SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “column separation”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 469 records · Page 26

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The development and potential uses of an Adsorption Water Collection System for the Trash Compaction Processing System designed for operation in the International Space Station Express Rack

The use of adsorption as an alternative to current state of the art water collection and phase separation methods for human space flight is being investigated at NASA Ames Research Center. A system called the Adsorption Water Recovery System was designed to work with the Trash Compaction Processing System. The system uses modular adsorption columns that can be combined both in parallel and series and allow for relatively easy system sizing. The system is intended to be a standalone system that may also be adapted for other applications that involve adsorption. This paper describes the design and potential operating parameters and configurations of the Adsorption Water Recovery System.

trash↗

DOE OSTI2023

SPRUCE Sphagnum Growth and Photosynthesis Responses to Shading Treatments, 2021

This dataset reports growth, water content, nitrogen concentration, and photosynthesis of Sphagnum grown under shade cloth of different density in replicated plots adjacent to the Spruce and Peatland Responses Under Changing Environments (SPRUCE) experimental study plots located in the S1-Bog. Data are reported for May to October 2021. Investigations were instigated from questions arising in the SPRUCE experiment where the Sphagnum-shrub-spruce/larch ecosystem is exposed to air and peat warming in combination with elevated atmospheric CO2. SPRUCE is located at the 8.1-ha S1 Bog forest site in northern Minnesota, 40 km north of Grand Rapids, in the USDA Forest Service Marcell Experimental Forest (MEF). Thirty plots (35 × 35 cm) were established in May, 2021, in three blocks on unused large plots on the S-1 bog. Data are reported for growth of Sphagnum angustifolium/fallax and S. divinum growing in plastic columns within the shade plots. Growth is reported as dry mass of new tissue measured when the columns were harvested in October 2021. Additional measurements in the final harvest datasetinclude Sphagnum water content, new stem length, mass per unit length, and nitrogen content. Stem extension was measured periodically during the summer and reported in a separate datasetas stem length. Photosynthesis of Sphagnum angustifolium/fallax samples from hollows under low and high shade was measured in the laboratory. Responses of sphagnum to shading are important for understanding the future of peatland systems under the encroachment of shrubs and other woody plant species. This dataset contains three data files in comma-separated values (.csv) format. Additional metadata are provided: three data dictionaries and a file-level metadata file in comma-separated values (.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format.

carbon dioxide flux↗

NASA NTRS1990

Detection of a z=0.0515, 0.0522 absorption system in the QSO S4 0248+430 due to an intervening galaxy

In some of the few cases where the line of sight to a Quasi-Stellar Object (QSO) passes near a galaxy, the galaxy redshift is almost identical to an absorption redshift in the spectrum of the QSO. Although these relatively low redshift QSO-galaxy pairs may not be typical of the majority of the narrow heavy-element QSO absorption systems, they provide a direct measure of column densities in the outer parts of galaxies and some limits on the relative abundances of the gas. Observations are presented here of the QSO S4 0248+430 and a nearby anonymous galaxy (Kuhr 1977). The 14 second separation of the line of sight to the QSO (z sub e = 1.316) and the z=0.052 spiral galaxy, (a projected separation of 20 kpc ((h sub o = 50, q sub o = 0)), makes this a particularly suitable pair for probing the extent and content of gas in the galaxy. Low resolution (6A full width half maximum), long slit charge coupled device (CCD) spectra show strong CA II H and K lines in absorption at the redshift of the galaxy (Junkkarinen 1987). Higher resolution spectra showing both Ca II H and K and Na I D1 and D2 in absorption and direct images are reported here.

Womble, Donna S.↗

NASA NTRS1986

Aid for the Medical Laboratory

A process for separating chemical compounds in fluids resulted from a Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)/LAPD project. The technique involves pouring a blood or urine sample into an extraction tube where packing material contained in a disposable tube called an "extraction column" absorbs water and spreads the specimen as a thin film, making it easy to identify specific components. When a solvent passes through the packing material, the desired compound dissolves and exits through the tube's bottom stem and is collected. Called AUDRI, Automated Drug Identification, it is commercially produced by Analytichem International which has successfully advanced the original technology.

