Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Soil Sample Processing”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The CheMin X-ray Diffractometer on MSL Curiosity: A Decade of Mineralogical Observations from Gale Crater, Mars

For more than a decade, the CheMin X-ray Diffraction instrument on the Mars Science Laboratory rover Curiosity has been returning quantitative mineralogical data from Gale crater, Mars. CheMin receives and analyzes sieved soil and powdered rock samples from Curiosity’s Sample Acquisition / Sample Processing and Handling (SA/SPaH) system. To date, 38 samples have been analyzed over the course of a 28 km transit. These samples document more than 600 vertical meters of flat-lying lacustrine, fluvial and aeolian sediments that comprise the lower part of the central mound of Gale crater (commonly called Mt. Sharp).The principal mineralogy of the sediments is basaltic, with evidence of early and late-stage diagenetic overprinting. The rocks in many cases preserve most of their primary mineralogy and sedimentary features, suggesting that they were never strongly heated or deformed. Using aeolian soil composition as a proxy for the composition of the deposited and lithified sediment, it appears that in many cases the diagenetic changes observed are principally isochemical. Exceptions to this include secondary nodules, calcium sulfate veining and rare alteration halos. A striking hematite-rich feature in lower Mt. Sharp called Vera Rubin Ridge is interpreted to be lake sediment diagenetically altered by silica-poor fluids. A surprising and as yet poorly understood observation is that nearly all of the 3.7 Gyr old sedimentary rocks analyzed to date are comprised of 25-50% X-ray amorphous material. Overall, this 600 m vertical section of sedimentary rock explored in lower Mt. Sharp documents a perennial shallow lake environment grading upward into alternating lacustrine/fluvial and aeolian environments. The mineralogical changes observed going up-section include a transition from trioctahedral to dioctahedral clay minerals and a transition from magnetite to hematite. More recently, in the last 150 m of section, CheMin has documented an overall decrease in clay minerals and increase in Fe3+ oxides and oxyhydroxides. The mineralogical changes observed in Gale crater may document the gradual drying out and oxidation of the martian hydrosphere.

CHEMIN↗
NASA NTRS1989

Robotic sampling system for an unmanned Mars mission

A major robotics opportunity for NASA will be the Mars Rover/Sample Return Mission which could be launched as early as the 1990s. The exploratory portion of this mission will include two autonomous subsystems: the rover vehicle and a sample handling system. The sample handling system is the key to the process of collecting Martian soils. This system could include a core drill, a general-purpose manipulator, tools, containers, a return canister, certification hardware and a labeling system. Integrated into a functional package, the sample handling system is analogous to a complex robotic workcell. Discussed here are the different components of the system, their interfaces, forseeable problem areas and many options based on the scientific goals of the mission. The various interfaces in the sample handling process (component to component and handling system to rover) will be a major engineering effort. Two critical evaluation criteria that will be imposed on the system are flexibility and reliability. It needs to be flexible enough to adapt to different scenarios and environments and acquire the most desirable specimens for return to Earth. Scientists may decide to change the distribution and ratio of core samples to rock samples in the canister. The long distance and duration of this planetary mission places a reliability burden on the hardware. The communication time delay between Earth and Mars minimizes operator interaction (teleoperation, supervisory modes) with the sample handler. An intelligent system will be required to plan the actions, make sample choices, interpret sensor inputs, and query unknown surroundings. A combination of autonomous functions and supervised movements will be integrated into the sample handling system.

