The grain size analysis is one of the tests that can be performed to determine the percentage of different grain size contained within the soil. It provides very useful information on the classification of sedimentary environment and the transportation of the sediments. The grain size distribution provides good quantification for soil studies and reveals the weathering characteristics of sedimentary processes and provenance [1,2,3,4]. The results of Abuodha [5] have helped to clarify the sedimentary environment and its transport dynamism.

The benefits of mathematical representation of grain size analysis cannot be overemphasised which include the soil classification using the best-fit parameters. Second, the mathematical equation can be used as the basis for analysis related to estimating the soil–water characteristic curve. Third, a mathematical equation provides a method of representing the entire curve between the measured data points [6]. Representing the soil as a mathematical function also provides increased the flexibility in searching for similar soils in the database.

The development of computerized data analysis has enhanced the knowledge of the calculation of different statistical parameters to determine the transportation history of the sediments as in the kurtosis, the average size of grain, sorting and skewness. They are designated by different methods and characterised the particle-size distribution in sediments [7,8,9]. Various researchers [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18] have established different formulae for the statistical parameters but the most widely used among the formulae are those proposed by Folk and Ward [19].

The measures of quartile, phi scale among others are some of the frequently used statistical measures of grain size distribution. Seven different points on the cumulative frequency curve are directly selected (at 5, 16, 25, 50, 75, 84 and 95 percentiles) for the computation of the parametric statistics [20]. Sediment transportation is the movement of organic or inorganic particles (sediments) by water, the sediments can also be carried by gravity, glaciers and fluid in which the sediment is entrained. Most mineral sediments are as a result of weathering and erosion [21]. Transportation of sediments was often responsible for the intermixing of geologic features by carrying mineral particles away from their origin [22].

According to Adegoke and Layade [23], a geophysical investigation had been carried out within Gbede, the study area which revealed the proximity of the iron ore in form of magnetite and hematite to the ground surface. Vents, supposedly the ore source, were also identified in the area which shows the presence of the ore in the area as a result of sediment transportation that took place for years irrespective of the geological constituent of the area. This research is aimed at analyzing the grain size of the soil samples collected from the study area in other to classify the samples based on their textural properties and determine the transportation history of the samples.

The study area is located in Gbede of Surulere L.G.A of Oyo State, Southwest Nigeria. It is accessible through Ogbomoso – Gambari – Ilorin road, and is about 30 km from Ilorin Airport. The area is bounded within latitudes 8°17′37.7″ and 8°17′49.8″ North and between longitudes 4°20′45.9″ and 4°20′58.8″ East. It has an undulating topography with an average elevation of 370 m above the mean sea level. Past studies [24,25] have identified the hydrogeology of Sub-Saharan African as represented in Nigeria into four provinces; the Precambrian basement rocks, volcanic rocks, unconsolidated sediments and consolidated sedimentary rocks. However, the province of the Precambrian basement is located on the study area, and it comprises crystalline and metamorphic rocks.

Grain size analysis can be determined using various analytical techniques among which were sieving methods adopted for this research. The low investment, ease of handling and high accuracy make the sieve analysis a commonly used procedure to determine the soil texture. Fourteen fresh samples were collected at different locations using Soil Auger. This Auger used at a different point was properly rinsed before and after each sample collection for good analysis. A small polythene bag was used to transport the samples to the laboratory to begin the sieving procedure and further analysis. For proper identification, each polythene bag was labelled GB1 to GB14 (GB means Gbede, while the figures represent the number of strata being sampled).

A weighing balance was used to weigh 100 g of each sample already arranged according to their depth. Since collected samples were fresh at the point of collection, it was then oven-dried at 70oC so that it will be free from trace moisture and thereafter passed through the mechanical sieving process using the Ro-tap shaker. The result of this sieving was tabulated and analysed. From the histogram chart, the cumulative frequency weight percent plotted against grain size (Phi) were generated and statistical parameters such as graphic mean, standard deviation skewness were computed from the graph. Seven points were identified as percentiles (5, 16, 25, 50, 75, 84 and 95 percentiles) and the results presented in Tables 1–6, respectively. The trend of grain size distribution was then determined from the total average value of each computed parameter. Appendices 1 and 2 represent the histogram and cumulative arithmetic curve plotted together from each sample.

