Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “corn”

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 541 records · Page 30
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

CA-ResidueRetentionAssumptionsBT16-BaseCase

As part of the Billion Ton resource assessment projections created in 2016 (see https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/12/f34/2016_billion_ton_report_12.2.16_0.pdf, DOI: 10.2172/1435342) -henceforth "BT16", this dataset was used as an assumption to limit the availability of residues under a "base-case" scenario (BC1). Crop residues that had this assumption applied include corn stover, cereal (wheat, oats, and barley) straws, and sorghum stubble. What is the purpose of the data set? Why were the data collected? Per request for use in subsequent research, we have summarized assumptions for California only and selected years (2020, 2030, 2040) that were used in the BT16's base-case projections for agricultural residues and have provided details by tillage class that limited residue availability for harvest (dry tons of residues that must remain). Note: '10' is a high number that assures that no residue harvested could occur. Note: Tillage classification assumptions are also of importance: a low flexibility was applied, allowing a moderate deviation from a baseline situation (using historic CTIC data on tillage type used in counties for each crop). A moderate flexibility, allows farmers to put land into another tillage type (no till, conservation till, and reduced till) where a higher net present value was calculated. This dataset includes all allowable tillage types by crop, but each tillage type may not have occurred in BT16 simulations.

Davis, Maggie↗
DOE OSTI2020

FieLDS

Field Landscape Decision Support (FieLDS) is a decision support tool that assists agricultural producers and farm managers in selecting parts of the field that can be converted to bioenergy plants, like perennial grasses, from the conventional use, like corn or soybean growth. That conversion of parts of the field is done based on the specific landscape properties and the agricultural producer’s priorities. The decision support tool generates a map of the field layout and spatially marks where to place each plant based on the spatial input from the user. Also, the user selects which priorities (sustainability indicators) are most relevant to them in their decision-making. By allowing the user to set the weights among the priorities, the tool empowers the user to generate field designs specific to their needs instead of imposing the developer’s set of priorities, and increases the transparency of the decision process.

Vazhnik, Veronika↗
DOE OSTI2024

DAWN: Dashboard for Agricultural Water Use and Nutrient Management—A Predictive Decision Support System to Improve Crop Production in a Changing Climate

Abstract Climate change presents huge challenges to the already-complex decisions faced by U.S. agricultural producers, as seasonal weather patterns increasingly deviate from historical tendencies. Under USDA funding, a transdisciplinary team of researchers, extension experts, educators, and stakeholders is developing a climate decision support Dashboard for Agricultural Water use and Nutrient management (DAWN) to provide Corn Belt farmers with better predictive information. DAWN’s goal is to provide credible, usable information to support decisions by creating infrastructure to make subseasonal-to-seasonal forecasts accessible. DAWN uses an integrated approach to 1) engage stakeholders to coproduce a decision support and information delivery system; 2) build a coupled modeling system to represent and transfer holistic systems knowledge into effective tools; 3) produce reliable forecasts to help stakeholders optimize crop productivity and environmental quality; and 4) integrate research and extension into experiential, transdisciplinary education. This article presents DAWN’s framework for integrating climate–agriculture research, extension, and education to bridge science and service. We also present key challenges to the creation and delivery of decision support, specifically in infrastructure development, coproduction and trust building with stakeholders, product design, effective communication, and moving tools toward use.

Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences↗
DOE OSTI2020

Production of ent-kaurene from lignocellulosic hydrolysate in Rhodosporidium toruloides

Abstract Background Rhodosporidium toruloides has emerged as a promising host for the production of bioproducts from lignocellulose, in part due to its ability to grow on lignocellulosic feedstocks, tolerate growth inhibitors, and co-utilize sugars and lignin-derived monomers. Ent -kaurene derivatives have a diverse range of potential applications from therapeutics to novel resin-based materials. Results The Design, Build, Test, and Learn (DBTL) approach was employed to engineer production of the non-native diterpene ent -kaurene in R. toruloides . Following expression of kaurene synthase (KS) in R. toruloides in the first DBTL cycle, a key limitation appeared to be the availability of the diterpene precursor, geranylgeranyl diphosphate (GGPP). Further DBTL cycles were carried out to select an optimal GGPP synthase and to balance its expression with KS, requiring two of the strongest promoters in R. toruloides , ANT (adenine nucleotide translocase) and TEF1 (translational elongation factor 1) to drive expression of the KS from Gibberella fujikuroi and a mutant version of an FPP synthase from Gallus gallus that produces GGPP. Scale-up of cultivation in a 2 L bioreactor using a corn stover hydrolysate resulted in an ent -kaurene titer of 1.4 g/L. Conclusion This study builds upon previous work demonstrating the potential of R. toruloides as a robust and versatile host for the production of both mono- and sesquiterpenes, and is the first demonstration of the production of a non-native diterpene in this organism.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Comparison of methodologies used to determine aromatic lignin unit ratios in lignocellulosic biomass