Chun, Wendell↗
NASA NTRS2016

Micro Acoustic Resonant Chambers for Heating/Agitating/Mixing (MARCHAM)

A variety of applications require the mixing and/or heating of a slurry made from a powder/fluid mixture. One of these applications, Sub Critical Water Extraction (SCWE), is a process where water and an environmental powder sample (sieved soil, drill cuttings, etc.) are heated in a sealed chamber to temperatures greater than 200 degrees Celsius by allowing the pressure to increase, but without reaching the critical point of water. At these temperatures, the ability of water to extract organics from solid particulate increases drastically. This paper describes the modeling and experimentation on the use of an acoustic resonant chamber which is part of an amino acid detection instrument called Astrobionibbler [Noell et al. 2014, 2015]. In this instrument we use acoustics to excite a fluid- solid fines mixture in different frequency/Amplitude regimes to accomplish a variety of sample processing tasks. Driving the acoustic resonant chamber at lower frequencies can create circulation patterns in the fluid and mixes the liquid and fines, while driving the chamber at higher frequencies one can agitate the fluid and powder and create a suspension. If one then drives the chamber at high amplitude at resonance heating of the slurry occurs. In the mixing and agitating cell the particle levitation force depends on the relative densities and compressibility’s of the particulate and fluid and on the kinetic and potential energy densities associated with the velocity and pressure fields [Glynne-Jones, Boltryk and Hill 2012] in the cell. When heating, the piezoelectric transducer and chamber is driven at high power in resonance where the solid/fines region is modelled as acoustic transmission line with a large loss component. In this regime, heat is pumped into the solution/fines mixture and rapidly heats the sample. We have modeled the piezoelectric transducer/chamber/ sample using Mason’s equivalent circuit. In order to assess the validity of the model we have built and tested a variety of chambers. This paper describes the experimental results which are in general agreement with theory within the limitations of the modeling.

fluid particle interaction↗
DOE OSTI2021

Land management effects on wet aggregate stability and carbon content

Land management affects soil structure and many other soil properties and processes. Our objectives were to evaluate soil organic C (SOC), aggregate size distribution, aggregate-associated C, and soil structure as affected by long-term land management and slope. A chronosequence of 38 on-farm sites with low to high (5–18%) slopes was selected to evaluate 5–40 yr of management. The sites were classified as business as usual (BAU) cropland (BAU-Crop), BAU pasture (BAU-Past), newly established conservation reserve program (CRP) areas (CRP-New), and established CRP (CRP-Old). Soil samples were collected from the 0-to-5- and 5-to-15-cm depth increments and processed for soil property measurements including fractionation by wet sieving into five aggregate size classes (>2,000, 1,000–2,000, 500–1,000, 250–500, and 53–250 μm). Within the surface 5 cm, mean weight diameter (MWD) and geometric mean diameter (GMD) were used to characterize soil structural stability. The BAU-Past and CRP-Old sites had 79% more macroaggregates (>2,000, 1,000–2,000, and 500–1,000 μm), 123% higher MWD, 38% higher GMD, and 47% higher SOC than BAU-Crop or CRP-New sites. The 5-to-15-cm depth increment showed a similar but lower magnitude response. Aggregate-associated C was quantified using a constant soil mass that reflected aggregate size distribution to prevent overestimating C content. Lower-slope locations had more SOC, more macroaggregates, more C associated with macroaggregates, and higher GMD and MWD compared with high-slope locations across all management classifications and soil depths. The results support our hypothesis that the high-slop soils may benefits from specific management decisions than the lower-sloping soils as a function of landscape property. We recommend reestablishing grassland on sloping land that is susceptible to excessive soil erosion, although those practices will likely take a long time to restore soil structural stability and SOC content to precultivation levels.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2016

The Rate of Dielectric Breakdown Weathering of Lunar Regolith in Permanently Shadowed Regions

Large solar energetic particle events may cause dielectric breakdown in the upper 1 mm of regolith in permanently shadowed regions (PSRs). We estimate how the resulting breakdown weathering compares to meteoroid impact weathering. Although the SEP event rates measured by the Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER) on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) are too low for breakdown to have significantly affected the regolith over the duration of the LRO mission, regolith gardened by meteoroid impacts has been exposed to SEPs for approx.10(exp 6 yr. Therefore, we estimate that breakdown weathering's production rate of vapor and melt in the coldest PSRs is up to 1.8−3. 5 ×10(exp −7) kg/sq m/yr, which is comparable to that produced by meteoroid impacts. Thus, in PSRs, up to 10-25% of the regolith may have been melted or vaporized by dielectric breakdown. Breakdown weathering could also be consistent with observations of the increased porosity ("fairy castles") of PSR regolith. We also show that it is con- ceivable that breakdown-weathered material is present in Apollo soil samples. Consequently, breakdown weathering could be an important process within PSRs, and it warrants further investigation.

