SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Type B packages”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 55 records · Page 3

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

Microreactor Incident-Free Transportation Radiation Dose Assessment

This report, prepared by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, provides an estimate of the radiation dose related to the transportation of microreactors following the regulatory limits established in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 71.47(b). The transportation of irradiated microreactors poses unique challenges. Microreactors may be challenged to meet the current 10 mrem/hr limit at 2 meters from the vehicle in 10 CFR 71.47(b). The need to modify packaging to be within practical weight and size limits for shipping may limit the amount of shielding that can be applied for a microreactor transportation package design. Operational strategies that would necessitate moving a reactor within a short time after its operating life may result in higher radiation dose rates associated with lower cooling times. This study estimates the radiation dose to maximally exposed individuals (MEIs) under the current regulatory radiation level limit of 10 mrem/hr at 2 meters from the vehicle as well as alternative limits of 10, 50, 100, and 200 mrem/hr at 2 meters from the vehicle. This analysis expands on prior incident free transportation radiation dose assessments conducted for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and radioactive waste transportation. The key factors analyzed include the microreactor fuel type and burnup, shipment cooling periods, shielding designs integrated into transport packaging, and exposure scenarios for MEIs for highway and rail transport. This report considers additional distances that may be associated with compensatory measures to ensure safe transport conditions under varying radiation dose limits, including enhanced routing measures, escort protocols, vehicle inspections, and operational restrictions.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2026

CHESS 2025: Leaf Area Index (LAI) for meadow, shrub, tree, and understory vegetation

This dataset contains Leaf Area Index (LAI) measurements made as part of the Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) during June and July of 2025. Data were collected in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, across three study domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). Field observations of LAI were collected within 72 hours of airborne data collection by the National Ecological Observatory Network’s Aerial Observation Platform (NEON AOP). The NEON AOP collected waveform LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and imaging spectrometer data in 426 spectral bands from the visible to shortwave infrared. LAI measurements were collected using the LICOR LAI-2200C Plant Canopy Analyzer following protocols outlined in the instrument manual (LI-COR 2019). Sampling targeted four distinct vegetation types: meadows, shrubs, trees, and aspen forest understory. We have archived data separately by site type because different field methods were used for each. At meadow sites, measurements were made at the four corners of 1m x 1m plots, with the instrument moving inward toward the center of the plot. At shrub sites, we measured the canopies of individual shrubs. At tree sites, we made measurements within a 10m x 10m subplot centered around a focal tree, with 30 observations taken on a regular grid. At aspen understory sites, we measured overstory trees following the tree protocol and understory herbaceous vegetation following the meadow protocol. All measurements included above-canopy (A) and below-canopy (B) readings, with specific protocols for scattering correction measurements in direct-sun conditions. Data were processed using the R package `rlai` (Worsham 2025). This package includes functions to calculate LAI, gap fraction, apparent clumping factor (Ω), scattering correction, and other canopy metrics. Package contents: Full file descriptions appear in ‘flmd.csv’. Files named according to the convention ‘lai_*_summary_data_cleaned.csv’ contain summary values of LAI, apparent clumping factor (Ωapp), and scattering correction factors for each site. These are the analysis-ready products that most data users will work with. Files named ‘lai_*_metadata_cleaned.csv’ contain additional site-level observations made during field collection. We have also archived intermediate and supplementary data for users who wish to check our processing approach or apply alternative methods. ‘raw_lai_2200C.zip’ contains the raw files as read from the LI-COR instrument, with no processing applied, in TXT format. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type, which are further subdivided by sampling area. Filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘intermediate_results.zip’ contains detailed output from the processing routines, in JSON format. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type; filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘scattering_correction_logs.zip’ contains logfiles from the implementation of Kobayashi et al.'s (2013) scattering correction algorithm. The logfiles report values of several parameters at each iteration of the algorithm, as the model converges toward a stable solution. They are intended for users who want to verify scattering correction performance. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type; filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘spot_checks.csv’ reports LAI and other values for a small number of files processed with LI-COR FV2200 software (LI-COR 2013) using the same control parameters as in our R-based approach. Additional metadata are provided in a data dictionary describing column names and definitions (dd.csv), and in a file-level metadata file (flmd.csv). All zip files can be expanded with common archive utilities. TXT, CSV, and JSON files can be ingested into R or Python computing environments or read in common text editor utilities. 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 Acknowledgement: Field and remote-sensing data acquisition was performed under a grant from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NSSC24K1005). This work was also 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. * Todorov and Worsham are co–first authors.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗

DOE OSTI2026

USABILITY EXTENSION OF THE ŠKODA VPVR/M CASK FOR TRANSPORTING IRRADIATED FUEL ASSEMBLIES

New abstract from the final version being submitted now: This paper discusses the evolution and enhanced usability of the ŠKODA VPVR/M cask for the transport of irradiated fuel assemblies, particularly within the context of the demand for the delivery of newly appearing irradiated HEU fuel types for which the cask did not yet have a license to transport. Over time, the cask’s internal basket construction has demonstrated notable adaptability to accommodate various exotic HEU fuel types from research reactors of differing origins. The paper outlines sever-al custom internal baskets developed for specific fuel types, including those from Belarus and Serbia, as well as from Georgia, Uzbekistan, and MNSR cores, as well as a recently designed basket for MTR and TRIGA assemblies. The findings high-light the high flexibility and adaptability of the cask, supported by successful rede-signs and licensing efforts, underscoring its value for the safe and secure transport of nuclear material. Old abstract from the draft version that was already approved: The Russian Research Reactor Fuel Return (RRRFR) program, since its inception, has continuously used the ŠKODA VPVR/M Cask fleet designed for the repatriation of irradiated highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel. As the program progressed (from shut-down and a quasi-abandoned reactor, and/or as it began to include fuels of Chinese and US origin), new challenges emerged for the transport Cask. These were fuel types that had not yet been licensed for the Cask. Although these requirements did not arise during the design of the basic ŠKODA VPVR/M Cask, as revealed by the retrospective analyses, the Internal Basket of the ŠKODA VPVR/M Cask gives a high degree of flexibility to accommodate additional fuel types. This paper provides a brief overview of the ŠKODA VPVR/M Cask, which holds a B(U) type license, and introduces the different types of Internal Baskets that have already been licensed to transport so-called exotic irradiated HEU fuel types, in addition to the original license. The paper presents a new Internal Basket design for accommodating MTR-type and TRIGA-type irradiated HEU fuel assemblies. This includes a detailed presentation of the design basis and the new MTR-TRIGA Internal Basket, as well as the licensing matters of the package under the name ŠKODA MTR-TRIGA Cask, and the conformity test (dry- and wet-run) operations made to verify compliance with the new Internal Basket. Then, as a summary, the usage record for the Cask fleet is presented, and finally, the paper concludes with the consolidated experiences gained during the utilization of the ŠKODA VPVR/M Cask fleet, emphasizing the high degree of Cask flexibility ensured by the Internal Basket’s construction.

42 - ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2023

Testing Instrument Extremes in the TREAT Facility

TREAT is a transient power-shaping reactor whose primary mission is to enhance safety performance by testing nuclear fuels and materials under thermodynamic and neutronic conditions ranging from off-normal to extreme. Transient testing of nuclear fuels is analogous to car crash testing, in that the dramatic changes commonly seen when comparing the test specimens' initial and final state points necessitate in-situ measuring in order to interpret and understand the evolution of the experiment. TREAT’s experiment design strategy utilizes a highly reconfigurable and accessible reactor core that affords flexibility when installing experiment devices, thanks to the lack of a primary coolant boundary and the inclusion of multiple access points in the reactor bioshield. Within the experiment devices, the test specimens (which are integrated with their test environments), desired instrumentation diagnostics, and safety considerations are all contained in a single engineered package. The experiments encompass various types of environments (e.g., water, sodium, and gas at temperature and pressure), as well as a range of control options (e.g., static or flowing coolants). The experimental conditions are uniquely representative of advanced reactors, providing challenges to sensor performance but also affording a unique opportunity for development and qualification of sensors suited to these environments.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

DOE OSTI2026

Counterintuitive Compatibilization of Poly(-Valerolactone) and Poly(L-Lactic Acid) by Statistical Copolymers toward Compostable and Recyclable Packaging

