Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “measurement technology”

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 NTRS1972

Measurement component technology. Volume 1: Cryogenic pressure measurement technology, high pressure flange seals, hydrogen embrittlement of pressure transducer material, close coupled versus remote transducer installation and temperature compensation of pressure transducers

The results are presented of an investigation into the availability and performance capability of measurement components in the area of cryogenic temperature, pressure, flow and liquid detection components and high temperature strain gages. In addition, technical subjects allied to the components were researched and discussed. These selected areas of investigation were: (1) high pressure flange seals, (2) hydrogen embrittlement of pressure transducer diaphragms, (3) The effects of close-coupled versus remote transducer installation on pressure measurement, (4) temperature transducer configuration effects on measurements, and (5) techniques in temperature compensation of strain gage pressure transducers. The purpose of the program was to investigate the latest design and application techniques in measurement component technology and to document this information along with recommendations for upgrading measurement component designs for future S-2 derivative applications. Recommendations are provided for upgrading existing state-of-the-art in component design, where required, to satisfy performance requirements of S-2 derivative vehicles.

Hayakawa, K. K.↗
DOE OSTI2022

Measuring and Modeling Bifacial Technologies

Measuring and modeling bifacial technologies is of interest for new system design, capacity testing, and performance evaluation. The bifacial PV field at NREL has been gathering data for different bifacial technologies and sensors for the last 2.5 years, making it possible to compare bifacial performance with monofacial counterparts, as well as experimental demonstrations of best locations to place sensors to match modeled and perceived irradiance non-uniformity on the rear of the bifacial modules. This presentation summarizes performance, degradation, sensor position for module edge effects and the impact of row edge effects, and the roadmap for NREL bifacial modeling tools.

bifacial PV↗
NASA NTRS1997

NASA Intellectual Property Negotiation Practices and their Relationship to Quantitative Measures of Technology Transfer

In the current political climate NASA must be able to show reliable measures demonstrating successful technology transfer. The currently available quantitative data of intellectual property technology transfer efforts portray a less than successful performance. In this paper, the use of only quantitative values for measurement of technology transfer is shown to undervalue the effort. In addition, NASA's current policy in negotiating intellectual property rights results in undervalued royalty rates. NASA has maintained that it's position of providing public good precludes it from negotiating fair market value for its technology and instead has negotiated for reasonable cost in order to recover processing fees. This measurement issue is examined and recommendations made which include a new policy regarding the intellectual property rights negotiation, and two measures to supplement the intellectual property measures.

Bush, Lance B.↗
DOE OSTI2023

Josephson Traveling Wave Parametric Amplifiers to Enable Future Neutrino Mass Measurements

Technologies for “quantum sensing" have the promise of dramatically improved sensitivity in some experiments that explore nuclear physics at the boundaries of our current knowledge. In particular, the Josephson Traveling Wave Parametric Amplifier (JTWPA) could enable future experiments such as Project 8 that use Cyclotron Radiation Emission Spectroscopy (CRES) to measure the absolute neutrino mass scale in tritium beta decays. CRES consists of detecting a signal of approximately one femtowatt of power radiated by electrons trapped in a 1-T magnetic field. The frequency of that radiation, around 27 GHz for a tritium endpoint electron, is inversely proportional to the electron energy. One of the significant challenges of a CRES experiment is the detection of minimal signal power levels. State-of-the-art transistor-based technologies will not likely achieve sufficient signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in a competitive neutrino mass experiment. However, emerging quantum technologies have been demonstrated to operate at the fundamental lower limits of noise permitted by the laws of quantum mechanics. Of those technologies, JTWPAs appear to satisfy future performance needs with speed gain, bandwidth, and very low noise. We propose to bring together a group of neutrino physicists, experts in the needs of future neutrino mass measurements, with leaders in the field of quantum information science and JTWPA technology to develop JTWPAs appropriate for neutrino mass measurements.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
NASA NTRS2003

Integrating Oil Debris and Vibration Measurements for Intelligent Machine Health Monitoring

