Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “environmental guidelines”

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

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

At least 523 records · Page 29
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Daily water stable isotopes, transpiration, and matrix potential data for an aspen and engelmann stand in the East River Watershed (version 2)

We provide daily stable isotope (2H & 18O) ratios in soil water and xylem (plant stem) water, as well as the sap flow (transpiration) and the soil's matric potential at a forested site near Gothic, Colorado, in the East River catchment. We measured the stable isotopic composition of the transpiration and the daily transpiration flux sum of three aspen and three engelmann spruce. In both forest stands, we installed a soil profile and measured the soil matric potential at 15, 30, and 60 cm depth as well as the stable isotopes of soil pore water at 5, 10, 30, 60, and 90 cm depths. All isotope measurements were done in situ via vapor probes connected to a cavity ring down spectrometer (Picarro L1240i).We further report the daily meteorological data observed at billy barr near our study site. We also provide for each tree the relative share of root water uptake derived from the isotope measurements via a Bayesian mixing model (MixSIAR).The daily data is provided as a time series in "Iso_MP_Sap_DataDaily_ESSDiveUpload.csv" and the units are provided in "dd.csv"; the location of the instrumented trees and soil profiles are given as latitude and longitude coordinates saved as CSV and KMZ files; and a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata.The data was gathered to investigate the short-term changes of the water sources (i.e., variation of root water uptake from different soil depths) of the studied subalpine trees.Update 07/16/2025: The relative and absolute plant water uptake depths were grouped to ensure that the MixSIAR model was applied with endmembers that differed in their d2H value by at least 3 permill and at least 1 permill for d18O. Whenever the difference between observed d2H values for two or more probes at neighboring depths was less than 3 permill, we used the average value for the source water endmember. For days at which probes that were not next to each other measurements did not differ at least 3 permill, the average of all probes between these two depths was used as the water source endmember representing the depth range between these two probes.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Temporal Study 2022-2024: Sample-Based Surface Water Dissolved Inorganic Carbon, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Total Nitrogen, Stable Isotopes, and Total Suspended Solids from across Multiple Watersheds in the Yakima River Basin, Washington, USA

This dataset supports a broader study examining the drivers of temporal variability in sediment respiration rates in the Yakima River Basin. The dataset provides geochemistry data generated from samples collected at bi-weekly or monthly intervals at six sites across the Yakima River Basin in Washington, USA. Sample and sensor data from previous years (2021-2022) can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1898912 and https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1892054, respectively. Related sensor data from 2022-2024 will be published separately. This dataset is comprised of one main data folder containing (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) readme; (4) field metadata; (5) dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and averages; (6) dissolved organic carbon (DOC; reported as non-purgeable organic carbon; NPOC) and averages; (7) total dissolved nitrogen (TN) and averages; (8) total suspended solids (TSS); (9) stable isotopes; (10) surface water sampling protocol; (11) sensor protocol; (12) methods codes; and (13) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file. All files are .csv or .pdf. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. For data and scripts associated with "Shifts in rain-snow partitioning drive faster water transit times in the US Pacific Northwest" (Butler et al., 2026), go to https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/3025481

18-O↗
DOE OSTI2025

Topography, surface water distribution and subsurface structure in 2023 across an Arctic coastal tundra site near Utqiagvik, Alaska

Subsurface electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), active layer thickness measurements, photogrammetry, and topographic data were collected in September 2023 along a 475 m long, 20 m wide corridor that traverses various polygon types within the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) on the Alaskan Arctic Coastal Plain, approximately 4 miles from the Beaufort Sea near Utqiaġvik, Alaska. These measurements were designed to assess decadal changes in surface water distribution, topography, and subsurface structure across this dynamic landscape. This archive contains the datasets acquired in 2023 and references to the datasets acquired previously at the same location. The ERT survey was conducted along the 475 m transect using 0.5 m electrode spacing and a roll-along acquisition strategy. Thaw layer thicknesses were measured with a tile probe along the same transect. Photogrammetry data were acquired using an unoccupied aerial vehicle (UAV) and were used to generate a digital elevation model and an RGB mosaic. A real-time kinematic (RTK) GPS was used to survey the ERT electrodes and the ground control points for the aerial imagery. The dataset contains 5 *.csv data files, 6 *.csv metadata files, and 6 *.tif files.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

EXCHANGE Campaign Degradation (ECD): Understanding Decomposition Dynamics Across Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Coastal Ecosystems