Abstract Background Multiple analytical methods have been developed to determine the ratios of aromatic lignin units, particularly the syringyl/guaiacyl (S/G) ratio, of lignin biopolymers in plant cell walls. Chemical degradation methods such as thioacidolysis produce aromatic lignin units that are released from certain linkages and may induce chemical changes rendering it difficult to distinguish and determine the source of specific aromatic lignin units released, as is the case with nitrobenzene oxidation methodology. NMR methods provide powerful tools used to analyze cell walls for lignin composition and linkage information. Pyrolysis-mass spectrometry methods are also widely used, particularly as high-throughput methodologies. However, the different techniques used to analyze aromatic lignin unit ratios frequently yield different results within and across particular studies, making it difficult to interpret and compare results. This also makes it difficult to obtain meaningful insights relating these measurements to other characteristics of plant cell walls that may impact biomass sustainability and conversion metrics for the production of bio-derived fuels and chemicals. Results The authors compared the S/G lignin unit ratios obtained from thioacidolysis, pyrolysis-molecular beam mass spectrometry (py-MBMS), HSQC liquid-state NMR and solid-state (ss) NMR methodologies of pine, several genotypes of poplar, and corn stover biomass. An underutilized approach to deconvolute ssNMR spectra was implemented to derive S/G ratios. The S/G ratios obtained for the samples did not agree across the different methods, but trends were similar with the most agreement among the py-MBMS, HSQC NMR and deconvoluted ssNMR methods. The relationship between S/G, thioacidolysis yields, and linkage analysis determined by HSQC is also addressed. Conclusions This work demonstrates that different methods using chemical, thermal, and non-destructive NMR techniques to determine native lignin S/G ratios in plant cell walls may yield different results depending on species and linkage abundances. Spectral deconvolution can be applied to many hardwoods with lignin dominated by S and G units, but the results may not be reliable for some woody and grassy species of more diverse lignin composition. HSQC may be a better method for analyzing lignin in those species given the wealth of information provided on additional aromatic moieties and bond linkages. Additionally, trends or correlations in lignin characteristics such as S/G ratios and lignin linkages within the same species such as poplar may not necessarily exhibit the same trends or correlations made across different biomass types. Careful consideration is required when choosing a method to measure S/G ratios and the benefits and shortcomings of each method discussed here are summarized.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Cellulosic biofuel production using emulsified simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (eSSF) with conventional and thermotolerant yeasts

Abstract Background Future expansion of corn-derived ethanol raises concerns of sustainability and competition with the food industry. Therefore, cellulosic biofuels derived from agricultural waste and dedicated energy crops are necessary. To date, slow and incomplete saccharification as well as high enzyme costs have hindered the economic viability of cellulosic biofuels, and while approaches like simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) and the use of thermotolerant microorganisms can enhance production, further improvements are needed. Cellulosic emulsions have been shown to enhance saccharification by increasing enzyme contact with cellulose fibers. In this study, we use these emulsions to develop an emulsified SSF (eSSF) process for rapid and efficient cellulosic biofuel production and make a direct three-way comparison of ethanol production between S. cerevisiae , O. polymorpha , and K. marxianus in glucose and cellulosic media at different temperatures. Results In this work, we show that cellulosic emulsions hydrolyze rapidly at temperatures tolerable to yeast, reaching up to 40-fold higher conversion in the first hour compared to microcrystalline cellulose (MCC). To evaluate suitable conditions for the eSSF process, we explored the upper temperature limits for the thermotolerant yeasts Kluyveromyces marxianus and Ogataea polymorpha , as well as Saccharomyces cerevisiae , and observed robust fermentation at up to 46, 50, and 42 °C for each yeast, respectively. We show that the eSSF process reaches high ethanol titers in short processing times, and produces close to theoretical yields at temperatures as low as 30 °C. Finally, we demonstrate the transferability of the eSSF technology to other products by producing the advanced biofuel isobutanol in a light-controlled eSSF using optogenetic regulators, resulting in up to fourfold higher titers relative to MCC SSF. Conclusions The eSSF process addresses the main challenges of cellulosic biofuel production by increasing saccharification rate at temperatures tolerable to yeast. The rapid hydrolysis of these emulsions at low temperatures permits fermentation using non-thermotolerant yeasts, short processing times, low enzyme loads, and makes it possible to extend the process to chemicals other than ethanol, such as isobutanol. This transferability establishes the eSSF process as a platform for the sustainable production of biofuels and chemicals as a whole.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Supranutrition of microalgal docosahexaenoic acid and calcidiol improved growth performance, tissue lipid profiles, and tibia characteristics of broiler chickens

