Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Food Safety”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

255 records · Page 15

Technology Strategy Assessment: Findings from Storage Innovations 2030 Bidirectional Hydrogen Storage

Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, comprising nearly 75% of all normal matter, and it has been used by scientists for centuries, but it was not fully recognized as an element until 1766, when it was isolated by Henry Cavendish. Early work focused on the generation of hydrogen through the oxidation of metals in water, which released hydrogen gas. Hydrogen’s lighter-than-air and flammable properties were immediately used in engines, zeppelins, and as feedstock for a wide variety of chemical reactions. Several approaches were developed for the production of hydrogen with the most common being associated with the production and conversion of hydrocarbon-based fuels. Coal gasification, steam methane reforming, and other reformation processes provide the majority of current hydrogen production due to the relatively low cost of hydrogen produced through these processes. More than 95% of hydrogen production is used for industrial processes rather than energy storage. To facilitate affordable decarbonization of these industrial processes and to advance the use of hydrogen as a fuel in transportation, DOE launched the Hydrogen Shot as part of the Energy Earthshots Initiative. The goal of the Hydrogen Shot is to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen by 80% to $1/kg of clean hydrogen production within one decade (known as the “1 1 1” goal). This is distinct from the Long-Duration Storage Shot, which is the primary focus of this report; however, it is intrinsically linked to bidirectional hydrogen storage. Several important chemical synthesis processes are dependent upon hydrogen, and the production and use of hydrogen is generally driven by its connection to one of these markets. For example, ammonia is one of the most highly produced chemicals in the world and it depends chiefly on hydrogen. Ammonia is primarily used for agricultural fertilizer and is considered to be largely responsible for a doubling of agricultural production per unit of land over the last century. Another one of hydrogen’s primary uses is as a catalyst in petroleum refining during the desulfurization process. Beyond chemical production, hydrogen is used as a reductant in the production of steel and has been demonstrated as a substitute for metallurgical coal in the production of raw iron. It is even used in the hydrogenation reaction for food products to create more shelf-stable semi-solid fats. However, while hydrogen is produced on the order of 100 million metric tons/year globally to feed these industries, more than 95% of hydrogen is produced from hydrocarbons that emit CO2 during the process. Conversely, electrolysis is a process by which electricity is used to separate hydrogen and oxygen in water molecules, usually across a membrane. Hydrogen production via electrolysis lowers the carbon intensity of produced hydrogen when coupled with low-carbon electricity. Currently, global electrolysis capacity is on the order of 1 GW, which equates to about 500 metric tons/day of hydrogen production. To support large-scale industrial decarbonization, capacity will likely need to increase by two to three orders of magnitude. Electrolysis technology is broadly separated into groups that are defined by the electrolyte used, with further subdivision based on the operating characteristics. The majority of commercial electrolyzer systems are based around three main technology groups: liquid alkaline, proton exchange membrane, and solid oxide. Liquid Alkaline (LA) electrolysis is the oldest, most mature, least expensive, and most common commercial technology, with 400 plants in operation by 1902. Its hydrogen output is low relative to the size of the system due to a low current density. LA electrolysis utilizes a liquid potassium hydroxide solution as the electrolyte. Proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis (also known as polymer electrolyte membrane electrolysis), described in 1960, relies on an acid-impregnated polymer membrane as the electrolyte and typically offers three to six times higher hydrogen production per unit cell area than LA electrolysis. Solid oxide electrolysis, or high-temperature electrolysis, utilizes a ceramic cell as the electrolyte and operates on steam rather than liquid water, enabling electrical efficiencies of more than 90%, which is up from 60% with PEM. Two pre-commercial electrolyzer technologies to note are alkaline exchange membrane (AEM) and proton-conducting solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC). AEM potentially has the advantages of both LA and PEM technologies in that it is able to use low-cost materials like LA but with the ability to operate at higher output pressures with a smaller footprint like PEM. Proton-conducting SOEC is similar to commercial SOEC, which uses an oxide-conducting ceramic; however, it uses a proton-conducting ceramic that has the potential to operate at lower temperatures and has lower capital costs. Each of these technologies is experiencing a rapid improvement in performance and a reduction in installed cost, and each appears to be well suited to specific applications. Besides differences in the type of electrolyzer used, the main difference in the architecture of bidirectional hydrogen systems is how the hydrogen is stored. Currently, the most cost-effective way to store large amounts of hydrogen gas is underground, such as in large salt caverns that have been hollowed out. These salt caverns are geographically concentrated in small portions of the United States and are not generally near large metropolitan areas; however, other subsurface architectures are being investigated to expand this reach. A more widely deployable option is aboveground pressurized tanks. These systems are about 10 times as expensive because of the materials and safety margins required to hold hydrogen at high pressures. A third option is using materials-based storage, such as liquid organic hydrogen carriers. By reversibly attaching the produced hydrogen to other molecules, it can be stored at near atmospheric pressure and room temperature. This has the potential to reduce the material cost of storage but may result in a reduction in the efficiency of the process because there are both hydrogen uptake and release processes. While materials-based storage has not been used extensively for large-scale hydrogen storage in the past, there is currently significant activity regarding developing materials and processes for use in large-scale hydrogen storage applications. Electrolysis-produced hydrogen offers an unusual opportunity for energy storage applications. Unlike more conventional energy storage approaches, such as batteries, which operate entirely within electrical markets, hydrogen is a valuable product beyond the electric market and can be directed to the most lucrative use. Hydrogen also can be directly converted back to electricity using either a fuel cell or turbine, or it can be sold to other markets, such as chemical synthesis, steel production, or even export. In this way, excess electricity can be upgraded to the most valuable product. Finally, its use can be actively managed between multiple off-takers; for example, local hydrogen storage can provide a specific amount of stored electricity and any excess can be exported to ammonia production. This flexibility is amplified by the fact that hydrogen storage has fully decoupled power and energy components, which allows for affordable scaling options. Together, this allows a substantial amount of creativity to enable the economic utilization of variable power resources while supporting decarbonization of the industry.