The EXploration of Coastal Hydrobiogeochemistry Across a Network of Gradients and Experiments (EXCHANGE) Degradation Experiment (EXCHANGE-D) is an in situ experiment designed to assess organic matter decomposition rates across coastal terrestrial-aquatic interfaces (TAIs), from coastal uplands through transition zones to wetlands. Through a network of partner scientists and coastal sites, we are testing how environmental gradients shape decomposition and carbon dynamics across terrestrial-aquatic interfaces. Using standardized tea bag substrates deployed across a network of diverse coastal sites, we compare decomposition rates at different fresh- and salt-water TAIs to develop transferable knowledge that improves the representation of organic matter degradation in coastal ecosystem models. For more information, please see https://compass.pnnl.gov/FME/EXCHANGE. This is Version 1 of the data package, which includes: ecd_README.pdf flmd.csv dd.csv ecd_soil_weom_L2.csv ecd_soil_ph_conductivity_L2.csv ecd_soil_gwc_L2.csv ecd_soil_teabag_degradation_L2.csv ecd_readme.pdf

coastal soils↗
DOE OSTI2024

Shrub Seedling Experiment: Environmental Conditions, Vegetation Composition, and Seedling Recruitment, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2018-2019

In June 2018, a manipulative seed-addition experiment was established at the Council Mile Marker 71 (CN_MM71), Quartz Creek Burn Area (Kougarok Mile Marker 86), and Quartz Creek Unburned (Kougarok Mile Marker 80) sites on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska. At each site, 5 replicate blocks were established in disturbed and intact upland tussock tundra (a total of 40 plots). Disturbed plots at Council were located on thermo-erosional (thermokarst) slopes, while disturbed plots in Quartz Creek were in burned areas affected by the Mingvk Lake fire in 2015. Using a split-plot design, an additional manual disturbance treatment (scraping to remove the surface bryophyte layer) was implemented across all blocks in June 2018. Seeds of five erect, deciduous shrubs were broadcast seeded into each plot in June 2018, and seedlings were censused in August 2018 and August 2019. The dataset includes ancillary measurements of plot-level environmental conditions (soil temperature, moisture, chemistry, thaw depth, microtopography, substrate thickness) and vegetation composition (NDVI and estimated percent cover by species and plant functional type). Dataset contains 10 csv data files (five data files with corresponding data dictionaries and one file-level metadata file) and one pdf user guide. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2006

High Power Laser Diode Array Qualification and Guidelines for Space Flight Environments

High-power laser diode arrays (LDAs) are used for a variety of space-based remote sensor laser programs as an energy source for diode-pumped solid-state lasers. LDAs have been flown on NASA missions including MOLA, GLAS and MLA and have continued to be viewed as an important part of the laser-based instrument component suite. There are currently no military or NASA-grade, -specified, or - qualified LDAs available for "off-the-shelf" use by NASA programs. There has also been no prior attempt to define a standard screening and qualification test flow for LDAs for space applications. Initial reliability studies have also produced good results from an optical performance and stability standpoint. Usage experience has shown, howeve that the current designs being offered may be susceptible to catastrophic failures due to their physical construction (packaging) combined with the electro-optical operational modes and the environmental factors of space application. design combined with operational mode was at the root of the failures which have greatly reduced the functionality of the GLAS instrument. The continued need for LDAs for laser-based science instruments and past catastrophic failures of this part type demand examination of LDAs in a manner which enables NASA to select, buy, validate and apply them in a manner which poses as little risk to the success of the mission as possible.

Ott, Melanie N.↗
DOE OSTI2024

Model associated with: "Thermodynamic control on the decomposition of organic matter across different electron acceptors"

This model data package is associated with the publication “Thermodynamic control on the decomposition of organic matter across different electron acceptors” submitted to Soil Biology and Biochemistry (Zheng et al., 2023; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2024.109364).In this research, a thermodynamic modeling framework is built to flexibly incorporate both organic matter (OM) molecules and electron acceptors for estimating potential free energy release from various redox reactions and to further predict reaction rates based on Microbial Transition State Theory. The model package includes scripts for thermodynamic modeling and postprocessing. Input Fourier-transform ion cyclotron resonance (FTICR) data are from a previous experimental study (Boye et al., 2018), and model outputs are free energy predictions and stoichiometric coefficients associated with all possible redox reactions.This data package is associated with the project GitHub repository found at MM_bioenergetic_modeling.This data package contains four folders (Input_FTICR, Model, Output, and Output_processing), a file-level metadata (FLMD) csv, and a data dictionary (dd) csv. Please see Zheng_bioenergetic_modeling_flmd.csv for a list of all files contained in this data package and descriptions for each. The Zheng_bioenergetic_modeling_dd.csv file describes the csv column headers. The “Model” folder contains scripts to run energy balance calculations for each electron acceptor. The “Output” folder contains csv files with stoichiometric information from model simulations. And the "Output_processing" folder contains scripts for reaction rate calculations and to generate plots.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil physical and chemical measurements for topsoils collected during NEON campaign in East River, CO (06/14/2018-06/28/2018)