Abstract Background Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and calcidiol could be enriched in chicken for improving public nutrition and health. It remains unclear if supranutritional levels of DHA and calcidiol impair growth performance or metabolism of broiler chickens. This study was to determine singular and combined effects of high levels of supplemental DHA-rich microalgal biomass or oil and calcidiol on growth performance, concentrations of triglycerides, cholesterol, and nonesterfied fatty acids in plasma, liver, breast, and thigh, and biophysical properties of tibia. Methods In Exp. 1, 144 day-old Cornish chicks were divided into 4 groups (6 cages/treatment, 6 birds/cage), and were fed a corn-soybean meal basal diet (BD), BD + 10,000 IU calcidiol/kg (BD + Cal), BD + 1% DHA-rich Aurantiochytrium (1.2 g DHA/kg; BD + DHA), and BD + Cal + DHA for 6 weeks. In Exp. 2, 180 day-old chicks were divided into 5 groups, and were fed: BD, BD + DHA (0.33% to 0.66% oil, 1.5 to 3.0 g DHA/kg), BD + DHA + EPA (1.9% to 3.8% eicosapentaenoic acid-rich Nannochloropsis sp. CO18, 0.3 to 0.6 g EPA/kg), BD + DHA + calcidiol (6000 to 12,000 IU/kg diet), and BD + DHA + EPA + Cal for 6 weeks. Results Birds fed BD + Cal diet in Exp. 1 and BD + DHA + EPA diet in Exp. 2 had higher ( P < 0.05) body weight gain (10%–11%) and gain:feed ratio (7%), and lower ( P < 0.05) total cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations in plasma (18%–54%), liver (8%–26%), breast (19%–26%), and thigh (10%–19%), respectively, over the controls. The two diets also improved ( P < 0.05) tibial breaking strength (8%–24%), total bone volume (2%–13%), and (or) bone mineral density (3%–19%) of chickens. Conclusion Supranutrition of dietary calcidiol and DHA alone or together did not produce adverse effects, but led to moderate improvements of growth performance, lipid profiles of plasma and muscle, and bone properties of broiler chickens.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Simulated Land Allocation, Nitrogen Use, and Nitrogen Loss in the Mississippi Atchafalaya River Basin for Various RFS2 (Renewable Fuel Standard) Policy Scenarios

Total nitrogen leaching rates were calculated over the Mississippi Atchafalaya River Basin (MARB) using an integrated economic-biophysical modeling approach. Land allocation for corn production and total nitrogen application rates were calculated for crop reporting districts using the Biofuel and Environmental Policy Analysis Model (BEPAM) for 5 RFS2 policy scenarios. These were used as input in the Integrated BIosphere Simulator-Agricultural Version (Agro-IBIS) and the Terrestrial Hydrologic Model with Biogeochemistry (THMB) to calculate the nitrogen loss. Land allocation and total nitrogen application simulations were simulated for the period 2016-2030 for 303 crop reporting districts (https://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/County_Data_Files/Frequently_Asked_Questions/county_list.txt). The final 2030 values are reported here. Both are stored in csv files. Units for land allocation are million ha and nitrogen application are million kg. The nitrogen leaching rates were modeled with a spatial resolution of 5' x 5' using the North American Datum of 1983 projection and stored in NetCDF files. The 30-year average is calculated over the last 30 years of the 45 years being simulated. Leaching rates are calculated in kg-N/ha.

bioenergy crops↗
DOE OSTI2020

<i>Finite Element Modeling of Biomass Hopper Flow</i>

The hopper is one of the widely used biomass handling devices that channels the bulk biomass from storage to the subsequent handling systems. Although Jenike's approach has been successfully used for hoppers handling grains and other agricultural produces for decades, designing a hopper, ensuring reliable biomass handling is found to be challenging. This study aims to address this engineering problem with alternative constitutive material models concerning the flow behavior of bulk solids. Finite element modeling is an approach that allows for implementing different material models. Underlying constitutive theories of different material models assist in investigating the mechanical behavior of a particulate system, including the flow characteristics of ground biomass. This study demonstrates hopper flow models of two types of biomass, i.e., ground corn stover and Douglas fir, with the Mohr-Coulomb model, which is based on Jenike's approach, modified Cam-Clay model, and Drucker-Prager/Cap model. The modeling results are compared with hopper flow experiments to highlights the advantages and shortfalls of each constitutive biomass flow model.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Effectiveness of Residue and Tillage Management on Runoff Pollutant Reduction from Agricultural Areas