Classification of the graphic mean.

∅ – 1 to ∅ 0 | Very coarse sand |

∅ 0 to ∅ 1 | Coarse sand |

∅ 1 to ∅ 2 | Medium sand |

∅ 2 to ∅ 3 | Fine sand |

∅ 3 to ∅ 4 | Very fine sand |

Graphic Standard deviation with classes of sorting.

∅ 0.35 to ∅ 0.50 | well sorted |

∅ 0.50 to ∅ 0.71 | moderately well sorted |

∅ 0.71 to ∅ 1.00 | moderately sorted |

∅ 1.00 to ∅ 2.00 | poorly sorted |

Classification scale describing the skewness.

∅ 0.1 to ∅ 0.3 | Fine skewed |

∅ −0.1 to ∅ 0.1 | Near symmetrical |

∅ −0.3 to ∅ −0.1 | Coarse-skewed |

Classification scale and description of Kurtosis.

<∅ 0.67 | Very Platykurtic |

∅ 0.67 to ∅ 0.90 | Platykurtic |

∅ 0.90 to ∅ 1.11 | Mesokurtic |

∅ 1.11 to ∅ 1.50 | Leptokurtic |

∅ 1.50 to ∅ 3.00 | Very leptokurtic |

Comparative result of the Grain Size Analysis for soil samples in phi (Φ).

GB1 | 1.46 | 1.01 | −0.05 | 1.35 |

GB2 | 1.55 | 0.54 | −0.12 | 1.36 |

GB3 | 1.96 | 0.64 | −0.13 | 1.50 |

GB4 | 1.29 | 0.95 | 0.18 | 1.03 |

GB5 | 1.09 | 1.26 | 0.03 | 1.17 |

GB6 | 1.19 | 0.91 | 0.06 | 1.72 |

GB7 | 2.06 | 1.20 | −0.25 | 1.66 |

GB8 | 1.50 | 1.26 | 0.01 | 0.97 |

GB9 | 2.33 | 0.84 | −0.08 | 1.21 |

GB10 | 1.69 | 0.42 | 0.20 | 1.40 |

GB11 | 2.03 | 0.57 | 0.26 | 0.58 |

GB12 | 1.37 | 0.87 | 0.02 | 1.66 |

GB13 | 1.94 | 0.62 | −0.13 | 1.67 |

GB14 | 1.19 | 0.91 | 0.06 | 1.72 |

Description of the Soil samples with Grain Size Analysis.

GB1 | Medium sand, poorly sorted, ear symmetrical and leptokurtic. |

GB2 | Medium sand, moderately well sorted, coarse-skewed and leptokurtic. |

GB3 | Medium sand, moderately well sorted, coarse-skewed and leptokurtic. |

GB4 | Medium sand, moderately sorted, fine skewed and mesokurtic. |

GB5 | Medium sand, poorly sorted, near symmetrical and leptokurtic. |

GB6 | Medium sand, moderately sorted, near symmetrical and very leptokurtic. |

GB7 | Fine sand, poorly sorted, coarse-skewed and very leptokurtic. |

GB8 | Medium sand, poorly sorted, near symmetrical and mesokurtic. |

GB9 | Fine sand, moderately sorted, near symmetrical and leptokurtic. |

GB10 | Medium sand, moderately sorted, fine skewed and leptokurtic |

GB11 | Medium sand, moderately sorted, near symmetrical and leptokurtic |

GB12 | Medium sand, moderately sorted, near symmetrical and very leptokurtic. |

GB13 | Medium sand, moderately well sorted, coarse skewed and very leptokurtic. |

GB14 | Medium sand, moderately sorted, near symmetrical and very leptokurtic. |

Graphic mean is one of the statistical parameters to understand the transport history of the sediments. It depends on the size of available sediments and the amount of energy impacted to the sediments. The result of the classification of samples with graphic mean is presented in Table 1 while Figure 1 shows the variogram of the mean for the soil samples.