The package is part of the DOE Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA) project and includes soil physical and chemical measurements from topsoils collected at the East River, Colorado, in conjunction with the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) Airborne Observation Platform (AOP) survey conducted in June 2018. The soil measurements include soil bulk density, soil volumetric water content, soil microbial biomass C (Carbon), N (Nitrogen) and C:N (C to N ratio), soil DNA yield, soil total extractable organic C, soil total extractable N, soil extractable nitrate, soil extractable ammonium, soil dissolved inorganic N, soil dissolved organic N, soil pH, soil TOC400 (total organic carbon at 400°C), soil ROC (residual oxidizable carbon), soil TIC (total inorganic carbon), soil TOC (total organic carbon), soil TC (total carbon), soil N, soil OM (organic matter) loss on ignition. Additional associated site metadata can be found in the ESS-DIVE package 10.15485/1618130. The dataset includes (1) 2018_NEON_soil_physical_chemical_measurements.csv: soil physical and chemical measurements indexed by soil sample IGSNs; (2) samples.csv: sample metadata file used to register International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs); (3) flmd.csv: file level metadata file; and (4) 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 (Catchment Hydrology and ↗
NASA NTRS2015

High Performance EVA Glove Collaboration: Glove Injury Data Mining Effort

Human hands play a significant role during Extravehicular Activity (EVA) missions and Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL) training events, as they are needed for translating and performing tasks in the weightless environment. Because of this high frequency usage, hand and arm related injuries are known to occur during EVA and EVA training in the NBL. The primary objectives of this investigation were to: 1) document all known EVA glove related injuries and circumstances of these incidents, 2) determine likely risk factors, and 3) recommend interventions where possible that could be implemented in the current and future glove designs. METHODS: The investigation focused on the discomforts and injuries of U.S. crewmembers who had worn the pressurized Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) spacesuit and experienced 4000 Series or Phase VI glove related incidents during 1981 to 2010 for either EVA ground training or in-orbit flight. We conducted an observational retrospective case-control investigation using 1) a literature review of known injuries, 2) data mining of crew injury, glove sizing, and hand anthropometry databases, 3) descriptive statistical analyses, and finally 4) statistical risk correlation and predictor analyses to better understand injury prevalence and potential causation. Specific predictor statistical analyses included use of principal component analyses (PCA), multiple logistic regression, and survival analyses (Cox proportional hazards regression). Results of these analyses were computed risk variables in the forms of odds ratios (likelihood of an injury occurring given the magnitude of a risk variable) and hazard ratios (likelihood of time to injury occurrence). Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, we selected predictor variables significant at p≤0.15. RESULTS: Through 2010, there have been a total of 330 NASA crewmembers, from which 96 crewmembers performed 322 EVAs during 1981-2010, resulting in 50 crewmembers being injured inflight and 44 injured during 11,704 ground EVA training events. Of the 196 glove related injury incidents, 106 related to EVA and 90 to EVA training. Over these 196 incidents, 277 total injuries (126 flight; 151 training) were reported and were then grouped into 23 types of injuries. Of EVA flight injuries, 65% were commonly reported to the hand (in general), metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint, and finger (not including thumb) with fatigue, abrasion, and paresthesia being the most common injury types (44% of total flight injuries). Training injuries totaled to more than 70% being distributed to the fingernail, MCP joint, and finger crotch with 88% of the specific injuries listed as pain, erythema, and onycholysis. Of these training injuries, when reporting pain or erythema, the most common location was the index finger, but when reporting onycholysis, it was the middle finger. Predictor variables specific to increased risk of onycholysis included: female sex (OR=2.622), older age (OR=1.065), increased duration in hours of the flight or training event (OR=1.570), middle finger length differences in inches between the finger and the EVA glove (OR=7.709), and use of the Phase VI glove (OR=8.535). Differentiation between training and flight and injury reporting during 2002-2004 were significant control variables. For likelihood of time to first onycholysis injury, there was a 24% reduction in rate of reporting for each year increase in age. Also, more experienced crewmembers, based on number of EVA flight or training events completed, were less likely to report an onycholysis injury (3% less for every event). Longer duration events also found reporting rates to occur 2.37 times faster for every hour of length. Crewmembers with larger hand size reported onycholysis 23% faster than those with smaller hand size. Finally, for every 1/10th of an inch increase in difference between the middle finger length and the glove, the rate of reporting increased by 60%. DISCUSSION: One key finding was that the Series 4000 glove had a lower injury risk than the Phase VI, which provides a platform for further evaluation. General interventions that reduce hand overexertion and repetitive use exposure through tool development, procedural changes and shorter exposures may be one mitigation path, but due to the way the training event times were reported, we cannot provide a guideline for a specific event duration change. When the finger length was different from the glove length, the risk of injury increased indicating that the use of larger finger take-ups could be contributing to injury and therefore may not be recommended. Prior to this investigation, there was one previous investigation indicating hand anthropometry may be related to onycholysis. We found different hand anthropometry variables indicated by this investigation as compared to the prior, specifically differences in middle finger length compared to glove finger length, which point more towards a sizing issue than a specific anthropometry issue. Additionally, although this investigation has identified sizing as an issue, the force and environmental-related variables of the EVA glove that could also cause injury were not accounted for.