A diagnostic tool for detecting damage to gears was developed. Two different measurement technologies, oil debris analysis and vibration were integrated into a health monitoring system for detecting surface fatigue pitting damage on gears. This integrated system showed improved detection and decision-making capabilities as compared to using individual measurement technologies. This diagnostic tool was developed and evaluated experimentally by collecting vibration and oil debris data from fatigue tests performed in the NASA Glenn Spur Gear Fatigue Rig. An oil debris sensor and the two vibration algorithms were adapted as the diagnostic tools. An inductance type oil debris sensor was selected for the oil analysis measurement technology. Gear damage data for this type of sensor was limited to data collected in the NASA Glenn test rigs. For this reason, this analysis included development of a parameter for detecting gear pitting damage using this type of sensor. The vibration data was used to calculate two previously available gear vibration diagnostic algorithms. The two vibration algorithms were selected based on their maturity and published success in detecting damage to gears. Oil debris and vibration features were then developed using fuzzy logic analysis techniques, then input into a multi sensor data fusion process. Results show combining the vibration and oil debris measurement technologies improves the detection of pitting damage on spur gears. As a result of this research, this new diagnostic tool has significantly improved detection of gear damage in the NASA Glenn Spur Gear Fatigue Rigs. This research also resulted in several other findings that will improve the development of future health monitoring systems. Oil debris analysis was found to be more reliable than vibration analysis for detecting pitting fatigue failure of gears and is capable of indicating damage progression. Also, some vibration algorithms are as sensitive to operational effects as they are to damage. Another finding was that clear threshold limits must be established for diagnostic tools. Based on additional experimental data obtained from the NASA Glenn Spiral Bevel Gear Fatigue Rig, the methodology developed in this study can be successfully implemented on other geared systems.

Dempsey, Paula J.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Integrating Oil Debris and Vibration Gear Damage Detection Technologies Using Fuzzy Logic

A diagnostic tool for detecting damage to spur gears was developed. Two different measurement technologies, wear debris analysis and vibration, were integrated into a health monitoring system for detecting surface fatigue pitting damage on gears. This integrated system showed improved detection and decision-making capabilities as compared to using individual measurement technologies. This diagnostic tool was developed and evaluated experimentally by collecting vibration and oil debris data from fatigue tests performed in the NASA Glenn Spur Gear Fatigue Test Rig. Experimental data were collected during experiments performed in this test rig with and without pitting. Results show combining the two measurement technologies improves the detection of pitting damage on spur gears.

Dempsey, Paula J.↗
DOE OSTI2020

Deterministic and Statistical Modeling of a New Thermal Breakout Technology for Measuring the Maximum Horizontal In-Situ Stress

The current state-of-the-art technology for in-situ stress measurements involves an integrated approach that combines borehole breakout observations, drilling-induced tensile fractures, and hydraulic fracturing tests (i.e., “mini-fracs”). This methodology has achieved wide application in the oil and gas industry but has several limitations that often prevent successful in-situ stress measurements. One major limitation is that breakouts do not appear in all boreholes and are generally only a natural occurrence that cannot easily be controlled. Because borehole breakouts are used to directly measure the maximum horizontal in-situ stress magnitude, the absence of borehole breakouts presents a major data gap for in-situ stress measurements. In response to this data gap, a new US Department of Energy (US DOE)-sponsored thermal breakout technology that will provide a method for thermally inducing borehole breakouts and allow the consistent measurement of the maximum horizontal stress magnitude is currently in development. This thermal breakout technology involves heating the borehole and increasing the thermoelastic compressive stress in the rock until a breakout develops, which can be directly correlated to the maximum horizontal stress magnitude. The first step in this project was an analytical modeling study of the thermal breakout process. Based on the Kirsch solution (Kirsch 1898), a deterministic and statistical analysis was performed on the pertinent parameters that influence the maximum horizontal stress calculation. As a result of the analysis, the findings indicate that the thermal breakout technology is feasible and provides improved accuracy and/or an enhanced ability to measure the maximum horizontal stress. Future work as part of this US DOE-sponsored project includes additional validation through more detailed numerical modeling, laboratory testing, and field testing of the thermal breakout technology.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Texas A&M University Mobile Facility Measurements during TRACER (Field Campaign Report)