Sorting indicates how effective the depositional medium in separating different classes of grains. The expression for graphic standard deviation is given in Equation (2) followed by its interpretation as shown in Table 2. According to [30], the various ranges of sorting in sandstones indicate the various environments of the sand.

Figure 2 shows the range of sorted values lies between 0.54 and 1.42. This statistical calculation revealed two different categories, namely moderately sorted and poorly sorted. But moderately sorted is the most dominant, suggesting the samples were transferred farther away from the point of collection. From the result, the classification class of 0.71–1.0 represented the moderately sorted grain, while the latter category is within the range of 1.0–2.0. The energy and transportation of sediment distance are all functions of the distance of sorting values; therefore, the more the sediment is transferred from the source, the more the sample is moderately sorted and the closer the sediments to the source, the poor the samples sorted.

Another parameter for the transportation history of sediments is Skewness and its determined using Equation (3) with the results presented in Table 3. It simply determines or measures symmetry in the scatter of distribution as well as degree of lopsidedness of a curve (Figure 3). Skewness is directly related to the fine and coarse tails of the size distribution, and hence suggestive of energy of deposition.

The kurtosis is the peakedness of the distribution and measures the ratio between the sorting in the tails and central portion of the curve as given by Equation (4). The result of the classification scale for kurtosis is presented in Table 4 while the range of Kurtosis is 0.58–1.72 as shown in Figure 4. From the classifications (platykurtic, leptokurtic, very leptokurtic and mesokurtic), the classes of leptokurtic are the most predominant in the study area with 50% of the samples. This implies the central portions are better sorted at the tails and strongly suggests that the samples are located at the water concentrated zone.

A graph of graphic mean values versus standard deviation, skewness against standard deviation as shown in Figures 5 and 6 respectively was used to determine the paleoenvironment of deposition of the soil samples from grain size analysis. Therefore, the graphical plots depict that all the samples analysed from the study area were deposited by the transitional environment of geological effects [31]. The multiple directional patters of the paleoenvironment of deposition of soil samples were suggested to be responsible for the moderately sorted impact on the soil samples.

The transportation history of the soil deposit of the Gbede area has been assessed and analysed using grain size distribution through statistical parameters of mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis and cross plot analysis, respectively. The geological environment of the soil samples could be responsible for the poorly and moderately sorted characteristics, and near symmetrical and leptokurtic nature exhibited by the samples deposited in the location [32]. All locations are characterised by soil samples input from a mineral source.