Meteoroid↗
DOE OSTI2025

Microbial Ecology of Permafrost Soils: Populations, Processes, and Perspectives

Permafrost microbial research has flourished in the past decades, due in part to improvements in sampling and molecular techniques, but also the increased focus on the permafrost greenhouse gas feedback to climate change and other ecological processes in high latitude and alpine permafrost soils. Permafrost microorganisms are adapted to these extreme environments and remain active at low temperatures and when resources are limited. They are also an important component of global elemental cycles as they regulate organic matter turnover and greenhouse gas production, particularly as permafrost thaws. Here we review the permafrost microbiology literature coupled with an exploration of its historical aspects, with a particular focus on a new understanding advanced by molecular biology techniques. We further identify knowledge gaps and ways forward to improve our understanding of microbial contributions to ecosystem biogeochemistry of permafrost-affected systems.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Soil Sample Workplan in Support of the Site 300 Explosives Waste Treatment Facility Ecological Risk Assessment Pursuant to the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (Part V, Special Condition #14 a-f)

The Department of Toxic Substances Control issued the Final Hazardous Waste Facility Permit to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Site 300 in 2017. As part of the continual process to ensure waste treatment emissions are not impacting ecological receptors, LLNL analyzed soil samples in the vicinity of the Explosive Waste Treatment Facility (EWTF) Burn Units (i.e., Burn Cage and Burn Pan) and the Detonation Pad. Soil samples were analyzed by EPA Solid Waste 846 Methods for furans, explosives, metals, and semi-volatile compounds. In all samples, furans, explosives, and semi-volatile organic compounds were not detected. Metals were detected at concentrations below background levels. This soil sample plan will sample the same four downwind areas of the Burn Units and the same downwind areas of the Detonation, as well as including four new sample locations. The four new locations will be located to the northeast and southwest of the Burn Units and Detonation (as shown in Figure 3). The constituents to be analyzed are in Tables 7 and 8. Perchlorate was not identified as a constituent of concern in the 2007 Soil Sampling Plan. However, for this plan, all soil samples will be analyzed for perchlorate. Nitrate and all CAM17 metals have been added to the sampling plan to comply with DTSC comments received in correspondence dated June 4, 2021. After completion of the sampling event, a soil sample report will be submitted to DTSC in accordance with requirements specified in the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Conditions 16 a-f. This proposed soil sampling plan will be fully implemented no later than one year after receiving DTSC approval, in accordance with the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Condition 15.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗
DOE OSTI2020

Soil Sample Plan in Support of the Site 300 Explosives Waste Treatment Facility Ecological Risk Assessment Pursuant to the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Condition #14 a-f. August 2020

The Department of Toxic Substances Control issued the Final Hazardous Waste Facility Permit to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Site 300 in 2017. As part of the continual process to ensure waste treatment emissions are not impacting ecological receptors, LLNL analyzed soil samples in the vicinity of the Explosive Waste Treatment Facility (EWTF) Burn Units (i.e., Burn Cage and Burn Pan) and the Detonation Pad. Soil samples were analyzed by EPA Solid Waste 846 Methods for furans, explosives, metals, and semivolatile compounds. In all samples, furans, explosives, and semi-volatile organic compounds were not detected. Metals were detected at concentrations below background levels. This soil sample plan will sample the same four downwind areas of the Burn Units and the same downwind areas of the Detonation, as well as including four new sample locations. The four new locations will be located to the northeast and southwest of the Burn Units and Detonation (as shown in Figure 3). The constituents to be analyzed are in Tables 2 and 3. Perchlorate was not identified as a constituent of concern in the 2007 Soil Sampling Plan. However, for this plan, all soil samples will be analyzed for perchlorate. After completion of the sampling event, a soil sample report will be submitted to DTSC in accordance with requirements specified in the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Conditions 16 a-f. This proposed soil sampling plan will be fully implemented no later than one year after receiving DTSC approval, in accordance with the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Condition 15.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2014

