Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “2 column instrument”

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.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2006

Spectral Measurements of PMCs from SBUV/2 Instruments

The SBUV/2 (Solar Backscattered Ultraviolet, model 2) instrument is designed to monitor ozone stratospheric profile and total column ozone using measurements of the Earth's backscattered ultraviolet albedo. We have previously demonstrated that the normal radiance measurements from SBUV/2 instruments, which sample 12 discrete wavelengths between 252 and 340 nm during each scan, can be used to identify polar mesospheric clouds (PMCs). Some SBUV/2 instruments also periodically view the earth in continuous scan mode, covering the wavelength range 160-400 nm with 0.15 nm sampling. Analysis of these data show PMC occurrence rates similar to the normal discrete scan results, although the observation technique reduces the number of daily measurements by a factor of six. PMC observed by SBUV/2 instruments show a monotonic variation in the residual spectral albedo over the wavelength range 250 300 nm, with maximum enhancements of 10 15% at 250 nm. This result is consistent with microphysical model predictions from Jensen [1989. A numerical model of polar mesospheric cloud formation and evolution, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Colorado]. We find no evidence for a systematic localized increase in PMC residual albedo for wavelengths near 260 nm, in contrast to the recently reported results from the MSX UVISI instrument [Carbary J.F., et al., 2004. Evidence for bimodal particle distribution from the spectra of polar mesospheric clouds. Geophysics Research. Letters 31, L13108]. This result is observed for three different SBUV/2 instruments in both Northern and Southern Hemisphere data over a 13-year span. Our Mie scattering calculations show that the location and magnitude of the 260 nm hump feature is dependent upon the specific scattering angles appropriate to the MSX measurements. Although it explains the MSX spectrum, the bimodal size distribution proposed by Carbary et al. (2004), cannot explain the lack of scattering angle dependence of the SBUV/2 spectral shapes. The spectral signature of the SBUV/2 continuous scan PMC data is thus inconsistent with the bimodal particle size distribution suggested by Carbary et al. (2004).

DeLand, Matthew T.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Online Rapid Analysis of Laser Heterodyne Radiometer (LHR) Data Using the Planetary Spectrum Generator (PSG)

One of the biggest challenges in developing scientific instruments is not just the build and testing of an instrument, but the method for processing the data and producing a consistent, well characterized data product that can be confidently used by the public and scientific community. Raw data products are frequently an array of numbers that are a read-out of voltages. The challenge is to convert these arrays into meaningful information as well as remove noise and interferences. Because this can be a tedious and time-consuming, the goal is to automate the process so that data ca be processed rapidly and be available in real-time for event monitoring. Here we present a rapid analysis method for Laser Heterodyne Radiometer (LHR) data that can be used to analyze data taken from a range of LHR observation modes (column, limb, etc.). This online tool uses the versatile Planetary Spectrum Generator (PSG) and allows LHR users to quickly analyze their own data using a NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) monitored capability to ensure quality and reproducibility in the data products. Background: Development of a miniaturized LHR (mini-LHR) as a ground instrument for measuring carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and methane (CH 4 ) in the atmospheric column started in 2009 with the commercial availability of distributive feedback lasers (DFB) in wavelengths that could measure absorption of gases in the near-IR. As new DFB lasers, detectors and hardware emerged at different wavelengths, additional gases were added to the capability. The mini-LHR was adapted into an occultation-viewing CubeSat with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) for observing CO 2 , CH 4 , and H 2 O in the limb and was launched in 2019. Other versions of the LHR technology have been designed for observation of water vapor in the lunar exosphere as well as observations of trace gases in planetary atmospheres and plumes from icy moons. The PSG is an online tool developed at GSFC that can be used for synthesizing Earth and planetary spectra (atmospheres and surfaces) over a broad range of wavelengths (0.1 μm to 100 mm) for any observatory, orbiter or lander. Spectra are simulated by combining several state-of-the-art radiative transfer models, spectroscopic databases, planetary databases, as well as modern-era retrospective analysis for research and applications, version 2 (MERRA-2) data set which provides meteorological inputs such as modeled surface pressure for calculating dry-air columns.