Poly(δ-valerolactone) (PVL) and poly(l-lactic acid) (PLLA) are bioderivable, compostable, and chemically recyclable plastics with synergistic properties for addressing plastic waste accumulation in receiving environments. Though recyclable-by-design polymers often fall short of competing with incumbent materials, blending affords a means to leverage individual component strengths toward ideal tunable properties. Polymer blends are often immiscible, but a range of methodologies are available to promote mixing. Here, we report on the compatibilization of 9 immiscible PVL and PLLA blends with three different compatibilization agents: thermoplastic starch, synthesized PVL-co-PLLA statistical copolymers (SCPs), and synthesized PVL-b-PLLA block-type copolymers. Resulting degrees of compatibilization are observed through scanning electron microscopy, corroborated by thermal and mechanical analyses monitoring performance as a function of microdomain size. Small-angle and wide-angle X-ray scattering experiments are conducted to observe the influence of compatibilizers on individual crystalline phases to further elucidate material behavior. Molecular dynamics simulations provide key insights into the interfacial interactions between homopolymers and compatibilizers. Finally, a suite of end-of-life avenues is established by biodegradation in industrial composting conditions, chemical recycling by deconstruction to hydroxymethyl esters, and direct chemical depolymerization to lactone precursors in mixed feed. Overall, we highlight several promising blends and the counterintuitive SCP compatibilization phenomenon toward high-performance, sustainable materials.

Compatibilization, copolymer compatibilizer, bio-b↗

DOE OSTI2025

Data and code for Daily and Multi-Day Extreme Rainfall Analysis Under Future Climates Using Stochastic Storm Transposition and NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 Over CONUS

This data package provides inputs, codes, and outputs for a comprehensive analysis of projected changes in extreme precipitation across 10 regions of the continental United States, using 34 downscaled Earth System Models (ESMs) from the NASA Earth Exchange Global Daily Downscaled Projections, Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (NEX-GDDP-CMIP6) dataset. These models are part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6), a coordinated climate modeling framework widely used to assess climate change impacts. The analysis applies a stochastic storm transposition method to quantify changes in extreme rainfall under two Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) climate scenarios—SSP2-4.5 (moderate emissions) and SSP5-8.5 (high emissions)—compared to historical conditions (1995–2014 vs. 2081–2100). The dataset includes rainfall depth estimates for extreme events with return periods from 2 to 500 years across multiple storm durations (1, 3, and 5 days) for each of the 10 U.S. regions. Weighted ensemble statistics are derived from individual ESM performance against historical precipitation patterns, enabling robust uncertainty quantification through both sign-based and permutation-test-based model agreement assessments. Key analyses address: (1) relative changes in extreme precipitation for each climate scenario, (2) differences between SSP scenarios (SSP5-8.5 vs. SSP2-4.5), (3) contrasts between rare and frequent events, and (4) variations between multi-day and daily storm durations. The workflow produces ensemble statistics—median, 5th, 25th, 75th, and 95th percentiles—along with model agreement metrics that identify regions and event types with robust climate change signals. The dataset includes: processed rainfall depth outputs (netCDF format) from the RainyDay Python package, ESM weights from historical performance evaluation using DayMet observations, ensemble statistics across all storm dimensions, and figures summarizing key findings.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Spacer2PAM: A computational framework to guide experimental determination of functional CRISPR-Cas system PAM sequences

Abstract RNA-guided nucleases from CRISPR-Cas systems expand opportunities for precise, targeted genome modification. Endogenous CRISPR-Cas systems in many prokaryotes are attractive to circumvent expression, functionality, and unintended activity hurdles posed by heterologous CRISPR-Cas effectors. However, each CRISPR-Cas system recognizes a unique set of protospacer adjacent motifs (PAMs), which requires identification by extensive screening of randomized DNA libraries. This challenge hinders development of endogenous CRISPR-Cas systems, especially those based on multi-protein effectors and in organisms that are slow-growing or have transformation idiosyncrasies. To address this challenge, we present Spacer2PAM, an easy-to-use, easy-to-interpret R package built to predict and guide experimental determination of functional PAM sequences for any CRISPR-Cas system given its corresponding CRISPR array as input. Spacer2PAM can be used in a ‘Quick’ method to generate a single PAM prediction or in a ‘Comprehensive’ method to inform targeted PAM libraries small enough to screen in difficult to transform organisms. We demonstrate Spacer2PAM by predicting PAM sequences for industrially relevant organisms and experimentally identifying seven PAM sequences that mediate interference from the Spacer2PAM-informed PAM library for the type I-B CRISPR-Cas system from Clostridium autoethanogenum. We anticipate that Spacer2PAM will facilitate the use of endogenous CRISPR-Cas systems for industrial biotechnology and synthetic biology.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