Space Weathering of Olivine in Lunar Soils: A Comparison to Itokawa Regolith Samples

Regolith particles from airless bodies preserve a record of the space weathering processes that occurred during their surface exposure history. These processes have major implications for interpreting remote-sensing data from airless bodies. Solar wind irradiation effects occur in the rims of exposed grains, and impact processes result in the accumulation of vapordeposited elements and other surface-adhering materials. The grains returned from the surface of Itokawa by the Hayabusa mission allow the space weathering "style" of a chondritic, asteroidal "soil" to be compared to the lunar case. Here, we present new studies of space-weathered olivine grains from lunar soils, and compare these results to olivine grains from Itokawa. Samples and Methods: We analyzed microtome thin sections of olivine grains from the 20-45 micron fractions of three lunar soils: 71061, 71501 and 10084 (immature, submature and mature, respectively). Imaging and analytical data were obtained using a JEOL 2500SE 200kV field-emission scanning-transmission electron microscope equipped with a thin-window energy-dispersive x-ray spectrometer. Similar analyses were obtained from three Hayabusa olivine grains. Results and Discussion: We observed lunar grains showing a range of solar flare track densities (from <10(exp 9) to approx.10(exp 12)/sq cm). The lunar olivines all show disordered, highly strained, nanocrystalline rims up to 150-nm thick. The disordered rim thickness is positively correlated with solar flare track density. All of the disordered rims are overlain by a Si-rich amorphous layer, ranging up to 50-nm thick, enriched in elements that are not derived from the host olivine (e.g., Ca, Al, and Ti). The outmost layer represents impact-generated vapor deposits typically observed on other lunar soil grains. The Hayabusa olivine grains show track densities <10(exp 10)/sq cm and display disordered rims 50- to 100-nm thick. The track densities are intermediate to those observed in olivines in immature and submature lunar soils and indicate surface exposures of approx. 10(exp 5) years. The outermost few nanometers of the disordered rims on Hayabusa olivines are more Si-rich and Mg- and Fe-depleted relative to the cores of the grains and likely represent a minor accumulation of impact-generated vapors or sputter deposits. Nanophase Fe metal particles are less abundant in the Hayabusa rims compared to the rims on lunar grains. Conclusions: The Hayabusa and lunar olivine grain rims have widths and microstructures consistent with formation from atomic displacement damage from solar wind ions. The space weathering features in the Hayabusa grains are similar to those observed in olivines from immature to submature lunar soils. A major difference, however, is that the Hayabusa grains appear to lack the hypervelocity impact products (melt spherules, thick vapor deposits, and abundant nanophase Fe metal particles) that are common in lunar soil grains with a similar exposure history.

Keller, L. P.↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Soil gas probes for monitoring trace gas messengers of microbial activity

