Comparison of Mineralogy Variability and Major, Minor, Trace Element Compositions in Dunite and Peridotite Rock Samples with Use of Chemical, Optical and Spectroscopic Methods
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
organic↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Sampling”
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.
Contour-Based Sampling Methods in High-Dimensional Space
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Engineering - Aeronautics↗
Synaptic Sampling Networks with True Random Number Generation
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Smith, John Darby [Sandia National Laboratories (S↗
Sample Preparation and Analysis at IMCL - Internship Poster
Poster for the intern poster session on August 7th
11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
NOvA Dual-Baseline Search for Active-to-Sterile Neutrino Oscillations using Neutrino- and Antineutrino-Enriched Samples
We report a search for neutrino oscillations to sterile neutrinos in the NOvA detectors under a model with three active and one sterile neutrinos. This search simultaneously fits data in the two NOvA detectors and is the first from NOvA to use both neutrino- and antineutrino-mode beams, with exposures of $26.61\times10^{20}$ and $12.50\times10^{20}$ protons on target, respectively. There is no evidence for sterile neutrinos in the data and we are able to exclude regions of parameter space that were allowed by previous experiments, including most of the allowed region reported by IceCube.
Abubakar, S. [Erciyes U.]↗
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↗
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↗
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↗
Aided Active Learning (AAL) for Enhanced Critical Heat Flux Prediction
Accurate prediction of critical heat flux (CHF) is crucial for the safe and efficient operation of nuclear reactors. Traditional CHF modeling methods often require extensive experimental data, which are hard to obtain. This study introduces the Aided Active Learning (AAL) framework, which strategically minimizes data requirements without sacrificing model accuracy. Unlike conventional Active Learning (AL), AAL introduces an additional step of randomly selecting a subset from the sample pool before applying the query strategy. To evaluate the performance of AAL, two query strategies—uncertainty-based sampling and error-reduction sampling—were evaluated across the following models: random forest (RF), feedforward neural network (FNN), and variational feedforward neural network (vFNN). The proposed framework demonstrated that AAL effectively reduces the number of training samples needed to achieve comparable predictive accuracy. For the RF model, AL required only 710 samples to achieve an R2 score of 0.98, as compared to the 4,785 samples needed by random sampling. Similarly, the FNN model achieved the same R2 score with just 355 samples when using AL, a significant improvement over the 825 samples required by random sampling. In case of uncertainty-based sampling strategy, vFNN attained an R2 of 0.98 with 3,420 samples, reducing the sample requirement by 47% relative to the 6,440 samples needed for random sampling. Its performance suggests that larger training data are required to fully leverage its uncertainty quantification capabilities.
22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
Design of a robot-automated flat plate/reflection geometry x-ray diffraction setup for accelerated materials discovery and structural screening
Here, we report the design, construction, and automation of a flat plate sample loading, alignment, and data acquisition system for X-ray diffraction measurements in reflection geometry implemented at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource. The system is built onto a single platform, enabling facile transferability, and is compartmentalized into sample storage, sample transfer, and sample position/alignment segments. The core feature of this system is a six-axis robotic arm that offers a large range of highly reproducible and programable movements. The degrees of freedom of the robot arm enable adaptability in which movements can be modified to fit various beamline environments and sample configurations. Samples are housed on 3D printed sample mounts, which are arranged onto a 6 × 2 array of sample cassettes capable of holding 7 samples. Using sample mounts designed for solid oxide electrolysis button cells (SOECs), the maximum tray capacity is 84 samples, which can be aligned and run in ~ 24 hours with long exposure scans. The sample array is additionally capable of accommodating a range of sample sizes and geometries due to the rapid 3D printed fabrication. The components of the setup will be described in detail and performance will be demonstrated with a set of representative SOEC and XRD standard samples. Opportunities for future developments and integration with the automated setup are summarized.
08 HYDROGEN↗
Chemistry imaging and distribution analysis of rare earth elements in coal using LIBS and LA-ICP-MS instruments
Currently, demand for rare earth elements (REEs) increased significantly. Coal is actively evaluated as potential economic sources for extraction of REEs. Here, in this work, laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) was evaluated for rapid estimation of REEs content and their distribution in the natural coal samples. The results were compared with similar laser ablation–inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) measurements. Thirteen coal samples (nine standard samples and five natural samples) were used in this study. Powder samples were pressed into pellets while coal chunks were directly ablated for data recording. Pellets of the powder standard samples were used to optimize the data acquisition system and then data recorded with this optimized system was used to identify the proper data acquisition and analysis models. After establishing the proper data acquisition system and analysis model using the standard samples, natural coal samples in powder form and their chunks were utilized to record LIBS and LA-ICP-MS spectra. Multivariate calibration models were developed using four of the natural samples, which were evaluated by predicting the REE content in the fifth sample. Principal component analysis was performed on the LIBS data obtained from the natural samples and it classified all the samples with high accuracy. Two-dimensional (2D) elemental mapping on coal chunk samples was also performed using both LIBS and LA-ICP-MS to study the distribution of REEs in the samples. The resulting elemental images and their correlations can be used to infer mineral distributions.