A Deep, High-angular-resolution 3D Dust Map of the Southern Galactic Plane

We present a deep, high-angular-resolution 3D dust map of the southern Galactic plane over 239° < l < 6° and ∣ b∣ < 10° built on photometry from the DECaPS2 survey, in combination with photometry from VISTA Variables in the Via Lactea, the Two Micron All Sky Survey, and “Unofficial” Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer and parallaxes from Gaia Data Release 3 where available. To construct the map, we first infer the distance, extinction, and stellar types of over 700 million stars using the brutus stellar inference framework with a set of theoretical MESA Isochrone and Stellar Tracks (MIST) stellar models. Our resultant 3D dust map has an angular resolution of 1′ , roughly an order of magnitude finer than existing 3D dust maps and comparable to the angular resolution of the Herschel 2D dust emission maps. We detect complexes at the range of distances associated with the Sagittarius-Carina and Scutum-Centaurus arms in the fourth quadrant, as well as more distant structures out to a maximum reliable distance of d ≈ 10 kpc from the Sun. The map is sensitive up to a maximum extinction of roughly A V ≈ 12 mag. We publicly release both the stellar catalog and the 3D dust map, the latter of which can easily be queried via the Python package dustmaps. When combined with the existing Bayestar19 3D dust map of the northern sky, the DECaPS 3D dust map fills in the missing piece of the Galactic plane, enabling extinction corrections over the entire disk ∣b∣ < 10°. Our map serves as a pathfinder for the future of 3D dust mapping in the era of LSST and Roman, targeting regimes accessible with deep optical and near-infrared photometry but often inaccessible with Gaia.

Milky Way galaxy↗

DOE OSTI2021

Update 1.1 to “pysimm: A python package for simulation of molecular systems”, (PII: S2352711016300395)

This update of the pysimm application programming interface, pysimm 1.1, provides both infrastructural as well as functional updates. Moreover, improvements to the random walk application that allow it to construct polymers with controlled tacticity are highlighted. Additions to the forcefield module include an update to enable working with the family of CHARMM forcefields and automated typing with the CHARMM generalized forcefield (CGenFF). Finally, new detailed examples demonstrating new features are also provided.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

DOE OSTI2022

Organic matter concentration and composition of experimentally burned open air and muffle furnace vegetation chars across differing burn severity and feedstock types from Pacific Northwest, USA (v4).

This dataset represents results from an experimental study designed to compare how the chemical composition of organic matter changes across different burn conditions and feedstock materials. The dataset provides both solid and dissolved phase bulk concentration and organic matter characterization data from experimentally generated chars. Chars were created in a closed muffle furnace or on an open burn table from four different feedstock species representing vegetation commonly impacted by fire regimes across the Pacific Northwest, USA. This data can be used to compare how different burn conditions may influence resultant organic matter chemistry and help further our understanding of potential biogeochemical impacts on river corridors post-fire. This dataset is comprised of one data package readme, one data dictionary (dd), one file level metadata (flmd), fourteen burn table videos, burn table video metadata and three folders containing (A) data; (B) metadata and protocols; and (C) photos. The folder names and the file name of the data package readme include a version number which will be updated with future iterations of this data package. The data folder includes (1) solid carbon and solid nitrogen; (2) dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC) and total dissolved nitrogen (TN); (3) pH; (4) thermocouple time series temperature; (5) methods codes; (6) installation methods; (7) excitation emissions matrix (EEM) methods information; (8) a folder of excitation emissions matrix (EEM) fluorescence and absorbance spectra in dissolved organic matter and EEMs processing instructions; (9) solid state carbon-13 and solution state phosphorus nuclear magnetic resonance (13-C NMR and 31-P NMR) data and methods; (10) benzene polycarboxylic acid (BPCA) concentration and stable isotope data; (11) FTICR-MS methods; (12) Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) data for total calcium, magnesium, iron, aluminum, potassium, phosphorus, sodium, and sulfur along with sodium hydroxide-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (sodium hydroxide-EDTA) extractable calcium, magnesium, iron, aluminum, potassium, phosphorus, and sulfur; (13) a folder of phosphorus, carbon, and nitrogen X-ray absorption near edge structure (P-XANES, N-XANES, C-XANES) data for samples and standards; (14) P-XANES, N-XANES, C-XANES methods; (15) molybdate reactive phosphorus; and (16) folder of high resolution characterization of organic matter via 21 Tesla Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) generated through the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL; https://www.pnnl.gov/environmental-molecular-sciences-laboratory). The FTICR folder contains .txt data files and a subfolder containing instruments for using Formularity (https://omics.pnl.gov/software/formularity) and an R script to process the data based on the user's specific needs. The metadata and protocols folder includes (1) international geo-sample number (IGSN) mapping file (2) burn and laboratory metadata; (3) burn protocol; (4) laboratory protocol; (5) vegetation collection metadata; and (6) vegetation collection protocol. The folder contains photos of the solid chars. All files are .csv, .txt, .pdf, .jpg, .jpeg, .R, .ref, or .mp4. The data package was originally published October 2022 (v1). It was updated April 2023 (v2; new data files), September 2023 (v3; new and corrected data files), and September 2024 (v4; new and added/updated files). Metadata files were also updated to reflect these changes. See the change history section in the readme for more details.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Data and scripts associated with the manuscript evaluating the hydrologic responses of the Pacific Northwest watersheds to wildfires (v2)