One of the main goals of the U.S Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Tracking Aerosol Convection Interactions Experiment (TRACER) near Houston, Texas is to improve understanding of how meteorology and aerosols impact storm dynamical and microphysical processes in deep convection to better constrain and improve their model representation. The Houston area is strongly influenced by sea- and bay-breeze circulations that generate convergence and help to initiate and organize deep convection. To properly isolate and understand the roles of varied meteorological conditions and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) and ice nucleation particles (INP) distributions in different air masses, co-located thermodynamic, kinematic, and aerosol vertical profile observations are needed. The focus of this campaign was to provide key measurements in air masses both in front of and behind sea/bay breeze fronts moving through the greater Houston area to sample the airmass heterogeneity. The overarching scientific goal of this campaign is to understand how the vertical distributions of both CCN and INP correspond to the inflow layer of deep convection in maritime, background continental, and polluted continental air masses, and how these variations influence deep convection. To fully sample the heterogeneity in both meteorological conditions and aerosols across the sea-breeze front (SBF), Texas A&M University (TAMU) deployed a InterMet 3050A 403 MHz mobile unit launching iMet-4 radiosondes and the new Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurement Van (ROAM-V) for aerosol sampling during the TRACER intensive operational period (IOP) from June to September 2022. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a condensation particle counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A differential mobility analyzer), cloud condensation nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN counter), micropulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies micropulse lidar [miniMPL]), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the Global Positioning System (GPS) on the phone application “My Altitude”. The DRUM data were collected as part of a closely related ARM field campaign and also supported by DOE Atmospheric System Research grant DE-SC0021047. The TAMU team sampled these airmass heterogeneities by strategically choosing deployment sites in a different airmass than the ARM fixed sites in La Porte and Guy, Texas. On days when the sea/bay breeze boundary was pushing inland, the TAMU team would usually sample the airmass on the maritime side of the SBF at a coastal site in Galveston, Texas in the early afternoon (1730-1900 UTC) and then move inland ahead of the SBF to sample the airmass on the continental side during late afternoon (2030-2230). Figure 1 shows the Galveston maritime site and the array of sites for the late afternoon continental measurements.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

CCN data from TAMU TRACER campaign in the Houston TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow is directed through a cyclone impactor (Brechtel, Inc. Model SCC 0.732) and 0.5 LPM is directed to the CCN. To calculate particle losses, we used a two-step method. First, the measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate particle loss through the inlet during sampling. Second, the corrected SMPS data was used to calculate the average of the total losses per scan down the CCN line. Then, the correction was applied to the CCN data. This calculation was done separately for each deployment location due to changes in the measured size distributions between locations. Particle loss from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949), inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977), and cyclone impactor efficiency (based on Dirgo, 1985) were included in the loss calculation. When the SMPS was not sampling at a location (in the case of an instrument malfunction or operator error), the reported CPC data was corrected with an average of the total losses for the entire campaign at the specified deployment location (e.g., if we needed to correct Galveston data, then the average of all calculated losses at Galveston was taken). These flatline corrections were used for all data on 22/07/13, 22/07/20, 22/07/22, and the data from Galveston on 22/08/09. The supersaturation uncertainty is estimated conservatively at +/- 0.03%, where variation in the inlet temperature, pressure, and calibration technique prevents a more accurate measurement. Confidence in the reported supersaturation measurements is based on a pre-campaign calibration (following the methods from our previous work and Deng, 2014 based on Rose, 2008) in addition to inter-comparisons with the DOE for two days (22/08/18 and 22/09/01) where TAMU was co-located with AMF1. The inter-comparisons show good agreement between our instrument and the DOEs instrument on both days at all supersaturations. After the last inter-comparison on 22/09/01, there was no indication of a malfunction by our instrument through the rest of the campaign. Unfortunately, the instrument was dropped during demobilization. A post-campaign calibration was conducted, which showed a substantial departure from the pre-campaign calibration. The drop may have damaged the instrument’s ability to produce the desired supersaturations. Therefore, we do consider the data after 22/09/01 to be correct, but it should be used with caution. The CCN counter sampled for 3 minutes at each supersaturation setpoint (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%). At the end of a cycle, the instrument was set to 0.01% supersaturation for 5 minutes. The data is comprised of the last 60 seconds of each supersaturation set point (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%) to ensure the instrument stabilized and was able to reach thermal equilibrium. We removed the data during the periods where there were operational difficulties, setup, or maintenance. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Rose et. al. Calibration and Measurement Uncertainties of a Continuous-Flow Cloud Condensation Nuclei Counter (DMT-CCNC): CCN Activation of Ammonium Sulfate and Sodium Chloride Aerosol Particles in Theory and Experiment. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 1153-1179, 2008. Deng et. al. Using Raman Microspectroscopy to Determine Chemical Composition and Mixing State of Airborne Marine Aerosols over the Pacific Ocean. Aerosol Science and Technology, Vol 48, Issue 2, 2014. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977. Dirgo et. al. Cyclone Collection Efficiency: Comparison of Experimental Results with Theoretical Predictions. Aerosol Science and Technology, 4:4, 401-415, 1985.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