01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
Integrating Machine-learning-assisted Computer Vision with RICH System
Developments in artificial intelligence have vastly expanded the capabilities of robots. Currently, the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) beamlines at Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) have robotic sample loaders to increase the efficiency of running experiments. However, they require retraining if anything about the situation changes, e.g., where the samples are, and cannot notice if errors occur. So, the viability of using computer vision and machine learning to enhance these sample loaders’ functionality was investigated. In this project, the RICH system with a Dobot CR3 6-axis robot present at the VULCAN beamline assisted by an Intel Realsense D435i camera, a unique camera that enables convenient translation of 2D pixel coordinates to 3D world points, was programmed to load ceramic crucibles into a thermogravimetric analyzer (TGA) furnace. An algorithm was constructed in Python with three major phases planned: (1) obtaining a sample, (2) moving it to the target location, and then (3) bringing the sample back to its original location once the experiment finished. In the first phase, the algorithm would dynamically detect sample locations using ArUco markers to recognize the samples’ general location and a custom-trained yolov5 object detection model to locate the crucibles’ centers. Afterward, the robot would be directed to pick up samples based on the crucibles’ calculated positions. In the second phase, the robot would move the sample to a secondary point, reorient its grip, and place the sample at the target location. In the final phase, the robot would determine whether the sample was intact and would bring it back to its original place if it was or raise an alarm. Using this algorithm, the robot was able to pick up different types of crucibles at varying positions. These results indicate that integrating machine-learning-assisted computer vision with robotic sample loaders can result in effective autonomous detection of samples.
97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
A comparison of compact, presumably young with extended, evolved radio active galactic nuclei
Context.The triggering and evolution of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) and the interaction of the AGN with its host galaxy is an important topic in extragalactic astrophysics. Radio sources with peaked spectra (peaked spectrum sources, PSS) and compact symmetric objects (CSO) are powerful, compact, and presumably young AGNs and therefore particularly suitable to study aspects of the AGN-host connection. Aims.We use a statistical approach to investigate properties of a PSS-CSO sample that are related to host galaxies and could potentially shed light on the link between host galaxies and AGNs. The main goal is to compare the PSS-CSO sample with a matching comparison sample of extended sources (ECS) to see if the two have significant differences. Methods.We analysed composite spectra, diagnostic line diagrams, multi-band spectral energy distributions (MBSEDs), star formation (SF) indicators, morphologies, and cluster environments for a sample of 121 PSSs and CSOs for which spectra are available from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). The statistical results were compared with those of the ECS sample, where we generally considered the two subsamples of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) and radio galaxies separately. The analysis is based on a large set of archival data in the spectral range from the ultraviolet to mid-infrared. Results.We find significant differences between the PSS-CSO and the ECS sample. In particular, we find that the ECS sample has a higher proportion of passive galaxies with a lower star formation activity. This applies to both sub-samples (QSOs or radio galaxies) as well as to the entire sample. The star formation rates of the PSS-CSO host galaxies with available data are typically in the range ∼0 to 5 ℳ ⊙ yr −1 , and the stellar masses are in the range 3 × 10 11 to 10 12 ℳ ⊙ . Secondly, in agreement with previous results, we find a remarkably high proportion of PSS-CSO host galaxies with merger signatures. The merger fraction of the PSS-CSO sample is 0.61 ± 0.07, which is significantly higher than that of the comparison sample (0.15 ± 0.06). We suggest that this difference can be explained by assuming that the majority of the PSSs and CSOs cannot evolve to extended radio sources and are therefore not represented in our comparison sample.