Abstract Soil microbes vigorously produce and consume gases that reflect active soil biogeochemical processes. Soil gas measurements are therefore a powerful tool to monitor microbial activity. Yet, the majority of soil gases lack non-disruptive subsurface measurement methods at spatiotemporal scales relevant to microbial processes and soil structure. To address this need, we developed a soil gas sampling system that uses novel diffusive soil probes and sample transfer approaches for high-resolution sampling from discrete subsurface regions. Probe sampling requires transferring soil gas samples to above-ground gas analyzers where concentrations and isotopologues are measured. Obtaining representative soil gas samples has historically required balancing disruption to soil gas composition with measurement frequency and analyzer volume demand. These considerations have limited attempts to quantify trace gas spatial concentration gradients and heterogeneity at scales relevant to the soil microbiome. Here, we describe our new flexible diffusive probe sampling system integrated with a modified, reduced volume trace gas analyzer and demonstrate its application for subsurface monitoring of biogeochemical cycling of nitrous oxide (N 2 O) and its site-specific isotopologues, methane, carbon dioxide, and nitric oxide in controlled soil columns. The sampling system observed reproducible responses of soil gas concentrations to manipulations of soil nutrients and redox state, providing a new window into the microbial response to these key environmental forcings. Using site-specific N 2 O isotopologues as indicators of microbial processes, we constrain the dynamics of in situ microbial activity. Unlocking trace gas messengers of microbial activity will complement -omics approaches, challenge subsurface models, and improve understanding of soil heterogeneity to disentangle interactive processes in the subsurface biome.

04 OIL SHALES AND TAR SANDS↗
DOE OSTI2018

Temporal dynamics of CO 2 and CH 4 loss potentials in response to rapid hydrological shifts in tidal freshwater wetland soils

Earth System Models predict climate extremes that will impact regional and global hydrology. Aquatic-terrestrial transition zones like wetlands are subjected to the immediate consequence of climate change with shifts in the magnitude and dynamics of hydrologic flow. Such fluctuating hydrology can alter the nature and rate of biogeochemical transformations and significantly impact the carbon balance of the ecosystem. We tested the impacts of fluctuating hydrology and, specifically, the role of antecedent moisture conditions in determining the dominant carbon loss mechanisms in soils sampled from a tidal freshwater wetland system in the lower Columbia River, WA, USA. Our objective was to understand shifts in biogeochemical processes in response to changing soil moisture, based on soil respiration and methane production rates, and to elucidate such responses based on the observed electron acceptor and metabolite profiles under laboratory conditions. Metabolomics and biogeochemical process rates provided evidence that soil redox was the principal factor driving metabolic function. Fluctuating redox conditions altered terminal electron acceptor and donor availability and recovery strengths of their concentrations in soil such that a disproportionate release of carbon dioxide stemmed from alternative anaerobic degradation processes like sulfate and iron reduction compared to carbon loss due to methano genesis. Our results show that extended and short-term saturation created conditions conducive to increasing metabolite availability for anaerobic decomposition processes, with a significant lag in methanogenesis. In contrast,extended drying caused a cellular-level stress response and rapid recycling of alternate electron acceptors.

anaerobic respiration, tidal wetlands, methane pro↗
DOE OSTI2021

A hybrid data–model approach to map soil thickness in mountain hillslopes

Abstract. Soil thickness plays a central role in the interactions between vegetation, soils, and topography, where it controls the retention and release of water, carbon, nitrogen, and metals. However, mapping soil thickness, here defined as the mobile regolith layer, at high spatial resolution remains challenging. Here, we develop a hybrid model that combines a process-based model and empirical relationships to estimate the spatial heterogeneity of soil thickness with fine spatial resolution (0.5 m). We apply this model to two aspects of hillslopes (southwest- and northeast-facing, respectively) in the East River watershed in Colorado. Two independent measurement methods – auger and cone penetrometer – are used to sample soil thickness at 78 locations to calibrate the local value of unconstrained parameters within the hybrid model. Sensitivity analysis using the hybrid model reveals that the diffusion coefficient used in hillslope diffusion modeling has the largest sensitivity among all input parameters. In addition, our results from both sampling and modeling show that, in general, the northeast-facing hillslope has a deeper soil layer than the southwest-facing hillslope. By comparing the soil thickness estimated between a machine-learning approach and this hybrid model, the hybrid model provides higher accuracy and requires less sampling data. Modeling results further reveal that the southwest-facing hillslope has a slightly faster surface soil erosion rate and soil production rate than the northeast-facing hillslope, which suggests that the relatively less dense vegetation cover and drier surface soils on the southwest-facing slopes influence soil properties. With seven parameters in total for calibration, this hybrid model can provide a realistic soil thickness map with a relatively small amount of sampling dataset comparing to machine-learning approach. Integrating process-based modeling and statistical analysis not only provides a thorough understanding of the fundamental mechanisms for soil thickness prediction but also integrates the strengths of both statistical approaches and process-based modeling approaches.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
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 OSTI2025