Reid, C. R.↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Streamflow measurements from four sites on the Tuolumne River in Yosemite National Park from Water Years 2002 to 2021

Regions with remote and complex terrain experience spatially varying streamflow patterns, but are often poorly sampled due to difficult access. This data package includes streamflow measurements collected using low-visibility and low-impact installations at four sites on the Tuolumne River in Yosemite National Park, for water years 2002 to 2021. The resulting data set offers a unique opportunity to explore hydrologic processes in complex terrain.This data package contains half-hourly recordings of unvented pressure, vented pressure, and water temperature are measured and used to estimate discharge and stage height. Discharge flags provide insight into data anomalies. This dataset is formatted in accordance with ESS-Dive's Hydrologic Monitoring and File Level Metadata Formats. It contains the following files:1) Folder containing four csv files of time series streamflow measurements (unvented pressure, vented pressure, estimated discharge, water temperature, stage height, and discharge flag) from four locations on the Tuolumne River2) Data dictionary (dd.csv) containing units, definitions, human readable column names, and data type for all column headers throughout the dataset3) File-level metadata (FLMD.csv) containing metadata for files contained in the dataset4) Installation methods (InstallationMethods.csv) containing metadata on sensor installation

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Geochemistry and Strontium Isotopes for Coal Creek Watershed, Colorado, 2021-2022

The geochemistry and strontium isotope data for Coal Creek Watershed, Colorado, consists of cation, anion, and 87Sr/87Sr isotope values from samples collected at 8 stream location along Coal Creek, samples from two groundwater springs within the watershed, and a shallow subsurface piezometer. All stream and spring samples were collected between June and October, 2021, and the shallow, near stream piezometer sample was collected in July of 2022. These data were collected to evaluate how groundwater contributions to Coal Creek originating from shallow vs deep flow paths respond seasonal drying. Understanding of groundwater-surface water interactions in montane systems in critical for the future of water availability in the Western US as groundwater contributions are expected to become more important for sustaining summer stream flows. This data package contains: (1) a csv of all cation samples; (2) a csv of all anion samples; (3) a csv of all 87Sr/87Sr isotope samples; and (4) a csv of locations for each sampling site. The dataset additionally includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Site and endmember spectra of terrestrial vegetation and soils for the Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study, June-July 2025