#### Graphic Standard deviation with classes of sorting.

∅ 0.35 to ∅ 0.50 | well sorted |

∅ 0.50 to ∅ 0.71 | moderately well sorted |

∅ 0.71 to ∅ 1.00 | moderately sorted |

∅ 1.00 to ∅ 2.00 | poorly sorted |

#### Comparative result of the Grain Size Analysis for soil samples in phi (Φ).

GB1 | 1.46 | 1.01 | −0.05 | 1.35 |

GB2 | 1.55 | 0.54 | −0.12 | 1.36 |

GB3 | 1.96 | 0.64 | −0.13 | 1.50 |

GB4 | 1.29 | 0.95 | 0.18 | 1.03 |

GB5 | 1.09 | 1.26 | 0.03 | 1.17 |

GB6 | 1.19 | 0.91 | 0.06 | 1.72 |

GB7 | 2.06 | 1.20 | −0.25 | 1.66 |

GB8 | 1.50 | 1.26 | 0.01 | 0.97 |

GB9 | 2.33 | 0.84 | −0.08 | 1.21 |

GB10 | 1.69 | 0.42 | 0.20 | 1.40 |

GB11 | 2.03 | 0.57 | 0.26 | 0.58 |

GB12 | 1.37 | 0.87 | 0.02 | 1.66 |

GB13 | 1.94 | 0.62 | −0.13 | 1.67 |

GB14 | 1.19 | 0.91 | 0.06 | 1.72 |

#### Description of the Soil samples with Grain Size Analysis.

GB1 | Medium sand, poorly sorted, ear symmetrical and leptokurtic. |

GB2 | Medium sand, moderately well sorted, coarse-skewed and leptokurtic. |

GB3 | Medium sand, moderately well sorted, coarse-skewed and leptokurtic. |

GB4 | Medium sand, moderately sorted, fine skewed and mesokurtic. |

GB5 | Medium sand, poorly sorted, near symmetrical and leptokurtic. |

GB6 | Medium sand, moderately sorted, near symmetrical and very leptokurtic. |

GB7 | Fine sand, poorly sorted, coarse-skewed and very leptokurtic. |

GB8 | Medium sand, poorly sorted, near symmetrical and mesokurtic. |

GB9 | Fine sand, moderately sorted, near symmetrical and leptokurtic. |

GB10 | Medium sand, moderately sorted, fine skewed and leptokurtic |

GB11 | Medium sand, moderately sorted, near symmetrical and leptokurtic |

GB12 | Medium sand, moderately sorted, near symmetrical and very leptokurtic. |

GB13 | Medium sand, moderately well sorted, coarse skewed and very leptokurtic. |

GB14 | Medium sand, moderately sorted, near symmetrical and very leptokurtic. |

#### Classification scale describing the skewness.

∅ 0.1 to ∅ 0.3 | Fine skewed |

∅ −0.1 to ∅ 0.1 | Near symmetrical |

∅ −0.3 to ∅ −0.1 | Coarse-skewed |

#### Classification of the graphic mean.

∅ – 1 to ∅ 0 | Very coarse sand |

∅ 0 to ∅ 1 | Coarse sand |

∅ 1 to ∅ 2 | Medium sand |

∅ 2 to ∅ 3 | Fine sand |

∅ 3 to ∅ 4 | Very fine sand |

#### Classification scale and description of Kurtosis.

<∅ 0.67 | Very Platykurtic |

∅ 0.67 to ∅ 0.90 | Platykurtic |

∅ 0.90 to ∅ 1.11 | Mesokurtic |

∅ 1.11 to ∅ 1.50 | Leptokurtic |

∅ 1.50 to ∅ 3.00 | Very leptokurtic |

An analysis of coal consumption, CO _{2}emissions and economic growth in SloveniaMicrostructure of a nickel insert, a special copper alloy, and a cast joint between them Identification of favourable geological formations for the determination of groundwater Valuation of Rubber Waste and Dune Sand: Mortar for Construction and Environmental Protection Rare Earth Element Geochemistry and Abundances in Syenites and Charnockitic Rocks of Selected Locations within Southwestern Nigeria Solid Mineral Potential and Geothermal Energy Reserve of Northern Basement Complex, Nigeria Determination of material quality by methods of thermal analysis Field Observations, Petrography, and Microstructures of Granite from Abeokuta Southwestern Nigeria Lateral squeezing effects on cement-slag-bentonite slurry wall performance Petroleum source rock characteristics of the Mesozoic units, Mekelle Basin, northern Ethiopia Petrophysical Evaluation of H-field, Niger Delta Basin for Petroleum Plays and Prospects Determining the Enthalpy of an Fe-Ni Alloy at Various Temperatures Using the ‘STA’ PT 1600 Equipment Hydrocarbon Potential and Biomarker Studies of EE-1 Well, Offshore Eastern Dahomey Basin, SW Nigeria Regression methods for evaluation of the underwater noise levels in the Slovenian Sea Physico-Chemical Trends in the Sediments of Agbede Wetlands, Nigeria Copper tailings reprocessing Returning Electrostatic Precipitators to the Fe-Ni Production Process