Astronomy & Astrophysics↗
Tank Waste Characterization: History, Challenges, and Success Stories
The preparation and chemical and radiochemical analysis of Hanford tank waste samples can be performed with standard laboratory equipment and instruments as relatively routine processes that are not particularly challenging. Rather, the main challenges of tank waste characterization are associated with radiological dose and sampling limitations. Accurate, representative and effective sampling techniques are difficult with the waste tanks because they were not designed for routine sampling. There are a finite number of sampling locations for each tank based on riser positioning, depth and the operational functionality of the sampling riser. For example, in one recently emptied SST, there was one riser that was found to have had concrete dumped down it, thereby eliminating that sampling port. Additionally, the waste within the tank; especially true for the saltcake and sludge, is not homogenous. The ability to adequately mix a million-gallon double shell tank (DST) is a concern for data reproducibility. Another real challenge that must be addressed for sampling single shell tanks, is how to dissolve the salt cake waste in a compromised (leaking) SST. These physical constraints mean that uncertainty in the representativeness of samples must be considered when applying analytical results to the bulk contents of the tank. The tank waste is highly radioactive and thus can only be handled initially by facilities that can receive samples into concrete-shielded hot cells with remote operation with an example provided in Figure 1. The shielding protects the worker from the radiological dose while mineral oil windows and remotely operated manipulators enables the samples to be handled. At Hanford, analytical laboratories with these hot cell capabilities are limited to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the main Hanford operations support laboratory, 222-S Laboratory. Because of their highly radioactive nature, samples must be sufficiently diluted to facilitate their analysis outside of a shielded cell. In some cases, this means some accuracy must be compromised to complete the analysis beyond that normally encountered for non-radioactive material.
Waste Characterization, BBI, PHOENIX: Tank Farms: ↗
Cation Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado (2014-2025)
This data package contains mean values for cation concentration for water samples taken from the East River Watershed in Colorado. Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) has been used to measure the concentrations of elements of interest simultaneously for the East River Watershed, Colorado groundwater and surface water samples to inform insights on the biogeochemistry processes within the watershed. The East River is part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. For samples collected prior to 06-16-2021, the instrumentation, Elan DRC II, PerkinElmer SCIEX, automatically switches among the three models necessary to analyze all 37 elements. These 37 elements include: (1) Lithium (Li), Beryllium (Be), Boron (B), Sodium (Na), Magnesium (Mg), Aluminium (Al), Silicon (Si), Phosphorus (P), Titanium (Ti), Cobalt (Co), Nickel (Ni), Copper (Cu), Zinc (Zn), Germanium (Ge), Arsenic (As), Rubidium (Rb), Strontium (Sr), Zirconium (Zr), Molybdenum (Mo), Silver (Ag), Cadmium (Cd), Tin (Sn), Antimony (Sb), Caesium (Cs), Barium (Ba), Europium (Eu), Lead (Pb), Thorium (Th), Uranium (U) using standard model, argon Ar as reaction gas, (2) Potassium (K), Calcium (Ca), Vanadium (V), Chromium (Cr), Manganese (Mn), Iron (Fe) using dynamic reaction cell (DRC) model, ammonia NH3 as reaction gas, and (3) Phosphorus (P) and Selenium (Se) using DRC model, oxygen O2 as reaction gas. Note for the samples with higher concentrations of chloride (Cl-), asenic (As) concentrations were analysed with DRC model (oxygen O2 as reaction gas) to avoid the interference of chloride. For samples collected on and after 06-16-2021, an advanced Agilent 8900 triple quadrupole inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry system (Agilent 8900 QQQ ICP-MS, Agilent Technologies) has been used to measure the concentrations of interested 36 elements simultaneously for environmental samples, including (1) Lithium (Li), Beryllium (Be) and Boron (B) using standard no gas mode, (2) Sodium (Na), Magnesium (Mg), Aluminium (Al) Phosphorus (P), Potassium (K), Chromium (Cr), Manganese (Mn), Iron (Fe), Cobalt (Co), Nickel (Ni), Copper (Cu), Zinc (Zn), Germanium (Ge), Arsenic (As), Rubidium (Rb), Strontium (Sr), Zirconium (Zr), Molybdenum (Mo), Silver (Ag), Cadmium (Cd), Tin (Sn), Antimony (Sb), Cesium (Cs), Barium (Ba), Europium (Eu), Lead (Pb), Thorium (Th) and Uranium (U) using standard helium (He) collision mode, (3) Titanium (Ti) and Vanadium (V) using high Energy (HEHe) helium (He) collision mode, and (4) Silicon (Si), Calcium (Ca) and Selenium (Se) using standard H2 reaction mode. All samples were prepared/diluted with 2% (v/v) ultrapure nitric acid in Milli-Q water (18.2 mega ohm-cm), and analyzed under a rigorous quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) process. This data package contains (1) a zip file (cation_data_2014_2025.zip) containing a total of 5,849 files: 5.848 data files of cation data from across the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) which is reported in .csv files per location and a locations.csv (1 file) with latitude and longitude for each location; (2) a file-level metadata (v6_20260901_flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; (3) a data dictionary (v6_20260901_dd.csv) file that contains terms/column_headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; (4) PDF and docx files for the