This data package is associated with the publication “Evaluating Post-fire Watershed Response to Varying Burn Severity and Precipitation Regimes Using Fully-distributed and Integrated Hydrologic Models” submitted to Journal of Hydrology (Li et al. 2025). In this study, we employed the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS), an integrated watershed model that couples surface flow, subsurface flow, and canopy biophysical processes, to investigate post-fire hydrologic responses in a few selected watersheds with varying burn severity.The data package contains the required input data (meteorological forcing, Leaf Area Index, wildfire burn severities, etc.) to run the model, configuration files, the Jupyter notebooks in Python to pre-process and post-process data, the figures in the manuscript, and the modeling output files. The variables include watershed-averaged evapotranspiration, watershed-averaged surface/subsurface/canopy water content, and river discharge at watershed outlet.The data package contains a file-level metadata that lists and describes all the files contained in the data package (ATS_flmd.csv), a data dictionary file that defines columns headers across all csv files contained in the data package (ATS_dd.csv), a data package level readme file (the current file), and four zipped folders.The ‘data’ folder provides data needed to run the model in .h5, .i2s, .xyz, .shp, and .exo formats. The sub-folders are for each data types. The ‘model’ folder provides input files (.xml format) and essential model outputs. Each sub-folder provides the files from each simulated watershed. The ‘notebooks’ folder provides the Jupyter notebooks (.ipynb format) for pre- and post- processing model files, and for producing the figures in the manuscript. The ‘figures’ folder provides the figures associated with manuscript in .pdf and .png formats.The ‘model’ folder and the ‘data’ folder have been split into 5GB-large pieces using the Linux command ‘split -b 5120m model.zip model.zip.’ and ‘split -b 5120m data.zip data.zip.’, respectively. They can be merged back using the Linux command ‘cat model.zip.* > model.zip’ and ‘cat data.zip.* > data.zip’, respectively.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Fiber-optic sensor packaging assessment and benchmarking for embedded sensing applications

Fiber optic-based sensing for non-destructive evaluation (NDE) and structural health monitoring of various infrastructure and energy assets is an increasingly important sensing scheme. Because of their immunity to electromagnetic interferences, versatility in sensing mechanisms and designs as well as capability for distributed sensing, the fiber optic sensing is of great interest for embedding within infrastructures using advanced manufacturing methods. However, the protection of fiber optic sensors during advanced manufacturing-based embedding is an important aspect for infrastructure monitoring in practice. While successful installation of fiber optic sensors has been accomplished through application of epoxy or adhesives on infrastructure surfaces, there has been only limited investigation of fiber protection packaging schemes which are compatible with in-situ repair techniques such as the metallic cold-spray. With increasing interest and importance of cold spray-based repair processes, the integration of fiber optic sensors simultaneously during the repair is equally important. In this work, we focus our efforts on investigating various types of packaging schemes for their compatibility and integrability on the surfaces of metallic structures such as oil and gas pipelines during an in-situ repair coating. First, we consider sandblasting using silica sand particles of various size for optical fibers on the surface of a metallic coupon as a useful proxy test of sensor packaging stability. Structural damage of packaging is characterized by means of optical microscopy and the optical integrity of embedded fiber optic cables is examined using optical backscatter reflectometry (OBR). In addition, initial investigation of metallic cold-spray embedded fiber optic cables under various packaging on metallic substrates is also considered with early conclusions and future directions.