Emily Wilson↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
NASA NTRS2014

Uncertainty Analysis for the Miniaturized Laser Heterodyne Radiometer (mini-LHR)

Presented here is a sensitivity analysis for the miniaturized laser heterodyne radiometer (mini-LHR). This passive, ground-based instrument measures carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmospheric column and has been under development at NASA/GSFC since 2009. The goal of this development is to produce a low-cost, easily-deployable instrument that can extend current ground measurement networks in order to (1) validate column satellite observations, (2) provide coverage in regions of limited satellite observations, (3) target regions of interest such as thawing permafrost, and (4) support the continuity of a long-term climate record. In this paper an uncertainty analysis of the instrument performance is presented and compared with results from three sets of field measurements. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and corresponding uncertainty for a single scan are calculated to be 329.4+/-1.3 by deploying error propagation through the equation governing the SNR. Reported is an absorbance noise of 0.0024 for 6 averaged scans of field data, for an instrument precision of approximately 0.2 ppmv for CO2.

carbon dioxide (CO2)↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Quantifying the benefits of improved satellite remote-sensing observations for inverse modeling of NOx and NMVOC emissions

This study aims to demonstrate the benefits of using novel high spatiotemporal retrieval products from newer satellites for top-down emission estimates of nitrogen oxides (NO x ) and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) for the summer of 2019 over the contiguous United States. Recent satellite retrievals have not only advanced spatiotemporal resolution but also greatly reduced error and uncertainty due to reduced noise in the retrievals compared to spaceborne sensors launched in the past. We applied inverse modeling techniques using tropospheric nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) and formaldehyde (H-CHO) column retrieval products from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) and TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) in conjunction with the Weather Research Forecast and Community Multiscale Air Quality Modeling system (WRF-CMAQ). In order to provide a better representation of background chemical composition and avoid misalignment of emission adjustment, we applied monthly scaling factors for ozone (O 3 ) and CO boundary concentrations in addition to the inclusion of lightning and aviation emissions. Satellite-constrained NO x and NMVOCs posterior emissions showed a mitigated discrepancy between observed and modeled columns. The improvement in the model performance was greater when using TROPOMI, primarily benefiting from reduced errors/biases of the satellite retrievals that enabled us to explore corresponding changes in O 3 concentrations and production sensitivity regimes using the ratio of H-CHO and NO 2 .

remote sensing↗
DOE OSTI2024

Long-Term Dynamics of Atmospheric Sulfur Dioxide in Urban and Rural Regions of China: Urbanization and Policy Impacts

High levels of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) due to human activities pose a serious air pollution issue in China, especially in urban agglomerations. However, limited research has investigated the impact of anthropogenic emissions on higher SO 2 concentrations in urban regions compared to rural areas in China. Here, we analyzed the trends in SO 2 concentrations from 1980 to 2021 in China using the Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, version 2 (MERRA-2) dataset. SO 2 column concentrations from the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) and the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) during the years 2007–2021 were also examined for validation and comparison purposes. Eight representative areas, including four urban regions (Pearl River Delta [PRD], Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei [BTH], Yangtze River Delta [YRD], and Sichuan Basin [SCB]) and four rural regions (Northeast Region [NER], Mongolian Region [MR], West Region [WR], and Tibetan Plateau Region [TR]) were selected for the analysis. Overall, a significant but fluctuating increase in SO 2 concentrations over China was observed during 1980–2021. During 1980–1997 and 2000–2010, there was an increase in SO 2 concentration, while during 1997–2000 and 2010–2021, a decreasing trend was observed. The average increase in SO 2 concentration was approximately 16 times higher in urban regions than in the rural background. We also found that SO 2 dynamics were highly associated with expansion of urban areas, population density, and gross domestic product. Nonetheless, since 2007, SO 2 concentrations have exhibited a downward trend, which is mainly attributed to the air pollution policies implemented by the Chinese government. Our findings highlight the need for further studies on the impact of SO 2 on regional climate change in China.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

