it was collected. When brought back to the classroom, the sand samples were spread out

evenly throughout a board and set to dry out as much as possible overnight. For the samples from

Harvey’s Cedar, the samples were placed in a drying oven to ensure complete dryness.

For conductivity, 15 grams of sand was placed into a 100-millimeter graduated cylinder,

then 30 milliliters of water was poured into. A plastic film was then placed on the top and the

graduated cylinder was shaken. Once all of the water submerged into the sand and was
 Islam 3

well-shaken, the graduated cylinder was placed on a table and a conductivity meter was placed

into the water solution. The conductivity was recorded into a spreadsheet.

For sieving, each sand sample of the zone was placed into a weight boat and then poured

into a collection of sievers. Each sieve was differentiated by phi size, and altogether there were

six sieves. When the sand was poured in into the sieves, the sieves were placed into a sieve

shaker and were shaken for 2 minutes. Once the two minutes were up, the sieves were taken

apart one by one, and the sand inside each sieve was weighed and recorded. Once all the sieves

were weighed, the process was repeated for the next 3 zones.

For the comparison, the conductivity of all 4 zones from the 3 groups at Ship Bottom was

compared to the conductivity of all 4 zones from the 3 groups at Harvey’s Cedar using an

ANOVA single factor test. For the correlation, the conductivity of each zone was correlated with

the weight (in grams) of the medium-size sand of each zone from both locations. The

medium-size sand was used because that composed most of the sand samples of all the zones in

terms of size. For the graphs, bar graphs of mean conductivity for each zone in Ship Bottom was

compared next to bar graphs of mean conductivity for each zone in Harvey’s Cedar. Another

graph included the correlation between the conductivity of each zone from both locations with

the weight (in grams) of the medium-size sand of each zone.

Results:

When an ANOVA test was run through the conductivities from both Ship Bottom and

Harvey’s Cedar based on the zone, it had a p-value less than 0.05, meaning that there is a

significant difference between the conductivities based on the zones. A bar graph was created

with the mean conductivities of each zone for both locations, and Harvey’s Cedar had a higher
 Islam 4

mean conductivity for the majority of the zones (Figure 3). Graphs were created to determine the

R2 value and if there was a correlation between the medium-size sand of the sample and the

conductivity of the zone where the sample was collected. For Ship Bottom, the R2 value was

0.06, but for Harvey’s Cedar, the R2 value was 0.01 (Figures 4 & 5). Both locations had an

inverse correlation, although Harvey’s Cedar had a weaker correlation compared to Ship Bottom.

This could also be because it was mentioned when collecting data that the conductivity for zone

3 and 4 of group 3 in Ship Bottom were off.

Discussion/Conclusion:

For the comparison, it is possible that Harvey’s Cedar, on average, had higher

conductivity levels than Ship Bottom. When looking at the individual data values for

conductivity for each zone of Harvey’s Cedar, they were much greater than Ship Bottom (Tables

3 & 4). Both locations, however, saw an increase in conductivity across the zones. This leads

into a question of why the conductivity, for the most part, increases across the zones in both

locations. When looking at the correlation graphs for both areas, both Ship Bottom and Harvey’s

Cedar had an inverse correlation. This means that if the sand is composed more of larger sand

granules or smaller sand granules, the conductivity will vary accordingly. In conclusion, when

the amount of medium-size sand granules decreased, the conductivity increased. This is because

sand has high porosity, but is lowered when sand granule size increases. When porosity is

lowered, the conductivity is lowered. When the amount of medium-size granules increases, the

porosity is lowered, and therefore, the conductivity is lowered as well.

Acknowledgements:
 Islam 5

I would like to thank Mr. Jason Kelsey and Dr. John Wnek for providing equipment and

knowledge needed to collect the data and perform statistical analyses for this report. I would also

like to thank the bus driver, Gus, for providing transportation to and from the designated site

needed to collect data. Lastly, I would like to thank my peers for working together diligently to

gather the data needed for this report.

Links:

https://www.lsuagcenter.com/nr/rdonlyres/e57e82a0-3b99-4dee-99b5-cf2ad7c43aef/77101/pub3

185whatissoilelectricalconductivityhighres.pdf

http://sstinfolab.com/electrical-soil-conductivity.html#:~:text=Electrical%20conductivity%20is%

20essential%20in,its%20inefficiency%20in%20storing%20cations.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1367&conte

xt=usgsstaffpub

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUSMNS41A..10M/abstract

https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/24375/

Table 1: Coordinates of the four beach zones collected by three groups at Ship Bottom.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude
Zone 1 (0 ft, 0
m) 39.648333 -74.172778 39.64842 -74.17268 39.64847 -74.17260
Zone 2 (98 ft, 30
m) 39.648611 -74.172778 39.64851 -74.17283 39.64858 -74.17278
Zone 3 (168 ft, 39.648611 -74.173056 39.64863 -74.17306 39.64870 -74.17300
 Islam 6

51 m)
Zone 4 (238 ft,
73 m) 39.648889 -74.173611 39.6488 -74.17332 39.64881 -74.17327

Table 2: Coordinates of the four beach zones collected by three groups at Harvey’s Cedar.
However, coordinates for zones 3 and 4 of group 3 are incorrect because the GPS was not
working for those locations.
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude
Zone 1 (0 ft, 0
m) 39.69245 -74.14006 39.69234 -74.14007 39.69225 -74.14012
Zone 2 (40 ft,
12 m) 39.692444 -74.140111 39.69235 -74.14014 39.69225 -74.1402
Zone 3 (70 ft,
21 m) 39.6925 -74.140194 39.69239 -74.14023 39.68928 -74.14030
Zone 4 (94 ft,
29 m) 39.692528 -74.140333 39.69245 -74.14037 39.795317 -74.27685

Table 3: Conductivity values for Ship Bottom collected by three groups.

Conductivity
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Zone 1 (0 ft) 2870 4840 3458
Zone 2 (98 ft) 84.3 65.9 1442
Zone 3 (168 ft) 52.8 68.6 100.6
Zone 4 (238 ft) 18.4 32.7 145.2

Table 4: Conductivity values for Harvey’s Cedar collected by three groups.

Conductivity
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Zone 1 (0) 4051 2573 4515
 Islam 7

Zone 2 (40) 1066 1234 1648

Zone 3 (70) 1132 1070 1244
Zone 4 (94) 25.4 57 403.8

Figure 1: Coordinates of the sites where sand samples were taken in Ship Bottom. Coordinates
are color-coded according to group, group 1 being red, group 2 being yellow, and group 3 being
green.
 Islam 8

Figure 2: Coordinates of the sites where sand samples were taken in Harvey’s Cedar.
Coordinates are color-coded according to group, group 1 being red, group 2 being yellow, and
group 3 being green. However, coordinates for zones 3 and 4 of group 3 are not included because
the GPS was not working for those locations.

Figure 3: Medium Size Sand vs. Conductivity for Ship Bottom (N = 12). R2 value = 0.06 with an
inverse correlation.
 Islam 9

Figure 4: Medium Size Sand vs. Conductivity for Harvey’s Cedar. R2 value = 0.01 with an
inverse correlation.

Figure 5: Mean conductivities for Ship Bottom and Harvey’s Cedar (N = 24). All 4 zones were
compared (error +/- 5%, ANOVA p < 0.05).