08 HYDROGEN↗

Private, public, and bottled drinking water: Shared contaminant-mixture exposures and effects challenge

Background: Humans are primary drivers of environmental–contaminant exposures worldwide, including in drinking-water (DW). In the United States, point-of-use DW (POU–DW) is supplied via private tapwater (TW), public-supply TW, and bottled water (BW). Differences in management, monitoring, and messaging and lack of directly–intercomparable exposure data influence the actual and perceived quality and safety of different DW supplies and directly impact consumer decision–making. Objectives: The purpose of this paper is to provide a meta-analysis (quantitative synthesis) of POU–DW contaminant–mixture exposures and corresponding potential human–health effects of private-TW, public-TW, and BW by aggregating exposure results and harmonizing apical–health–benchmark–weighted and bioactivity–weighted effects predictions across previous studies by this research group. Discussion: Simultaneous exposures to multiple inorganic and organic contaminants of known or suspected human-health concern are common across all three DW supplies, with substantial variability observed in each and no systematic difference in predicted cumulative risk between supplies. Differences in contaminant or contaminant–class exposures, with important implications for DW–quality improvements, were observed and attributed to corresponding differences in regulation and compliance monitoring. Conclusion: The results indicate that human-health risks from contaminant exposures are common to and comparable in all three DW–supplies, including BW. Importantly, this study’s target analytical coverage, which exceeds that currently feasible for water purveyors or homeowners, nevertheless is a substantial underestimation of the breadth of contaminant mixtures in the environment and potentially present in DW. Thus, the results emphasize the need for improved understanding of the adverse human-health implications of long-term exposures to low–level inorganic–/organic–contaminant mixtures across all three distribution pipelines and do not support commercial messaging of BW as a systematically safer alternative to public-TW. Regardless of the supply, increased public engagement in source-water protection and drinking–water treatment is necessary to reduce risks associated with long-term DW–contaminant exposures, especially in vulnerable populations, and to reduce environmental waste and plastics contamination.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Dissolved Organic Carbon in Coastal Waters: Global Patterns, Stocks and Environmental Physical Controls

Abstract Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in coastal waters is integral to biogeochemical cycling, but global and regional drivers of DOC are still uncertain. In this study we explored spatial and temporal differences in DOC concentrations and stocks across the global coastal ocean, and how these relate to temperature and salinity. We estimated a global median coastal DOC stock of 3.15 Pg C (interquartile range (IQR) = 0.85 Pg C), with median DOC concentrations being 2.2 times higher than in open ocean surface waters. Globally and seasonally, salinity was the main driver of DOC with concentrations correlated negatively with salinity, without a clear relationship to temperature. DOC concentrations and stocks varied with region and season and this pattern is likely driven by riverine inputs of DOC and nutrients that stimulate coastal phytoplankton production. Temporally, high DOC concentrations occurred mainly in months with high freshwater input, with some exceptions such as in Eastern Boundary Current margins where peaks are related to primary production stimulated by nutrients upwelled from the adjacent ocean. No spatial trend between DOC and temperature was apparent, but many regions (19 out of 25) had aligned peaks of seasonal temperature and DOC, related to increased phytoplankton production and vertical stratification at high temperatures. Links of coastal DOC with salinity and temperature highlight the potential for anthropogenic impacts to alter coastal DOC concentration and composition, and thereby ecosystem status.

Lønborg, Christian [Section for Marine Diversity a↗