GeoCarb Calibration Campaign Field Campaign Report

The GeoCarb Calibration Campaign, referred to as the Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON) calibration campaign within this report for clarity, involved a series of single- and multiple-day Bruker EM27/SUN Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometer deployments at the U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility’s Southern Great Plains (SGP) observatory in Oklahoma. The EM27/SUN instruments directly measure infrared solar radiation in a wavelength range from 4000 to 11000 cm -1 at a spectral resolution of 0.5 cm -1 and varied temporal resolution of approximately 15 seconds. The solar radiation observed by these spectrometers contains information about the concentrations of atmospheric constituents present between the instruments and the top of the atmosphere, as every gas and particle in the atmosphere absorbs solar radiation at different wavelengths depending on their physical and chemical makeup. Through retrieval algorithm processing, the solar radiation data collected by EM27/SUN instruments can be used to infer total column dry-air mole fractions, or total column concentrations, of different trace gases present in the atmosphere. These total column concentrations, denoted as Xgas , represent the concentration, in ppb or ppm, of a trace gas in the column of atmosphere between an instrument and the top of the atmosphere. EM27/SUN instruments are primarily used to infer total column concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH 4 ), and water vapor.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2007

First Observations of Iodine Oxide from Space

We present retrievals of IO total columns from the Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Chartography (SCIAMACHY) satellite instrument. We analyze data for October 2005 in the polar regions to demonstrate for the first time the capability to measure IO column abundances from space. During the period of analysis (i.e. Southern Hemisphere springtime), enhanced IO vertical columns over 3 x 10(exp 13) molecules cm(exp -2) are observed around coastal Antarctica; by contrast during that time in the Arctic region IO is consistently below the calculated instrumental detection limit for individual radiance spectra (2-4 x 10(exp 12) molecules cm(exp -2) for slant columns). The levels reported here are in reasonably good agreement with previous ground-based measurements at coastal Antarctica. These results also demonstrate that IO is widespread over sea-ice covered areas in the Southern Ocean. The occurrence of elevated IO and its hitherto unrecognized spatial distribution suggest an efficient iodine activation mechanism at a synoptic scale over coastal Antarctica.

emissions↗
NASA NTRS2015

Comparison of Ozone Retrievals from the Pandora Spectrometer System and Dobson Spectrophotometer in Boulder, Colorado

A comparison of retrieved total column ozone (TCO) amounts between the Pandora #34 spectrometer system and the Dobson #061 spectrophotometer from direct-sun observations was performed on the roof of the Boulder, Colorado, NOAA building. This paper, part of an ongoing study, covers a 1-year period starting on 17 December 2013. Both the standard Dobson and Pandora TCO retrievals required a correction, TCO(sub corr) = TCO (1 + C(T)), using a monthly varying effective ozone temperature, T(sub E), derived from a temperature and ozone profile climatology. The correction is used to remove a seasonal difference caused by using a fixed temperature in each retrieval algorithm. The respective corrections C(T(sub E)) are C(sub Pandora) = 0.00333(T(sub E) - 225) and C(sub Dobson) = -0.0013(T(sub E) - 226.7) per degree K. After the applied corrections removed most of the seasonal retrieval dependence on ozone temperature, TCO agreement between the instruments was within 1% for clear-sky conditions. For clear-sky observations, both co-located instruments tracked the day-to-day variation in total column ozone amounts with a correlation of r(exp 2) = 0.97 and an average offset of 1.1 +/- 5.8 DU. In addition, the Pandora TCO data showed 0.3% annual average agreement with satellite overpass data from AURA/OMI (Ozone Monitoring Instrument) and 1% annual average offset with Suomi-NPP/OMPS (Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership, the nadir viewing portion of the Ozone Mapper Profiler Suite).

Herman, J.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Antarctic ozone decrease: Possible impact on the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of total ozone as simulated by a 2-D model

Satellite borne instruments, the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) and the Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet spectrometer (SBUV), show that total column ozone has decreased by more than 5 percent in the neighborhood of 60 S at all seasons since 1979. This is considerably larger than the decrease calculated by 2-D models which take into account solar flux variation and increases of trace gas concentrations over the same period. The meteorological conditions (warmer temperature and the apparent lack of polar stratospheric clouds) at these latitudes do not seem to favor heterogeneous chemistry as the direct cause for the observed ozone reduction. A mechanism involving the seasonal transport of ozone-poor air mass from within the polar vortex to lower latitudes (the so-called dilution effect) is proposed as a possible explanation for the observed year-round ozone reduction in regions away from the vortex.