detemination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for ICP-MS PerkinElmer DRC II instrumentation (Detemination_of_Method_Detection_Limits__MDLs__for_ICP_MS__PerkinElmer_Elan_DRC_II__LBL_Bldg74_Lab214D) for samples before November 2021; (5) PDF and docx files for the determination of MDLs for ICP-MS Agilent 8900 QQQ instrumentation (ICP_MS_Analysis_detection_limits_and_QA_QC_WenmingDong_updated_2026-08-06) for samples November 2021 and onward. Missing values within the anion data files are noted as either "-9999" or "0.0" for not detectable (N.D.) data. There are a total of 113 locations containing cation data. Update on 2021-04-11: Added Detemination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for ICP-MS document, which can be accessed as a PDF or with Microsoft Word. Update on 2022-06-10: versioned updates to this dataset was made along with these changes: (1) updated cation data for all locations up to 2021-12-31, (2) removal of units from column headers in datafiles, (3) added row underneath headers to contain units of variables, (4) removed suffix and prefix on two variables (“aqberylliumion_asberyllium” and “aqlithiumion_aslithium”), (5) added -9999 for empty numerical cells, and (6) the addition of the file-level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) were added to comply with the File-Level Metadata Reporting Format. Update on 2022-09-09: Updates were made to reporting format specific files (file-level metadata and data dictionary) to correct swapped file names, add additional details on metadata descriptions on both files, add a header_row column to enable parsing, and add version number and date to file names (v2_20220909_flmd.csv and v2_20220909_dd.csv). Update on 2023-08-08: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-01-05. The file level metadata and data dictionary files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2024-03-11: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-10-16. Further, revisions to the data files were made to remove incorrect data points (from 1970 and 2001). The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Updated versions of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for ICP-MS data were added to this dataset for samples starting in November 2021. Update on 2025-05-15: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available cation data was added, up until the end of WY2024 (September 30, 2024). International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), when registered, were added to the data files. The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2026-09-01: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available cation data was added, up until the end of WY2025 (September 30, 2025). Updated versions, as of 2026-08-06, of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for ICP-MS data were added to this dataset for samples starting in November 2021.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Metagenome-assembled genomes from topsoils collected during NEON campaign in East River, CO (06/14/2018-06/28/2018)
The Watershed Function Science Focus Area (WF SFA) at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab is working to build a mechanistic understanding of the distribution and dynamics of biogeochemical processes in mountainous watersheds and their response to perturbation. In June 2018, the NEON (National Ecological Observatory Network) Airborne Observatory Platform (AOP) performed a taskable airborne imaging campaign to collect visible to shortwave infrared (VSWIR) imaging spectroscopy and LiDAR data across 330 km2 in the Upper East River at Crested Butte, CO. We conducted a parallel ground sampling campaign to sample vegetation traits, as well as soil physical, chemical, and microbiological characteristics. We collected these samples from 438 sites across 12 locations spanning much of the elevation, topographic, and geologic variability across the study area. A subset of 250 samples were used for soil metagenomics which is presented here. In addition, at each site, vegetation samples were collected to measure species-specific leaf water content and leaf mass area, foliar elemental composition and foliar CN stable isotope ratios. Soil samples were collected to measure soil physical properties which include bulk density and soil texture analysis. A suite of soil chemical properties was measured from the samples collected at each site, including pH, organic matter, concentrations exchangeable cations, total elemental composition, and the concentrations of extractable N pools (e.g. total free amino acids, ammonium, nitrate, dissolved organic N, and total dissolved N). Additionally, we have measured soil microbial biomass CN stoichiometry. Here, we present 1982 metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal community from topsoil collected from during NEON 2018 campaign. All metagenomes were sequenced at JGI (Joint Genome Institute) (GOLD Study ID: Gs0149986). Metagenomes were assembled using JGI Metagenome Workflow (10.1128/mSystems.00804-20). The dataset includes (1) zip files for 1982 MAG fasta files (neon_genomes1-5.tar.gz, split into 5 tarballs to keep tarballs under 0.5 GB), (2) neon_Gs0149986_samples_soilproperties_metagenomes.csv: the sample information together with the accession numbers for the underlying metagenomes and the associated soil physical and chemical measurements in NMDC (National Microbiome Data Collaborative) compliant format, (3) neon_Gs0149986.kml: location bounding box file for the sampled locations, (4) samples.csv: sample metadata file used to register Internationall Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), (5) flmd.csv: file level metadata file, and (6) dd.csv: data dictionary file. 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.