Highlights No-till and no-till residue systems were effective in reducing runoff particulate and total nutrients but increased dissolved nutrients. Maintaining >30% residue cover reduced most runoff constituents, irrespective of no-till or tillage. No-till-residue prevented runoff nutrient losses and benefitted farm revenue by avoiding tillage. Abstract. Reduced tillage management conservation practices (No-till and Reduced-till) are widely adopted in agriculture; however, understanding their overall effectiveness for water quality protection is challenging. A meta-analysis was conducted to understand and quantify the effectiveness of residue and tillage management on runoff, sediment, and nutrient losses from agricultural fields. Annual runoff and the associated sediment, and nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) loads were compiled from 60 peer reviewed research articles published across the United States and Canada. A total of 1575 site-years of data were categorized into tillage (<30% surface cover), no-tillage (<30% surface cover), tillage with residue (>30% surface cover), no-tillage with residue (>30% surface cover), and pasture management. No-tillage, no-tillage-residue, and tillage-residue managements were evaluated for their effectiveness in reducing runoff, nutrients, and sediment loads compared to tillage. Synthesized and surveyed corn yield data were used to evaluate the economic cost effectiveness of no-tillage-residue management with respect to tillage. Across the site years (1968-2019) studied, median runoff depth for no-tillage and no-tillage-residue were 84% and 70% greater than tillage and tillage-residue management, respectively. No-tillage-residue management had up to 86% less sediment losses than tillage systems, on average, for both >30% and <30% surface cover. No-tillage-residue management was most effective, with a positive performance effectiveness of 65% to 90% in controlling sediments, particulate, and total nutrient losses in runoff compared to tillage. Cost effectiveness analysis revealed the benefits of no-tillage-residue management in reducing nutrient loads and increasing net-farm revenue by avoiding tillage operational costs. Except for dissolved phosphorus, no-tillage-residue management cost effectiveness for sediments and nutrient loads ranged from negative $6 to negative $102 per every Mg or kg of load reduction, indicating it had both economic and environmental benefits compared to tillage management. Overall, these results indicate that over the long-term, no-tillage and tillage, combined with greater than 30% residue cover, can effectively reduce sediment and nutrient losses. This work highlights the importance of crop residues on the soil surface to reduce runoff losses, even in no-tillage systems. Keywords: Conservation tillage, No-tillage, Residue cover, Tillage, Water quality.

Agriculture↗
DOE OSTI2024

Epoxy Coating of Biofiber: An Effective Modifier of Biofiber Physical and Flow Properties for Improved Tensile Behavior of Biofiber-Reinforced Biocomposite

Biocomposites combine renewable, plant-based fibers with degradable polymers and are an attractive option for sustainable, lightweight, and cost-effective materials with a low carbon footprint, especially for large-scale additive manufacturing. One of the major challenges in the widespread adoption of biocomposites is that their mechanical performance is significantly inferior to that of synthetic composites. Surface treatment is a common and effective technique to improve the mechanical properties of the biofibers used in biocomposites. This study aims to investigate the physical and flow properties of surface-treated biofibers, as well as the tensile properties of their PLA-based biocomposite, to gain insights into how surface treatment changes the fiber‘s characteristics and biocomposite‘s mechanical properties. Surface treatment was created using a two-component epoxy system by reacting poly(bisphenol A-co-epichlorohydrin) glycidyl end-capped (PBG) and dicyandiamide (DICY). The treatment was tested on two different biofibers (loblolly pine and corn stover fibers) with three different PBG/DICY molar ratios (0.25, 0.5, and 2). Results showed that surface-treated fibers improved the tensile strength and Young‘s modulus of the biocomposites. Loblolly pine biocomposites from fibers treated with a PBG/DICY ratio of 0.25 exhibited the best tensile properties. The surface treatment resulted in a more loosely dispersed fiber bulk structure, as evidenced by less fiber agglomeration into smaller particle sizes, higher fiber sphericity, and lower loose bulk density. This can enhance stress distribution and the overall mechanical performance of the biocomposites. Additionally, surface-treated fibers exhibited better dynamic flow properties.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2023

Agriculture, bioenergy, and water implications of constrained cereal trade and climate change impacts