Source record↗

DOE OSTI2023

Quantitative Separation of Unknown Organic–Metal Complexes by Liquid Chromatography–Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry

Dissolved organic matter (DOM) is widely recognized to control the solubility and reactivity of trace metals in the environment. However, the mechanisms that govern metal-DOM complexation remain elusive, primarily due to the analytical challenge of fractionating and quantifying metal–organic species within the complex mixture of organic compounds that comprise DOM. Here, we describe a quantitative method for fractionation and element-specific detection of organic–metal complexes using liquid chromatography with online inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LC–ICP-MS). The method implements a post-column compensation gradient to stabilize ICP–MS elemental response across the LC solvent gradient, thereby overcoming a major barrier to achieving quantitative accuracy with LC–ICP-MS. With external calibration and internal standard correction, the method yields concentrations of organic–metal complexes that were consistently within 6% of their true values, regardless of the complex’s elution time. We used the method to evaluate the effects of four stationary phases (C18, phenyl, amide, and pentafluoroylphenyl propyl) on the recovery and separation of environmentally relevant trace metals (Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd, and Pb) in Suwannee River Fulvic Acid and Suwannee River Natural Organic Matter. The C18, amide, and phenyl phases generally yielded optimal metal recoveries (>75% for all metals except Pb), with the phenyl phase separating polar species to a greater extent than C18 or amide. We also fractionated organic-bound Fe, Cu, and Ni in oxidized and reduced soils, revealing divergent metal-DOM speciation across soil redox environments. Finally, by enabling quantitative fractionation of DOM-bound metals, our method offers a means for advancing a mechanistic understanding of metal–organic complexation throughout the environment.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

NASA NTRS1991

NASA combined file postings statistics based on NASA Thesaurus, January 1968 - January 1991

The NASA Combined File Postings Statistics is published semiannually (January and July). This alphabetical listing of postable subject terms contained in the NASA Thesaurus is used to display the number of postings (documents) indexed by each subject term from 1968 to data. The postings totals per term are separated by announcement or other media into STAR, IAA, NLN, and OTHER columnar entries covering the NASA document collection (1968 to date). Over 595,000 book postings for NALNET Books held by NASA Libraries are included under the NLN column. CSTAR postings as well as some previously unreported series are listed under the 'other' column. The distribution of 18,748,083 postings among the 17,304 Thesaurus terms is tabulated on the last page of Combined File Postings Statistics.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1994

Correlation of ozone loss with the presence of volcanic aerosols

Statistically significant reductions of ozone compared to a climatological profile have been measured above the Observatoire de Haute Provence (OHP) in Southern France (43.9 deg N, 5.7 deg E) during the months of July and August, 1992. Lidar profiles of ozone, temperature and aerosols were recorded on 25 separate nights during that time. The change in the ozone profile is correlated with the presence of volcanic aerosols from the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. The total ozone loss amounts to approximately a 10% reduction in the total ozone column over OHP.

Mcgee, Thomas J.↗

NASA NTRS2016

On the Origin of C4H and CH3OH in Protostellar Envelopes

The formation pathways of different types of organic molecules in protostellar envelopes and other regions of star formation are subjects of intense current interest. We present here observations of C4H and CH3OH, tracing two distinct groups of interstellar organic molecules, toward 16 protostars in the Ophiuchus and Corona Australis molecular clouds. Together with observations in the literature, we present C4H and CH3OH data from single-dish observations of 40 embedded protostars. We nd no correlation between the C4H and CH3OH column densities in this large sample. Based on this lack of correlation, a difference in line proles between C4H and CH3OH, and previous interferometric observations of similar sources, we propose that the emission from these two molecules is spatially separated, with the CH3OH tracing gas that has been transiently heated to high (approx. 70-100 K) temperatures and the C4H tracing the cooler large-scale envelope where CH4 molecules have been liberated from ices. These results provide insight in the differentiation between hot corino and warm carbon-chain chemistry in embedded protostars.

Ophiuchus star-forming region↗

DOE OSTI2022

Strategies to Recover Easily-Extractable Rare Earth Elements and Other Critical Metals from Coal Waste Streams and Adjacent Rock Strata Using Citric Acid