This dataset provides site and endmember spectra collected during the 2025 Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) campaign. The site spectra were collected to help validate airborne hyperspectral data acquired by the National Ecological Observatory Network's aerial observation platform (NEON AOP). Endmember spectra were collected to augment existing spectral libraries with additional samples of bare surfaces and non-photosynthetic vegetation. All measurements were acquired with an Analytical Spectral Devices (ASD) FieldSpec4 Hi-Res NG (Next Generation) spectroradiometer, which records radiance at 1nm (nanometer) intervals from the ultraviolet to the short-wave infrared (350-2500 nm). The dataset includes spectra measured at meadow sites where the CHESS team also collected vegetation samples for trait analyses. The site spectra were collected with the ASD FieldSpec4 palm grip attachment using an 8° field-of-view foreoptic. Site spectra are integrated measurements of the entire surface within the foreoptic’s field of view. For site-level spectra, the sun is the illumination source. A Spectralon panel mounted on a tripod was used for instrument optimization and white reference measurements for all site spectra. Site spectra were acquired within two hours of solar noon and within 48 hours of a NEON AOP overflight. Site spectra are labeled by date, sampling area, and site number according to the naming conventions of the CHESS campaign’s data management plan. The dataset also contains endmember spectra in the following categories: photosynthetic vegetation (PV), non-photosynthetic vegetation (NPV), bare (soil/rock), and flowers. Endmember measurements were acquired using either the contact probe or the leaf clip attachments of the ASD FieldSpec4. In these configurations, the bulb inside the spectrometer provides the light source for the measurements. The spectrometer was optimized and white reference measurements were recorded using the circular white pucks attached to the contact probe and leaf clip. Because they do not rely on solar illumination, contact probe and leaf clip measurements were collected during a broader time frame than the palm grip site spectra. Some endmembers were measured at CHESS meadow sites, while others were collected within the larger sampling area or in nearby locations (e.g. Gothic Townsite) with similar characteristics. Radiance, reflectance, and metadata files are split into three subfolders according to measurement type: proximal/palm grip (prx), contact probe (cp), and leaf clip (lc). Radiance spectra are provided in ASD file format (.asd file extension). All ASD files can be opened using the provided scripts. Metadata is provided in two formats: CSV file format (no geolocation) and GEOJSON file format (includes geolocation for each spectra). The dataset includes a set of pre-processed reflectance spectra as CSV files (yyyymmdd_rfl.csv). The python scripts and jupyter notebook used to calculate reflectance spectra from the ASD radiance data is included here and was previously published at: https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/2446. There is also a folder of JPEG photographs corresponding to selected spectra. We include a protocol document with detailed steps for ASD FieldSpec4 assembly and operations. This data additionally contains a file level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) file. Geospatial information: Geospatial data for mapping measurement site locations are in the files CHESS_polygons_lai_UTM.geojson, CHESS_polygons_shrub_UTM.geojson, and CHESS_polygons_meadow_UTM.geojson in the companion geospatial package for the 2025 CHESS campaign, ‘CHESS 2025: Location data for field observations and sampling’ (Henderson et al., 2026). CHESS Project Description: The Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) comprised a multi-week airborne remote sensing and field observation campaign in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, conducted in June and July of 2025. Airborne remote sensing was conducted by the National Ecological Observatory Network Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP), concurrent with a field campaign run by the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA), and NASA-JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) program. Between June 10 and July 18, 2025, the NEON AOP flight team collected high-resolution aerial imaging spectroscopy and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data over three domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). In coordination with the flights, a field campaign acquired ground-truth observations, including observations of vegetation composition, foliar traits, forest demography, and subsurface properties in 18 core sampling areas within the domains. Additional surface water observations were taken at over 380 point locations. All CHESS campaign datasets can be found within the CHESS ESS-DIVE data portal: https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/chess. Funding Acknowledgment: This research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NM0018D0004) and was funded by EMIT Extended Mission Phase E Science.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
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 OSTI2025

Mapping and Synthesis of International Biomass Supply Assessments

This report, Mapping and Synthesis of International Biomass Supply Assessments (or Global Biomass Resource Assessment) is the first step in a long-term process to assemble data from around the globe into a virtual repository that can be updated and provide user-friendly access to the data. The Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM) Biofuture Platform Initiative recommended that research be completed to “address the need for internationally accepted benchmarks quantifying sustainable biomass feedstock supplies.” To act upon the CEM Biofuture recommendation, in 2024, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) commissioned Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to prepare this report as the primary deliverable for a one-year assignment to assemble data into a citable form that could help resolve the persistent question presented related to bioenergy policy, “Is there enough sustainable biomass?” In response to that query, this report includes information received by August 2024 from national CEM representatives, collaborators, and public sources on current and future sustainable biomass supplies in 62 nations,and subsequently documents (a) the approach used by ORNL to analyze and categorize the information received in a manner that enables aggregation and comparability; and (b) recommendations for next steps and guidelines to help others update and harmonize future assessments of global sustainable biomass supplies.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Influence of extreme temperature conditions on CO 2 direct air capture using amino-acid solutions