Ko, Malcolm K. W.↗
DOE OSTI2024

Towards Construction of a Novel Nanometer-Resolution MeV-STEM for Imaging Thick Frozen Biological Samples

Driven by life-science applications, a mega-electron-volt Scanning Transmission Electron Microscope (MeV-STEM) has been proposed here to image thick frozen biological samples as a conventional Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM) may not be suitable to image samples thicker than 300–500 nm and various volume electron microscopy (EM) techniques either suffering from low resolution, or low speed. The high penetration of inelastic scattering signals of MeV electrons could make the MeV-STEM an appropriate microscope for biological samples as thick as 10 μm or more with a nanoscale resolution, considering the effect of electron energy, beam broadening, and low-dose limit on resolution. The best resolution is inversely related to the sample thickness and changes from 6 nm to 24 nm when the sample thickness increases from 1 μm to 10 μm. To achieve such a resolution in STEM, the imaging electrons must be focused on the specimen with a nm size and an mrad semi-convergence angle. This requires an electron beam emittance of a few picometers, which is ~1000 times smaller than the presently achieved nm emittance, in conjunction with less than 10 -4 energy spread and 1 nA current. We numerically simulated two different approaches that are potentially applicable to build a compact MeV-STEM instrument: (1) DC (Direct Current) gun, aperture, superconducting radio-frequency (SRF) cavities, and STEM column; (2) SRF gun, aperture, SRF cavities, and STEM column. Beam dynamic simulations show promising results, which meet the needs of an MeV-STEM, a few-picometer emittance, less than 10 -4 energy spread, and 0.1–1 nA current from both options. Also, we designed a compact STEM column based on permanent quadrupole quintuplet, not only to demagnify the beam size from 1 μm at the source point to 2 nm at the specimen but also to provide the freedom of changing the magnifications at the specimen and a scanning system to raster the electron beam across the sample with a step size of 2 nm and the repetition rate of 1 MHz. This makes it possible to build a compact MeV-STEM and use it to study thick, large-volume samples in cell biology.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
NASA NTRS2006

Quantifying the Seasonal and Interannual Variability of North American Isoprene Emissions Using Satellite Observations of the Formaldehyde Column

Quantifying isoprene emissions using satellite observations of the formaldehyde (HCHO) columns is subject to errors involving the column retrieval and the assumed relationship between HCHO columns and isoprene emissions, taken here from the GEOS-CHEM chemical transport model. Here we use a 6-year (1996-2001) HCHO column data set from the Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment (GOME) satellite instrument to (1) quantify these errors, (2) evaluate GOME-derived isoprene emissions with in situ flux measurements and a process-based emission inventory (Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature, MEGAN), and (3) investigate the factors driving the seasonal and interannual variability of North American isoprene emissions. The error in the GOME HCHO column retrieval is estimated to be 40%. We use the Master Chemical Mechanism (MCM) to quantify the time-dependent HCHO production from isoprene, alpha- and beta-pinenes, and methylbutenol and show that only emissions of isoprene are detectable by GOME. The time-dependent HCHO yield from isoprene oxidation calculated by MCM is 20-30% larger than in GEOS-CHEM. GOME-derived isoprene fluxes track the observed seasonal variation of in situ measurements at a Michigan forest site with a -30% bias. The seasonal variation of North American isoprene emissions during 2001 inferred from GOME is similar to MEGAN, with GOME emissions typically 25% higher (lower) at the beginning (end) of the growing season. GOME and MEGAN both show a maximum over the southeastern United States, but they differ in the precise location. The observed interannual variability of this maximum is 20-30%, depending on month. The MEGAN isoprene emission dependence on surface air temperature explains 75% of the month-to-month variability in GOME-derived isoprene emissions over the southeastern United States during May-September 1996-2001.