2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
Laboratory time series moisture manipulative experiment from sediment across the contiguous US: time series aerobic respiration and geochemistry (v2)
This dataset supports a broader study examining the effects of wetting and drying on hyporheic zone respiration across the contiguous United States (CONUS). The dataset provides data generated from a laboratory moisture manipulation experiment. The contents include time series aerobic respiration and moisture; dissolved oxygen; sediment geochemistry data; and field metadata (including qualitative information on instream and river corridor characteristics). Samples were collected as part of the WHONDRS CONUS-Scale Model-Sample Study (CM). This study was designed following ICON (integrated, coordinated, open, and networked) principles to facilitate a model-experiment (ModEx) iteration approach, leveraging crowdsourced sampling across the CONUS. The data package associated with the CM study is available at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/1923689. CM sampling began in April 2022 and ended in October 2023. This study uses subsamples from a subset of CM samples collected between June 2022 and June 2023. The original field samples were labeled as CM_###. Subsequent subsamples for this study were labeled as EC_###. The labels from the field samples and the EC subsamples can be mapped directly based on the digits following the prefix and underscore (i.e., EC_001 is a subsample from CM_001). See the critical details section below for more details on sample naming. This data package was originally published in August 2024. It was updated in February 2026 (v2; new and modified files). See the change history section in the readme for more details. For details on how to navigate this data package, see this infographic from the River Corridor SFA https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. This dataset is comprised of one folder of raw Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) data and one main data folder containing (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) field metadata; (4) readme; (5) field protocol; and a (6) a subfolder with sediment sample data from the incubation experiment. The sample data subfolder contains (1) dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC); (2) total nitrogen (TN); (3) adenosine triphosphate (ATP); (4) percent carbon and nitrogen; (5) effect size; (6) iron (II); (7) gravimetric moisture; (8) respiration rates and raw dissolved oxygen values; (9) specific conductance; (10) pH; (11) temperature; (12) a summary containing median values of each data type for each treatment (wet and dry); (13) methods codes; (14) FTICR-MS methods; and (15) a subfolder of 9.4 Tesla FTICR-MS data. This folder contains three subfolders, one containing the sediment .xml data files, one containing the sediment CoreMS output files, the other containing instructions and scripts for processing the files in CoreMS (https://github.com/EMSL-Computing/CoreMS). All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .ref, or .xml.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Air, surface, and wastewater surveillance of SARS-CoV-2; a multimodal evaluation of COVID-19 detection in a built environment
Environmental surveillance of infectious organisms holds tremendous promise to reduce human-to-human transmission in indoor spaces through early detection. In this study we determined the applicability and limitations of wastewater, indoor high-touch surfaces, in-room air, and rooftop exhaust air sampling methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in a real world building occupied by residents recently diagnosed with COVID-19. We concurrently examined the results of three 24-hour environmental surveillance techniques, indoor surface sampling, exhaust air sampling and wastewater surveillance, to the known daily census fluctuations in a COVID-19 isolation dormitory. Additionally, we assessed the ability of aerosol samplers placed in the large volume lobby to detect SARS-CoV-2 multiple times per day. Our research reveals an increase in the number of individuals confirmed positive with COVID-19 as well as their estimated human viral load to be associated with statistically significant increases in viral loads detected in rooftop exhaust aerosol samples (p = 0.0413), wastewater samples (p = 0.0323,), and indoor high-touch surfaces (p < 0.001)). We also report that the viral load detected in lobby aerosol samples was statistically higher in samples collected during presence of occupants whose COVID-19 diagnostic tests were confirmed positive via qPCR compared to periods when the lobby was occupied by either contact-traced (suspected positive) individuals or during unoccupied periods (p = 0.0314 and <2e–16). We conclude that each daily (24h) surveillance method, rooftop exhaust air, indoor high-touch surfaces, and wastewater, provide useful detection signals for building owner/operator(s). Furthermore, we demonstrate that exhaust air sampling can provide spatially resolved signals based upon ventilation exhaust zones. Additionally, we find that indoor lobby air sampling can provide temporally resolved signals useful during short duration sampling periods (e.g., 2-4 hours) even with intermittent occupancy by occupants diagnosed with COVID-19.
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