CPC data from TAMU TRACER campaign in the Houston, TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow is directed through a cyclone impactor (Brechtel, Inc. Model SCC 0.732) and 0.3 LPM is directed to the CPC. To correct the data for particle losses, we used a two-step method. First, the measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate total particle loss through the inlet for every SMPS scan at a single deployment location. Second, the CPC data was corrected for particle losses using the average of the total losses per scan. This calculation was done separately for each deployment location due to changes in the measured size distributions between locations. Particle loss from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949), inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977), and cyclone impactor efficiency (based on Dirgo, 1985) were included in the loss calculation. When the SMPS was not sampling at a location (in the case of an instrument malfunction or operator error), the reported CPC data was corrected with an average of the total losses for the entire campaign at the specified deployment location (e.g., if we needed to correct Galveston data, then the average of all calculated losses at Galveston was taken). These flatline corrections were used for all data on 22/07/13, 22/07/20, 22/07/22, and the data from Galveston on 22/08/09. An additional flatline correction of 14% was applied to all CPC data based on laboratory calibration prior to and after the campaign. In laboratory calibrations, we identified that for the same sample of air the field CPC (GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC) undercounted the total concentration of particles by 14% compared to the ground truth laboratory CPC (TSI Model 3750). This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977. Dirgo et. al. Cyclone Collection Efficiency: Comparison of Experimental Results with Theoretical Predictions. Aerosol Science and Technology, 4:4, 401-415, 1985.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

SMPS data from TAMU TRACER campaign in the Houston TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow, 1.0 LPM, is directed through TSI's 0.071 cm impactor attached to the classifier of the SMPS setup. The SMPS’s DMA and CPC are connected through a 20.3 cm length of 0.48 cm diameter tubing. Measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate size-dependent particle losses for each SMPS scan. Particle losses from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949) and inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977) were included in the loss calculation. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Aerosol Microphysics and Chemical Measurements at Mt. Soledad and Scripps Pier during the Eastern Pacific Cloud Aerosol Precipitation Experiment (EPCAPE) from February 2023 to February 2024 UCSD Library Collection

This dataset includes guest instrument measurements and other PI products for aerosol microphysics and chemical measurements collected at Mt. Soledad and Scripps Pier during the Eastern Pacific Cloud Aerosol Precipitation Experiment (EPCAPE) from February 2023 to February 2024. The measurements include the following instruments at Mt. Soledad: High-Resolution Time-of-Flight Aerosol Mass Spectrometer (HR-ToF-AMS, Aerodyne), Scanning Electrical Mobility Spectrometer (SEMS, Brechtel Manufacturing Inc.), Aerodynamic Particle Sizer (APS, Droplet Measurements Technologies), Single Particle Soot Photometer (SP2, Drople Measurements Technologies), Meteorological Station (WXT520, Vaisala), Ozone (Teco), and trace gas proxies (Teledyne). In addition, the analyses of particle filters collected at Mt. Soledad for three dry-diameter size cuts (<1 micron, <0.5 micron, <0.18 micron) and at Scripps Pier for one dry-diameter size cut (<1 micron) by Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) and X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) are reported. A differential mobility analyzer operated as a scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS, TSI Inc.), a printed particle optical spectrometer (POPS, Grimm), and a continuous flow diffusion cloud condensation nuclei (CCN, DMT) counter provide the mobility aerosol size distribution (30-360 nm), optical size distribution (150 - 6000 nm), size-resolved CCN distribution (30-360 nm) at 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0% supersaturation. Measurements are reported for both sampling from an isokinetic aerosol inlet and from a Counterflow Virtual Impactor (CVI, Brechtel Manufacturing Inc.). The data are available at the following link: https://library.ucsd.edu/dc/collection/bb0898306q