Palmer, Paul I.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Calibration and Sequence Development Status for the Sample Analysis at Mars Investigation on the Mars Science Laboratory

The measurement goals of the Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) instrument suite on the "Curiosity" Rover of the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) include chemical and isotopic analysis of organic and inorganic volatiles for both atmospheric and solid samples [1,2]. SAM directly supports the ambitious goals of the MSL mission to provide a quantitative assessment of habitability and preservation in Gale crater by means of a range of chemical and geological measurements [3]. The SAM FM combined calibration and environmental testing took place primarily in 2010 with a limited set of tests implemented after integration into the rover in January 2011. The scope of SAM FM testing was limited both to preserve SAM consumables such as life time of its electromechanical elements and to minimize the level of terrestrial contamination in the SAM instrument. A more comprehensive calibration of a SAM-like suite of instruments will be implemented in 2012 with calibration runs planned for the SAM testbed. The SAM Testbed is nearly identical to the SAM FM and operates in a ambient pressure chamber. The SAM Instrument Suite: SAM's instruments are a Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer (QMS), a 6-column Gas Chromatograph (GC), and a 2-channel Tunable Laser Spectrometer (TLS). Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry is designed for identification of even trace organic compounds. The TLS [5] secures the C, H, and O isotopic composition in carbon dioxide, water, and methane. Sieved materials are delivered from the MSL sample acquisition and processing system to one of68 cups of the Sample Manipulation System (SMS). 59 of these cups are fabricated from inert quartz. After sample delivery, a cup is inserted into one of 2 ovens for evolved gas analysis (EGA ambient to >9500C) by the QMS and TLS. A portion of the gas released can be trapped and subsequently analyzed by GCMS. Nine sealed cups contain liquid solvents and chemical derivatization or thermochemolysis agents to extract and transform polar molecules such as amino acids, nucleobases, and carboxylic acids into compounds that are sufficiently volatile to transmit through the GC columns. The remaining 6 cups contain calibrants. SAM FM Calibration Overview: The SAM FM calibration in the Mars chamber employed a variety of pure gases, gas mixtures, and solid materials. Isotope calibration runs for the TLS utilized 13C enriched C02 standards and 0 enriched CH4. A variety of fluorocarbon compounds that spanned the entire mass range of the QMS as well as C3-C6 hydrocarbons were utilized for calibration of the GCMS. Solid samples consisting of a mixture of calcite, melanterite, and inert silica glass either doped or not with fluorocarbons were introduced into the SAM FM cups through the SAM inlet funnel/tube system.

Mahaffy, Paul R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluating Diurnal Ozone Emissions: A Comparative Analysis of DSCOVR EPIC, PANDORA, and TOLNet Data for Space-Based Monitoring Assessment: A Case Study by ASDC

Stratospheric ozone occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere, forming a protective layer that shields us from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays. Tropospheric ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is created by chemical reactions between nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). This reaction happens when pollutants emitted by cars, power plants, industrial boilers, refineries, chemical plants, and other sources chemically react in sunlight [1]. Therefore, increased levels of tropospheric ozone indicate the presence of pollutants in the air. While daily anthropogenic activity causes an increase of ground-level ozone, variation of stratospheric ozone changes happens much slower, so that variation of the total ozone column reflects the variation of the tropospheric column due to natural, e.g., wildfires and anthropogenic air pollution. Both total and tropospheric ozone column products are used in this study. The reflectance spectra measured by the Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) instrument aboard the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) spacecraft are compared with a set of radiative transfer-derived lookup tables for the EPIC filter transmission functions and a wide range of ozone values to retrieve ozone with a maximum resolution of 18 km at the sub-satellite point [2]. EPIC provides total column ozone in level 2 and level 4 products and tropospheric column ozone in level 4 products. Both EPIC Ozone products [2] are available at the Atmospheric Science Data Center (ASDC) at NASA Langley Research Center [3, 4]. Pandora spectrometer instrument measures columnar amounts of trace gases in the atmosphere. These gases (O3, NO2, CH2O) absorb light from the sun at specific wavelengths in the ultraviolet-visible spectrum [5]. Using the theoretical solar spectrum as a reference, Pandora determines trace gas amounts using differential optical absorption spectroscopy (DOAS). Pandora ozone retrievals are available from the Pandonia Global Network [6]. Pandora data from North American major metropolitan areas, New York, NY, Washington DC, Los Angeles, CA, and Mexico City. Tropospheric Ozone Lidar Network (TOLNet) was established in 2012 to provide high spatiotemporal observations of tropospheric ozone to (1) better understand physical processes driving the ozone budget in various meteorological and environmental conditions and (2) validate the tropospheric ozone measurements of space-borne missions [7]. TOLNet data are available at ASDC [8]. While EPIC provides global coverage of ozone retrievals several times daily, temporal resolution may miss some features in daily ozone variations. Ground-based sensors such as Pandora spectrometers and TOLNet lidars provide better temporal resolution while missing continuous spatial coverage. The forthcoming ozone retrieval from the TEMPO mission [9] will provide better spatial and temporal coverage of air quality (including ozone) over North America. This study investigates whether EPIC ozone products can detect diurnal air quality variations and compare ozone temporal development with retrieval by ground-based instruments.