Fiber-optic sensors, Sensors packaging, Metallic C↗

DOE OSTI2025

Organic Matter Composition in June 2023 and September 2023 Across the McKenzie Sub-Basin Impacted by the 2020 Holiday Farm Fire

This dataset represents results from a field study aiming to understand the variability in post-fire responses of dissolved organic matter and determine drivers of post-fire responses. Samples were collected at 58 sites within the McKenzie River Watershed (Oregon, USA) that were upstream, within, and downstream of the Holiday Farm Fire burn perimeter. The samples were collected in June 2023 and September 2023 during storm events, approximately 3 years post-fire. Samples were characterized for benezenepolycarboxylic acids (BPCA) and ultra-high resolution mass spectrometry. Dissolved organic carbon and optics (absorbance and fluorescence) data can be found in a separate data packages (https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/datasets/zc77sz60m, https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/datasets/mc87q034m). Related data from a subset of sites from 2020-2022 can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1869708 and https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/2478546. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. This dataset contains (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) data package readme; (4) metadata; (5) methods information; (6) benzene polycarboxylic acid (BPCA) concentration data; (7) Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) methods; (8) folder of high resolution characterization of organic matter via 12 Tesla FTICR-MS data generated through the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL; https://www.pnnl.gov/environmental-molecular-sciences-laboratory). This package contains the following file types: csv, xml, pdf.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

SALT3-NIR: Taking the Open-source Type Ia Supernova Model to Longer Wavelengths for Next-generation Cosmological Measurements

Abstract A large fraction of Type Ia supernova (SN Ia) observations over the next decade will be in the near-infrared (NIR), at wavelengths beyond the reach of the current standard light-curve model for SN Ia cosmology, SALT3 (∼2800–8700 Å central filter wavelength). To harness this new SN Ia sample and reduce future light-curve standardization systematic uncertainties, we train SALT3 at NIR wavelengths (SALT3-NIR) up to 2 μ m with the open-source model-training software SALTshaker , which can easily accommodate future observations. Using simulated data, we show that the training process constrains the NIR model to ∼2%–3% across the phase range (−20 to 50 days). We find that Hubble residual (HR) scatter is smaller using the NIR alone or optical+NIR compared to optical alone, by up to ∼30% depending on filter choice (95% confidence). There is significant correlation between NIR light-curve stretch measurements and luminosity, with stretch and color corrections often improving HR scatter by up to ∼20%. For SN Ia observations expected from the Roman Space Telescope, SALT3-NIR increases the amount of usable data in the SALT framework by ∼20% at redshift z ≲ 0.4 and by ∼50% at z ≲ 0.15. The SALT3-NIR model is part of the open-source SNCosmo and SNANA SN Ia cosmology packages.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗

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 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 OSTI2020

Unsaturated and Saturated Hydraulic Parameters of Soils at the East River Watershed, Colorado Calculated using the Pedotransfer Function Method.

The purpose of the data package is to present the results of calculations of the following unsaturated-saturated hydraulic parameters of soils of the East River Watershed, Colorado: fully saturated water content (Qs), residual saturation (Qr), van genuchten parameters alpha and n, field capacity (FC), and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks). Calculations were conducted for the following soil texture types: sandy_loam, loam, silty_clay_loam, clay_loam, silt loam; the particle size distribution included the percentage of sand, silt, clay, and the bulk density (BD) of soils. Calculations were conducted for the following areas- Lower_Subalpine (6 samples),- Lower_Montane_lower_hillslope (7 samples),- Floodplain_at_base_of_lower_montane_hillslope, (11 samples),- PLM-0 (10 samples),- PLM-1 (10 samples), and - PLM-3 (13 samples)Calculations were conducted using the Pedotransfer Function Method developed by Tóth et al. (2014) with the application of the code ”euptf” in Rstudio. The data are being summarized in the Excel file ”Unsaturated_Saturated_Hydraulic_Parameters_PTF_calculated_EASt_EIver.xls" including two worksheets:“full_data_EAST_RIVER” which includes (a) the input data used for calculations, the soil texture triangle, and the plots of the water retention curves and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity for several types of soil texture, and (b) the summary table with the averaged parameters for each area. The the texture triangle was plotted using the Rstudio "soiltexture." Microsoft Excel software is required to open the Excel file. The metadata and a list of references to the Rstudio libraries used for calculations and data visualization are giving in the Word Readme file.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