International trade increases connections and dependencies between countries, weaving a network of global supply chains. Agricultural commodity trade has implications for crop producers, consumers, crop prices, water and land uses, and other human systems. Interconnections among these systems are not always easy to observe when external impacts penetrate across multiple sectors. To better understand the interactions of non-linear and globally coupled agricultural-bioenergy-water systems under the broader economy, we introduce systematic perturbations in two dimensions, one human (restrictions on agricultural trade) and the other physical (climate impacts on crop yields). We explore these independently and in combination to distinguish the consequences of individual perturbation and interactive effects in long-term projections. We show that most regions experience larger changes in cereal consumption due to cereal import dependency constraints than due to the impacts of climate change on agricultural yields. In the scenario where all regions ensure an import dependency ratio of zero, the global trade of cereals decreases ~50% in 2050 compared to the baseline, with smaller decreases in cereal production and consumption (4%). The changes in trade also impact water and bioenergy: global irrigation water consumption increases 3% and corn ethanol production decreases 7% in 2050. Climate change results in rising domestic prices and declining consumption of cereal crops in general, while the import dependency constraint exacerbates the situation in regions which import more cereals in the baseline. The individual and interactive effects of trade perturbations and climate change vary greatly across regions, which are also affected by the regional ability to increase agricultural production through intensification or extensification.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Materials Data on Li15(NiO2)14 by Materials Project

