ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative study of laboratory and portable spot permeability measurements in bioturbated carbonate strata.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In bioturbated strata, defining and obtaining a representative elementary volume for permeability measurements presents significant challenges. To address this, spot permeability is often used as an alternative method to estimate the bulk permeability of these complex strata. However, laboratory measurements of spot permeability require steady-state nitrogen gas injection and careful sample preparation including slab cutting which makes the process both time-consuming and resource-intensive. Alternatively, field measurements using portable devices offer a more cost-effective, straightforward, and real-time approach for assessing permeability in situ. To evaluate the accuracy of portable devices in measuring spot permeability in bioturbated strata, we compare and contrast permeability measurements on the same rock samples (from the Hanifa Formation in central Saudi Arabia) using two different techniques: the sophisticated laboratory-based AutoScan system and the portable TinyPerm 3 field device both from New England Research (NER). Two sets of permeability data comprising 64 measurements were obtained and analyzed graphically using Whisker Box Plots, Bland-Altman Plot, Curve Matching, and Cross Plots, as well as statistically through correlation analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The graphical analysis revealed no substantial difference in permeability measured by the two methods, a finding further supported by ANOVA results, which indicated no statistically significant difference (P-value > 0.05). Additionally, the correlation plot between the permeability measurements from the two methods yielded a straight line with an R[Formula: see text] value greater than 0.9, demonstrating a strong agreement. This study highlights the potential of using portable handheld permeameters to measure spot permeability of bioturbated strata in the field, offering a cost-effective, accurate, and real-time alternative to laboratory-based techniques in estimating their bulk permeability.
Indexed as
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.