Metagenome-assembled genomes measured at 3 depths during snowmelt period in East River, CO (March, May, and June, September 2017)

Snowmelt is a critical biogeochemical period that accounts for large nitrogen (N) export events from high-elevation watersheds. Soil microbial populations bloom and immobilize N during snowmelt, yet the population size crashes in spring, which releases a pulse of soil N. We sought to discover the N sources fueling this microbial bloom and determine the fate of N following microbial die-off. Here, focusing on the snowmelt period within a headwater catchment of the Upper Colorado River Basin (East River, CO), we deployed strain-resolved metagenomics to identify the metabolic pathways and processes that mobilize soil N during and after snowmelt. Soil metagenome samples were taken from 6 snowpits from 3 depths (0-5cm, 5-15cm, >15cm) at 4 time points during snowmelt period (March 2017, May 2017, and June 2017, September 2017) generating 48 metagenomes. We reconstructed 474 metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) across all metagenomes.All 48 metagenomes were sequenced at JGI and raw data can be found under JGI (Joint Genome Institute) GOLD Study Gs0135149. Metagenome assemblies from IMG under the same study were used for genome binning. This dataset (1) a zip file of 474 MAGs (as fasta files, Gs0135149_bins_tar.gz), (2) sample metadata file with sample IGSNs (International Generic Sample Numbers) (samples.csv), (3) bounding box coordinates for the sampled locations (Gs0135149.kml), (4) metagenome metadata file listing IMG/M (Integrated Microbial Genomes/Metagenomes) metagenome accessions linking samples to metagenomes (metagenomes.csv), (5) location metadata file (locations.csv), (6) file-level metadata file (flmd.csv) and (7) data dictionary (dd.csv) 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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2011

Microwave Permittivity and Permeability Measurement on Lunar Soils

There has been interest in finding ways to process the lunar regolith since the early analyses of lunar samples returned from the Apollo moon missions. This fact has led to proposals for using microwaves to perform in-situ processing of the lunar soil to support future colonization of the moon. More recently, there has been speculation that the excellent microwave absorption of lunar soil came from the nanophase iron content in the regolith. The motivation for the present study was to begin obtaining a more fundamental understanding of the dielectric and magnetic properties of the regolith at microwave frequencies. A major objective of this study was to obtain information that would help answer the question about whether nanophase iron plays a major role in heating lunar soils. These new measurements over a wide frequency range can also determine the magnitude of the dielectric and magnetic absorption and if there are any resonant features that could be used to enhance processing of the regolith in the future. In addition, these microwave measurements would be useful in confirming that new simulants being developed, particularly those containing nanophase iron, would have the correct composition to simulate the lunar regolith. The results of this study suggest that nanophase iron does not play a major role in heating lunar regolith.

Barmatz, Martin↗
NASA NTRS2020

Adventures in Lunar Core Processing: Timeline of and Preparation for Opening of Core Sample 73002 for the ANGSA Program

The Apollo mission returned 382 kg of rocks, soil and core samples, which have helped to advance our knowledge of lunar science. Studies of these lunar samples are crucial for our understanding of the Moon’s geological evolution. Here, we present the meticulous process that involves preparing for, and ultimately opening, the unopened Apollo 17 drive tube: 73002,0, so that the next generation of lunar scientists can further our insight into the Moon’s history.

Krysher, C. H.↗