Li15(NiO2)14 crystallizes in the monoclinic Cm space group. The structure is three-dimensional. there are fifteen inequivalent Li1+ sites. In the first Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded in a 4-coordinate geometry to four O2- atoms. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 1.80–2.07 Å. In the second Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded in a 4-coordinate geometry to one Ni+2.93+ and four O2- atoms. The Li–Ni bond length is 2.19 Å. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 1.79–1.95 Å. In the third Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded in a 3-coordinate geometry to six O2- atoms. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 1.93–2.46 Å. In the fourth Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form LiO6 octahedra that share corners with five NiO6 octahedra, edges with four LiO6 octahedra, and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 6–7°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 2.02–2.21 Å. In the fifth Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form LiO6 octahedra that share corners with six NiO6 octahedra, edges with six LiO6 octahedra, and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 5–7°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 2.11–2.17 Å. In the sixth Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form LiO6 octahedra that share corners with six NiO6 octahedra, edges with six LiO6 octahedra, and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 5–7°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 2.08–2.16 Å. In the seventh Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form LiO6 octahedra that share corners with six NiO6 octahedra, edges with six LiO6 octahedra, and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 4–7°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 2.13–2.17 Å. In the eighth Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form LiO6 octahedra that share corners with six NiO6 octahedra, edges with six LiO6 octahedra, and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 4–7°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 2.13–2.17 Å. In the ninth Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form LiO6 octahedra that share corners with six NiO6 octahedra, edges with six LiO6 octahedra, and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 4–7°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 2.13–2.17 Å. In the tenth Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form LiO6 octahedra that share corners with six NiO6 octahedra, edges with six LiO6 octahedra, and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 4–7°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 2.12–2.17 Å. In the eleventh Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form LiO6 octahedra that share corners with six NiO6 octahedra, edges with six LiO6 octahedra, and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 4–7°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 2.12–2.17 Å. In the twelfth Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form LiO6 octahedra that share corners with six NiO6 octahedra, edges with six LiO6 octahedra, and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 5–7°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 2.11–2.16 Å. In the thirteenth Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form LiO6 octahedra that share corners with six NiO6 octahedra, edges with four LiO6 octahedra, and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 5–9°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 2.06–2.18 Å. In the fourteenth Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded in a distorted rectangular see-saw-like geometry to four O2- atoms. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 1.74–2.02 Å. In the fifteenth Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded in a 6-coordinate geometry to six O2- atoms. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 1.96–2.39 Å. There are fourteen inequivalent Ni+2.93+ sites. In the first Ni+2.93+ site, Ni+2.93+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form distorted edge-sharing NiO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.96–2.11 Å. In the second Ni+2.93+ site, Ni+2.93+ is bonded in a 6-coordinate geometry to one Li1+ and six O2- atoms. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.96–2.16 Å. In the third Ni+2.93+ site, Ni+2.93+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO6 octahedra, edges with three equivalent LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedral tilt angles are 6°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.88–2.06 Å. In the fourth Ni+2.93+ site, Ni+2.93+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with five LiO6 octahedra, edges with six LiO6 octahedra, and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 5–7°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.87–2.05 Å. In the fifth Ni+2.93+ site, Ni+2.93+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO6 octahedra, edges with six LiO6 octahedra, and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 4–7°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.88–2.05 Å. In the sixth Ni+2.93+ site, Ni+2.93+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO6 octahedra, edges with six LiO6 octahedra, and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 4–7°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.89–2.05 Å. In the seventh Ni+2.93+ site, Ni+2.93+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO6 octahedra, edges with six LiO6 octahedra, and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 4–7°. There is two shorter (1.91 Å) and four longer (2.05 Å) Ni–O bond length. In the eighth Ni+2.93+ site, Ni+2.93+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO6 octahedra, edges with six LiO6 octahedra, and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 4–7°. There is two shorter (1.90 Å) and four longer (2.05 Å) Ni–O bond length. In the ninth Ni+2.93+ site, Ni+2.93+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO6 octahedra, edges with six LiO6 octahedra, and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 5–7°. There is two shorter (1.91 Å) and four longer (2.05 Å) Ni–O bond length. In the tenth Ni+2.93+ site, Ni+2.93+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO6 octahedra, edges with six LiO6 octahedra, and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 5–7°. There is two shorter (1.90 Å) and four longer (2.05 Å) Ni–O bond length. In the eleventh Ni+2.93+ site, Ni+2.93+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO6 octahedra, edges with six LiO6 octahedra, and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 4–7°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.90–2.05 Å. In the twelfth Ni+2.93+ site, Ni+2.93+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with five LiO6 octahedra, edges with six LiO6 octahedra, and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 4–8°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.89–2.05 Å. In the thirteenth Ni+2.93+ site, Ni+2.93+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO6 octahedra, edges with three equivalent LiO6 octahedra, and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 5–6°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.90–2.05 Å. In the fourteenth Ni+2.93+ site, Ni+2.93+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form distorted NiO6 octahedra that share a cornercorner with one LiO6 octahedra and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedral tilt angles are 9°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.88–2.10 Å. There are twenty-eight inequivalent O2- sites. In the first O2- site, O2- is bonded in a 6-coordinate geometry to three Li1+ and three Ni+2.93+ atoms. In the second O2- site, O2- is bonded in a 6-coordinate geometry to three Li1+ and three Ni+2.93+ atoms. In the third O2- site, O2- is bonded in a 5-coordinate geometry to two Li1+ and three Ni+2.93+ atoms. In the fourth O2- site, O2- is bonded to three Li1+ and three Ni+2.93+ atoms to form a mixture of edge and corner-sharing OLi3Ni3 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedral tilt angles are 3°. In the fifth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a 7-coordinate geometry to four Li1+ and three Ni+2.93+ atoms. In the sixth O2- site, O2- is bonded to three Li1+ and three Ni+2.93+ atoms to form a mixture of edge and corner-sharing OLi3Ni3 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 0–2°. In the seventh O2- site, O2- is bonded to three Li1+ and three Ni+2.93+ atoms to form a mixture of edge and corner-sharing OLi3Ni3 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 0–3°. In the eighth O2- site, O2- is bonded to three Li1+ and three Ni+2.93+ atoms to form a mixture of edge and corner-sharing OLi3Ni3 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedral tilt angles are 0°. In the ninth O2- site, O2- is bonded to three Li1+ and three Ni+2.93+ atoms to form a mixture of edge and corner-sharing OLi3Ni3 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 0–3°. In the tenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to three Li1+ and three Ni+2.93+ atoms to form a mixture of edge and corner-sharing OLi3Ni3 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedral tilt angles are 0°. In the eleventh O2- site, O2- is bonded to three Li1+ and three Ni+2.93+ atoms to form a mixture of edge and corner-sharing OLi3Ni3 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedral tilt angles are 0°. In the twelfth O2- site, O2- is bonded to three Li1+ and three Ni+2.93+ atoms to form a mixture of edge and corner-sharing OLi3Ni3 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedral tilt angles are 0°. In the thirteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to three Li1+ and three Ni+2.93+ atoms to form a mixture of edge and corner-sharing OLi3Ni3 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedral tilt angles are 0°. In the fourteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to three Li1+ and three Ni+2.93+ atoms to form a mixture of edge and corner-sharing OLi3Ni3 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedral tilt angles are 0°. In the fifteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to three Li1+ and three Ni+2.93+ atoms to form a mixture of edge and corner-sharing OLi3Ni3 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedral tilt angles are 0°. In the sixteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to three Li1+ and three Ni+2.93+ atoms to form a mixture of edge and corner-sharing OLi3Ni3 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedral tilt angles are 0°. In the seventeenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to three Li1+ and three Ni+2.93+ atoms to form a mixture of edge and corner-sharing OLi3Ni3 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedral tilt angles are 0°. In the eighteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to three Li1+ and three Ni+2.93+ atoms to form a mixture of edge and corner-sharing OLi3Ni3 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedral tilt angles are 0°. In the nineteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to three Li1+ and three Ni+2.93+ atoms to form a mixture of edge and corner-sharing OLi3Ni3 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedral tilt angles are 0°. In the twentieth O2- site, O2- is bonded to three Li1+ and three Ni+2.93+ atoms to form a mixture of edge and corner-sharing OLi3Ni3 octahedra. The corn