Maximum rare earth element (REE) extractability from a sample of Middle Kittanning coal seam underclay was previously demonstrated at ~30% of the total REE content with a citric acid solution (Montross et al., 2020). This report further refines the mechanisms of citrate application for leaching of coal seam underclays using an organic acid lixiviant and evaluates strategies to begin to scale this process to industrially relevant volumes. This study evaluates the suitability of citrate leaching solutions for downstream recovery and separation of the REEs via oxalic acid precipitation. The applicability of citric acid solutions to recover ion-adsorbed metals from clay surfaces was evaluated by leaching a prepared sample of kaolinite with known amounts of ion-adsorbed lanthanum. Citrate systematics was further defined through experiments varying the solution pH. Up-scaling investigations proceeded with percolation leaching columns and stirred tank reactors. Two embodiments were run in percolation leaching: a continuous flow-through process and a multi-stage saturated process. The results showed that in certain limited scenarios, low pH citrate solutions could be used to target REEs mineralized within secondary calcium phosphate minerals. Results from the upscaling attempts encountered difficulties in extraction efficiencies. For the percolation columns, hydrodynamic flow was insufficient to recover the extractable REE content fully. For the stirred barrels, mixing inefficiencies likely inhibited the extractability of the REEs. Oxalic acid precipitation experiments also highlighted difficulties in downstream operations. The REEs were removed from the citrate solution with high efficiency, but were accompanied by equally efficient removal of calcium in orders of magnitude of greater amounts. Overall, for citrate leaching to be effective, future studies will have to: 1) carefully consider the feedstock application (i.e., likely better suited for secondary mineralization of calcium phosphate minerals), and 2) overcome the technical barriers of large-scale processing, such as inefficient hydrodynamic regimes due to small crush sizes needed and difficulties in downstream separation and purification. Alternatively, citrate solutions may be better recommended as leaching amendments to other leaching solutions to enhance REE complexation in the solution.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

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 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 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↗

DOE OSTI2024

Three-wave coupling observed between a shear Alfvén wave and a kink-unstable magnetic flux rope

Results from a laboratory experiment are presented in which, for the first time, a shear Alfvén wave is launched using an antenna in a current-carrying plasma column that is tailored to be either stable or unstable to the kink oscillation. As the plasma is driven kink unstable, the frequency power spectrum of the Alfvén wave evolves from a single peak to a peak with multiple sidebands separated by integer multiples of the kink frequency. The main sidebands (one on either side of the launched wave peak in the power spectrum) are analyzed using azimuthal wavenumber matching, perpendicular and parallel wavenumber decomposition, and bispectral time series analysis. The dispersion relation and three-wave matching conditions are satisfied, given each sideband is a propagating Alfvén wave that results from the interaction of the pump Alfvén wave and the co-propagating component of a half-wavelength, standing kink mode. The interaction is shown to generate smaller perpendicular wavelength Alfvén waves that drive energy transport to scales that will approach the dissipation scale of k⊥ρs=1, with k⊥ being the perpendicular wavenumber and ρs being the ion gyroradius at the electron temperature.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

NASA NTRS1972

An investigation to improve the Menhaden fishery prediction and detection model through the application of ERTS-A data

The author has identified the following significant results. Preliminary analyses indicate that several important relationships have been observed utilizing ERTS-1 imagery. Of most significance is that in the Mississippi Sound, as elsewhere, considerable detail exists as to turbidity patterns in the water column. Simple analysis is complicated by the apparent interaction between actual turbidity, turbidity induced by shoal water, and actual imaging of the bottom in extreme shoal water. A statistical approach is being explored which shows promise of at least partially separating these effects so that partitioning of true turbid plumes can be accomplished. This partitioning is of great importance to this program in that supportive data seem to indicate that menhaden occur more frequently in turbid areas. In this connection four individual captures have been associated with a major turbid feature imaged on 6 August. If a significant relationship between imaged turbid features and catch distribution can be established, for example by graphic and/or numeric analysis, it will represent a major advancement for short term prediction of commercially accessible menhaden.

Maughan, P. M.↗

NASA NTRS1988

NASA combined file postings statistics based on NASA thesaurus, Jan. 1968 - July 1988

The NASA Combined File Postings Statistics is published semiannually (January and July). This alphabetical listing of postable subject terms contained in the NASA Thesaurus is used to display the numbers of postings (documents) indexed by each subject term from 1968 to date. The postings total per term are separated by announcement or other media into STAR, IAA, NLN, and OTHER columnar entries covering the NASA document collection (1968 to date). Nearly 594,000 book postings for NALNET Books held by NASA libraries are now included under the NLN column. CSTAR postings as well as some previously unreported series are now listed under the other column. File postings statistics for the Alternate Data Base covering the NASA collection from 1962 through 1967 were published on a one-time basis in September 1975. Subject terms for the Alternate Data Base are derived from the Subject Authority List, reprinted in 1985, which is available on request. The distribution of 16,919,195 postings among the 17,105 Thesaurus terms is tabulated on the last page of Combined File Postings Statistics.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2004