Geological features play a pivotal role in determining the feasibility of deploying CO₂ direct air capture (DAC) technologies, primarily because they influence the availability of cost-effective energy sources, such as natural gas and geothermal energy, and also due to the potential for CO₂ sequestration. Many regions face challenges due to variable weather conditions including seasonal temperature fluctuations, high or low humidity, and sub-ambient temperatures. These extremes can reduce DAC performance or even lead to catastrophic events. Aqueous solvents considered for DAC systems are particularly vulnerable to seasonal variations in colder climates, where the solvent may underperform or freeze. It is therefore essential to investigate the CO₂ capture efficiency of aqueous solvents across a broad range of environmental temperatures, spanning sub-zero to hot conditions (>30 °C). In this study, DAC operation is examined using a high-flux solvent–air crossflow contactor under two major weather scenarios: (i) cold conditions below 0 °C and (ii) hot conditions above 30 °C. A parametric study is conducted to investigate the contactor performance regarding CO₂ removal efficiency, uptake capacity, and reaction kinetics versus temperature when the air velocity through the contactor exceeds 1 m/s. The efficacy of the contactor is systematically investigated using various anti-freeze amino-acid solvent formulations. A mass-transfer mechanistic model is developed to assess the process performance over a wide temperature range and propose scalable design guidelines. Machine learning is also employed to identify key parameters affecting the CO₂ capture efficiency. It is shown that air velocity and temperature are the primary factors influencing CO₂ uptake. Based on performance data obtained under subfreezing temperatures, a technoeconomic analysis is conducted to evaluate the feasibility of using aqueous solvents in seasonal cold regions. In conclusion, the findings of this study provide valuable insights into siting considerations for deploying solvent-based DAC, thereby contributing to the advancement of sustainable carbon removal solutions.

Air–liquid contactor↗
DOE OSTI2021

Total metals & anion concentration data; Slate River floodplain, Crested Butte, CO; May 2020-September 2020

This data package includes processed and undiluted measurements for metal and anion concentrations from pore water (groundwater) samples from the Slate River floodplain of Crested Butte, CO, a focus field site for the SLAC Floodplain Hydro-Biogeochemistry SFA. The data was generated as part of the work targeting the overarching research question for the SLAC SFA: How do ubiquitous subsurface interfaces mediate molecular-scale biogeochemical processes and groundwater quality in floodplains and watersheds? Samples were collected between May and September of 2020. These measurements were all recorded at the Arizona Laboratory for Emerging Contaminants (ALEC) at the University of Arizona located in Tucson, AZ. Groundwater samples were extracted from a network of installed rhizon (Rhizosphere Research Products, part no. 19.60.21F, 0.6 micrometer mesh size) and piezometer wells within the river floodplain. All water samples were shaded from sun exposure during extraction from the subsurface and preserved at 4C until measured at ALEC.Analysis by ICP-MS:Measurements for total metals were made on the Agilent 7700x ICP-MS (for total metals) – Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA.The analytical QA/QC protocol was adapted from US EPA Method 200.8 for analysis by ICP-MS. Calibration standards were prepared from multi-element stock solution (Sigma-Aldrich Multielement standard solution for ICP, St. Louis, MO) using matrix matched to sample solutions (either 2% HCl or HNO3 from AriStar Plus,grade acids from VWR Scientific). Calibration curves include at least 7 points with correlation coefficients > 0.995. The QC protocol includes a continuing calibration blank (CCB), a continuing calibration verification (CCV) solution and at least one quality control sample (QCS) to be analyzed just after calibration and again after every 12 samples and at the completion of the run. The QCS solutions are from an independent source, such as NIST SRM 1643e - Trace Elements in Water, or QCS solutions from High Purity Standards (Charleston, SC). Acceptable QC responses must be between 90 and 110% of the certified value. An internal standard (Rh) is added via on-line addition into the sample line using a mixing tee.Analysis by Ion Chromatography (Anions):The protocol follows Method 4110 in Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater.The instrument used is the Thermo Scientific Dionex ICS-6000 using AS+AG22 column set for anion analysis with isocratic method using sodium carbonate eluent. Detection is by chemical suppression of eluent conductivity. Quality control solutions and mixed analyte standards purchased from Inorganic Ventures, Christiansburg, VA.All files are in csv format.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