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2020

Materials Data on Li2Fe3CoO8 by Materials Project

Li2Fe3CoO8 is Spinel-derived structured and crystallizes in the triclinic P1 space group. The structure is three-dimensional. there are eight inequivalent Li sites. In the first Li site, Li is bonded to six O atoms to form LiO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, and edges with six FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 2.08–2.14 Å. In the second Li site, Li is bonded to four O atoms to form LiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three LiO6 octahedra and corners with nine FeO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 54–65°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 1.95–2.00 Å. In the third Li site, Li is bonded to four O atoms to form LiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three LiO6 octahedra and corners with nine FeO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 54–66°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 1.95–1.98 Å. In the fourth Li site, Li is bonded to six O atoms to form LiO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, and edges with six FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 2.07–2.14 Å. In the fifth Li site, Li is bonded to six O atoms to form LiO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, and edges with six FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 2.08–2.14 Å. In the sixth Li site, Li is bonded to four O atoms to form LiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three LiO6 octahedra and corners with nine FeO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 53–66°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 1.97–2.00 Å. In the seventh Li site, Li is bonded to four O atoms to form LiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three LiO6 octahedra and corners with nine FeO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 54–66°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 1.96–1.98 Å. In the eighth Li site, Li is bonded to six O atoms to form LiO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, and edges with six FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 2.07–2.12 Å. There are twelve inequivalent Fe sites. In the first Fe site, Fe is bonded to six O atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 1.87–1.98 Å. In the second Fe site, Fe is bonded to six O atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 1.88–1.98 Å. In the third Fe site, Fe is bonded to six O atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 1.92–2.04 Å. In the fourth Fe site, Fe is bonded to six O atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 1.89–2.00 Å. In the fifth Fe site, Fe is bonded to six O atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 1.87–2.02 Å. In the sixth Fe site, Fe is bonded to six O atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 1.91–2.03 Å. In the seventh Fe site, Fe is bonded to six O atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 1.89–1.98 Å. In the eighth Fe site, Fe is bonded to six O atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 1.89–1.99 Å. In the ninth Fe site, Fe is bonded to six O atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 1.88–1.99 Å. In the tenth Fe site, Fe is bonded to six O atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 1.90–1.98 Å. In the eleventh Fe site, Fe is bonded to six O atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 1.89–1.99 Å. In the twelfth Fe site, Fe is bonded to six O atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 1.86–1.97 Å. There are four inequivalent Co sites. In the first Co site, Co is bonded to four O atoms to form CoO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three LiO6 octahedra and corners with nine FeO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 55–67°. There is two shorter (1.94 Å) and two longer (1.97 Å) Co–O bond length. In the second Co site, Co is bonded to four O atoms to form CoO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three LiO6 octahedra and corners with nine FeO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 55–66°. There are a spread of Co–O bond distances ranging from 1.94–1.98 Å. In the third Co site, Co is bonded to four O atoms to form CoO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three LiO6 octahedra and corners with nine FeO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 55–65°. There are a spread of Co–O bond distances ranging from 1.93–1.99 Å. In the fourth Co site, Co is bonded to four O atoms to form CoO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three LiO6 octahedra and corners with nine FeO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 54–66°. There is three shorter (1.95 Å) and one longer (1.99 Å) Co–O bond length. There are thirty-two inequivalent O sites. In the first O site, O is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to two Li and two Fe atoms. In the second O site, O is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to two Li and two Fe atoms. In the third O site, O is bonded to one Li and three Fe atoms to form distorted OLiFe3 trigonal pyramids