Chemistry and Transport in a Multi-Dimensional Model

Our work has two primary scientific goals, the interannual variability (IAV) of stratospheric ozone and the hydrological cycle of the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. Our efforts are aimed at integrating new information obtained by spacecraft and aircraft measurements to achieve a better understanding of the chemical and dynamical processes that are needed for realistic evaluations of human impact on the global environment. A primary motivation for studying the ozone layer is to separate the anthropogenic perturbations of the ozone layer from natural variability. Using the recently available merged ozone data (MOD), we have carried out an empirical orthogonal function EOF) study of the temporal and spatial patterns of the IAV of total column ozone in the tropics. The outstanding problem about water in the stratosphere is its secular increase in the last few decades. The Caltech/PL multi-dimensional chemical transport model (CTM) photochemical model is used to simulate the processes that control the water vapor and its isotopic composition in the stratosphere. Datasets we will use for comparison with model results include those obtained by the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS), the Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet (SBUV and SBUV/2), Stratosphere Aerosol and Gas Experiment (SAGE I and II), the Halogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE), the Atmospheric Trace Molecular Spectroscopy (ATMOS) and those soon to be obtained by the Cirrus Regional Study of Tropical Anvils and Cirrus Layers Florida Area Cirrus Experiment (CRYSTAL-FACE) mission. The focus of the investigations is the exchange between the stratosphere and the troposphere, and between the troposphere and the biosphere.

Yung, Yuk L.↗

NASA NTRS2012

High Resolution Observations of Drop Size Distribution for GPM Ground Validation

During the Mid-latitude Continental Convective Cloud Experiment (MC3E), NASA's GPM GV Disdrometer and Radar Observations of Precipitation (DROP) Facility deployed an array of disdrometers and rain gauges in northern Oklahoma to sample, with high resolution, the drop size distribution for use in development of precipitation retrieval algorithms for the GPM core satellites. The DROP Facility instruments deployed during MC3E consisted of 16 autonomous Parsivel units, 5 two-dimensional video disdrometers (2dvds), a vertically pointing K band radar, and 32 tipping bucket rain gauges. There were several rainfall events during MC3E in which rain drops exceeding 6 mm in diameter were recorded. The disdrometer array revealed large rain drops with diameters exceeding 6 mm and 8 mm during two separate stratiform and convective rainfall events, respectively. The NPOL radar, which was scanning in high resolution RHI mode (every 40 sec) over the disdrometer array during the stratiform event, indicated a 1 km thick bright band with a differential reflectivity column of 2-3 dB extending below the melting layer to the surface where the large drops were recorded by the 2dvds. These large drops are important for GPM since they can have a great impact upon satellite precipitation retrieval, especially near the ground and below heavy convective rainfall cores where satellites have had problems depicting the rainfall.

Gatlin, Patrick N.↗

DOE OSTI2026

Fluorinated ionic liquids as gas chromatographic stationary phases for the separation of volatile per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

Background Here, the production of fluorinated organic compounds in the manufacturing, semiconductor, and pharmaceutical industries has increased exponentially over the past decade. This rapid growth has created an urgent need for efficient chromatographic platforms capable of selectively separating these compounds from complex mixtures, not only to support industrial quality control and waste management practices, but also to enable reliable environmental monitoring of volatile fluorinated contaminants. Conventional GC stationary phases lack the fluorophilic interactions needed for highly fluorinated analytes. Consequently, there is a clear demand for specialized stationary phases designed to improve chromatographic retention and selectivity for these compounds. Results Three stationary phases composed of fluorinated ionic liquids (ILs) with varied extent of fluorination were prepared to study fluorophilic interactions with fluorinated/non-fluorinated probe molecules by gas chromatography (GC). IL stationary phases featuring linear and branched perfluoroalkyl moieties, as well as a branched alkyl moiety, were systematically investigated. Chromatographic performance was examined using fluorinated compounds and their hydrocarbon analogs, including CF 3 -substituted aromatics, aliphatic alcohols, fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs), and perfluoroalkenes. Measurements on 5 m and 20 m columns revealed that the IL possessing branched alkyl provided stronger dispersive and hydrogen bonding interactions toward non-fluorinated aromatic and long-chain alcohols, whereas the fluorinated ILs enhanced retention of highly fluorinated FTOHs and perfluorodecene. Comprehensive two-dimensional GC (GC × GC), using a nonpolar primary column coupled with secondary columns featuring cross-bonded poly(trifluoropropylmethyl siloxane) (Rtx-200 ms), the branched fluorinated IL, or the branched non-fluorinated IL, highlighted complementary selectivity with the branched fluorinated IL providing the strongest interactions with fluorinated analytes. Significance These results demonstrate that fluorinated IL stationary phases are promising alternatives to conventional polysiloxane stationary phases for improving the separation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and related fluorinated compounds. By correlating IL structure with fluorophilic interactions, this work establishes design principles for GC stationary phases that enable enhanced selectivity for highly fluorinated analytes while maintaining complementary interactions with non-fluorinated compounds.

Comprehensive two-dimensional GC↗