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Mini-Micropulse Lidar data from TAMU TRACER campaign in the Houston TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (mini-MPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. The mini-MPL deployed with ROAM-V is a 532 nm elastic and polarization lidar. The mini-MPL outputs normalized relative backscatter (NRB) derived from raw signal after after-pulse, overlap, and dead-time correction calibration. The depolarization ratio is calculated from the co-polarized and cross-polarized NRB (Flynna et al., 2007). The NRB and depolarization ratio data are resampled from the original data at 1-minute intervals. The vertical resolution of the mini-MPL data is 15 meters. The mini-MPL data can be used to determine the boundary layer, cloud top, and cloud bottom height and can be used to retrieve aerosol type and concentration profile. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu . Flynna, C. J., Mendozaa, A., Zhengb, Y., & Mathurb, S. (2007). Novel polarization-sensitive micropulse lidar measurement technique. Optics express, 15(6), 2785-2790.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Ice nucleation measurements from DRUM impactors during TRACER campaign in the Houston TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, three Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitors (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM) were used to collect aerosols for ice nucleation measurements in the Brooks laboratory at Texas A&M University. The three instruments were located at AMF1 in La Porte, Ancillary site in Guy (ANC), and onboard the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V). ROAM-V was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and one of the Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitors (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Each DRUM sampler was operated at a flow rate of 23 LPM. Each DRUM has four stages where the aerodynamic diameter size cuts are as follows: stage 1 larger than 3 μm, stage 2 from 3 to 1.2 μm, stage 3 from 1.2 to 0.34 μm, and stage 4 from 0.34 to 0.15 μm. Pretreated aluminum foil was used as a substrate on all stages. At AMF1 and ANC sites, the DRUMs were operated on the shared aerosol inlet, with generous support of the DOE ARM site staff. These instruments rotated 24 mm per day and only contained aluminum foil substrates. Substrates were changed weekly and transported to Texas A&M for storage in -80C freezer until analysis. The DRUM onboard ROAM-V was operated at a faster rotation rate of 150 mm per day to clearly separate the multiple deployment locations for ROAM-V. For the ROAM-V DRUM, substrates were changed every deployment and transported to Texas A&M for storage in -80C freezer until analysis. At Texas A&M, ice nucleation experiments were conducted to measure the ice nucleation temperature of the ambient aerosol samples collected from the three DRUMs using our previously established procedures (Alsante et al., 2023; Fornea et al., 2009; Matthews et al., 2023). For ice nucleation, only samples collected on stage 3 were analyzed, given that these are the most relevant size (1.2 to 0.34 μm diameter) for potential ice nucleating particles. For the AMF1 and ANC sites, we cut and analyzed 2 mm (2-hour) samples. We analyzed the time periods of the AMF1 site instrument when the ROAM-V was deployed. A 72-hour period from July 11th at 23:49 through July 15th at 1:49 was analyzed from the ANC site instrument. For the ROAM-V instrument, we separated the daily samples by site location. Between 1- and 6-hour independent samples were analyzed at each location. We also cut the ROAM-V samples in half to allow for compositional analysis of the aerosol on the other half of the substrate. All viable samples from the ROAM-V were analyzed. Analysis was done using a custom-built ice nucleation apparatus, recently updated to include an array of 16 individual samples (Matthews et al., 2023). On our experimental setup, we used 100 μL of Ultra-High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (UHPLC) water (Sigma Aldrich, >99.9% purity) to wash off the aerosol from the DRUM substrate. Then, we micropipetted 2 μL droplet samples into each of the 16 wells of the array, using hydrophobically coated microscope slides. Experiments would cycle 28 times from 10 C to -40C over a 20-hour period. During analysis of the TRACER samples, nine experiments were conducted with UHPLC water process blanks that followed an identical preparation procedure. The average freezing temperature and standard deviation for these process blanks is -27.7±2.4 C. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07023 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Alsante, A. N., Thornton, D. C., & Brooks, S. D. (2023). Ice nucleation catalyzed by the photosynthesis enzyme RuBisCO and other abundant biomolecules. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), 51. Fornea, A. P., Brooks, S. D., Dooley, J. B., & Saha, A. (2009). Heterogeneous freezing of ice on atmospheric aerosols containing ash, soot, and soil. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 114(D13). DOI:10.1029/2009JD011958 Matthews, B. H., Alsante, A. N., & Brooks, S. D. (2023). Pollen Emissions of Subpollen Particles and Ice Nucleating Particles. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