ArticleScientific reports2017
Stability of volcanic ash aggregates and break-up processes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- In-situ evidence of volcanic ash aggregation during fallout from combined ground- and UAS-based observations.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Synergistic effects of organic carbon and silica in preserving structural stability of drying soils.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Atmosphere injection of sea salts during large explosive submarine volcanic eruptions.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Cleaner technologies for asphalt mixtures combining reuse of residual aggregates, waste crumb rubber and warm mix asphalt additive.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Mechanical performance under dynamic loading of rubberized asphalt mixtures with highly-porous vesicular aggregate.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- First field evidence of the electrical multipolar nature of volcanic aggregates.Science advances · 2022Article
- New insights into real-time detection of tephra grainsize, settling velocity and sedimentation rate.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- The fate of volcanic ash: premature or delayed sedimentation?Nature communications · 2021Article
- Formation of stable aggregates by fluid-assembled solid bridges.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
- Low efficiency of large volcanic eruptions in transporting very fine ash into the atmosphere.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Quantification of ash sedimentation dynamics through depolarisation imaging with AshCam.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Aggregation in particle rich environments: a textural study of examples from volcanic eruptions, meteorite impacts, and fluidized bed processing.Bulletin of volcanology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Numerical modeling of ash plume dispersal is an important tool for forecasting and mitigating potential hazards from volcanic ash erupted during explosive volcanism. Recent tephra dispersal models have been expanded to account for dynamic ash aggregation processes. However, there are very few studies on rates of disaggregation during transport. It follows that current models regard ash aggregation as irrevocable and may therefore overestimate aggregation-enhanced sedimentation. In this experimental study, we use industrial granulation techniques to artificially produce aggregates. We subject these to impact tests and evaluate their resistance to break-up processes. We find a dependence of aggregate stability on primary particle size distribution and solid particle binder concentration. We posit that our findings could be combined with eruption source parameters and implemented in future tephra dispersal models.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.