diurnal ozone emissions, DSCOVR EPIC, PANDORA, spa↗
NASA NTRS2003

Transport and Chemical Evolution over the Pacific (TRACE-P)Aircraft Mission: Design, Execution, and First Results

The NASA Transport and Chemical Evolution over the Pacific (TRACE-P) aircraft mission was conducted in February-April 2001 over the NW Pacific (1) to characterize the Asian chemical outflow and relate it quantitatively to its sources and (2) to determine its chemical evolution. It used two aircraft, a DC-8 and a P-3B, operating out of Hong Kong and Yokota Air Force Base (near Tokyo), with secondary sites in Hawaii, Wake Island, Guam, Okinawa, and Midway. The aircraft carried instrumentation for measurements of long-lived greenhouse gases, ozone and its precursors, aerosols and their precursors, related species, and chemical tracers. Five chemical transport models (CTMs) were used for chemical forecasting. Customized bottom-up emission inventories for East Asia were generated prior to the mission to support chemical forecasting and to serve as a priori for evaluation with the aircraft data. Validation flights were conducted for the Measurements Of Pollution In The Troposphere (MOPITT) satellite instrument and revealed little bias (6 plus or minus 2%) in the MOPITT measurements of CO columns. A major event of transpacific Asian pollution was characterized through combined analysis of TRACE-P and MOPITT data. The TRACE-P observations showed that cold fronts sweeping across East Asia and the associated warm conveyor belts (WCBs) are the dominant pathway for Asian outflow to the Pacific in spring. The WCBs lift both anthropogenic and biomass burning (SE Asia) effluents to the free troposphere, resulting in complex chemical signatures. The TRACE-P data are in general consistent with a priori emission inventories, lending confidence in our ability to quantify Asian emissions from socioeconomic data and emission factors. However, the residential combustion source in rural China was found to be much larger than the a priori, and there were also unexplained chemical enhancements (HCN, CH3Cl, OCS, alkylnitrates) in Chinese urban plumes. The Asian source of CCl4 was found to be much higher than government estimates. Measurements of HCN and CH3CN indicated a dominant biomass burning source and ocean sink for both gases. Large fractions of sulfate and nitrate were found to be present in dust aerosols. Photochemical activity in the Asian outflow was strongly reduced by aerosol attenuation of UV radiation, with major implications for the concentrations of HOx, radicals. New particle formation, apparently from ternary nucleation involving NH3, was observed in Chinese urban plumes.

Jacob, Daniel J.↗
NASA NTRS2007

OMI Total and Tropospheric Column Nitrogen Dioxide: Version 2 Status

The at-launch version of the OM1 NO2 total and tropospheric NO2 algorithm made a number of assumptions about instrument performance. Our knowledge of tropospheric NO2 has increased in the 3 years since the inital version was delivered. The results of the post-launch validation campaigns and improved atmospheric modelling has lead to changes in the NO2 retrieval algorithm. The algorithm changes and the impacts on the data products will be presented.

Gleason, James↗