that share corners with two OFe3Co tetrahedra and corners with four OLiFe2Co trigonal pyramids. In the fourth O site, O is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to two Li and two Fe atoms. In the fifth O site, O is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li, two Fe, and one Co atom. In the sixth O site, O is bonded to three Fe and one Co atom to form distorted corner-sharing OFe3Co trigonal pyramids. In the seventh O site, O is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li, two Fe, and one Co atom. In the eighth O site, O is bonded to one Li, two Fe, and one Co atom to form OLiFe2Co trigonal pyramids that share a cornercorner with one OFe3Co tetrahedra, corners with five OLi2Fe2 trigonal pyramids, and an edgeedge with one OFe3Co tetrahedra. In the ninth O site, O is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li, two Fe, and one Co atom. In the tenth O site, O is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li, two Fe, and one Co atom. In the eleventh O site, O is bonded to three Fe and one Co atom to form distorted OFe3Co tetrahedra that share corners with five OLi2Fe2 trigonal pyramids and an edgeedge with one OLiFe2Co trigonal pyramid. In the twelfth O site, O is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li, two Fe, and one Co atom. In the thirteenth O site, O is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to two Li and two Fe atoms. In the fourteenth O site, O is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li and three Fe atoms. In the fifteenth O site, O is bonded to two Li and two Fe atoms to form OLi2Fe2 trigonal pyramids that share corners with two OFe3Co tetrahedra, corners with three OLiFe2Co trigonal pyramids, and an edgeedge with one OLiFe3 trigonal pyramid. In the sixteenth O site, O is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to two Li and two Fe atoms. In the seventeenth O site, O is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to two Li and two Fe atoms. In the eighteenth O site, O is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to two Li and two Fe atoms. In the nineteenth O site, O is bonded to one Li and three Fe atoms to form distorted OLiFe3 trigonal pyramids that share corners with three OFe3Co tetrahedra, corners with six OLiFe2Co trigonal pyramids, and an edgeedge with one OLi2Fe2 trigonal pyramid. In the twentieth O site, O is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to two Li and two Fe atoms. In the twenty-first O site, O is bonded to one Li, two Fe, and one Co atom to form OLiFe2Co trigonal pyramids that share a cornercorner with one OFe3Co tetrahedra, corners with three OLi2Fe2 trigonal pyramids, an edgeedge with one OFe3Co tetrahedra, and an edgeedge with one OLiFe2Co trigonal pyramid. In the twenty-second O site, O is bonded to three Fe and one Co atom to form distorted OFe3Co tetrahedra that share corners with four OLi2Fe2 trigonal pyramids and edges with two OLiFe2Co trigonal pyramids. In the twenty-third O site, O is bonded to one Li, two Fe, and one Co atom to form distorted OLiFe2Co trigonal pyramids that share a cornercorner with one OFe3Co tetrahedra, corners with two OLiFe3 trigonal pyramids, an edgeedge with one OFe3Co tetrahedra, and edges with two OLiFe2Co trigonal pyramids. In the twenty-fourth O site, O is bonded to one Li, two Fe, and one Co atom to form OLiFe2Co trigonal pyramids that share a cornercorner with one OFe3Co tetrahedra, corners with three OLiFe3 trigonal pyramids, an edgeedge with one OFe3Co tetrahedra, and edges with two OLiFe2Co trigonal pyramids. In the twenty-fifth O site, O is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li, two Fe, and one Co atom. In the twenty-sixth O site, O is bonded to one Li, two Fe, and one Co atom to form OLiFe2Co trigonal pyramids that share a cornercorner with one OFe3Co tetrahedra, corners with four OLi2Fe2 trigonal pyramids, an edgeedge with one OFe3Co tetrahedra, and an edgeedge with one OLiFe2Co trigonal pyramid. In the twenty-seventh O site, O is bonded to three Fe and one Co atom to form distorted OFe3Co tetrahedra that share corners with five OLiFe3 trigonal pyramids and edges with three OLiFe2Co trigonal pyramids. In the twenty-eighth O site, O is bonded to one Li, two Fe, and one Co atom to form OLiFe2Co trigonal pyramids that share corners with three OLi2Fe2 trigonal pyramids, an edgeedge with one OFe3Co tetrahedra, and edges with two OLiFe2Co trigonal pyramids. In the twenty-ninth O site, O is bonded to two Li and two Fe atoms to form OLi2Fe2 trigonal pyramids that share corn

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2020

Materials Data on La4Sm4Ni7AgO20 by Materials Project

Sm4La4Ni7AgO20 crystallizes in the triclinic P1 space group. The structure is three-dimensional. there are sixteen inequivalent Sm3+ sites. In the first Sm3+ site, Sm3+ is bonded in a 7-coordinate geometry to seven O2- atoms. There are a spread of Sm–O bond distances ranging from 2.29–2.93 Å. In the second Sm3+ site, Sm3+ is bonded in a 5-coordinate geometry to six O2- atoms. There are a spread of Sm–O bond distances ranging from 2.30–2.80 Å. In the third Sm3+ site, Sm3+ is bonded in a 7-coordinate geometry to seven O2- atoms. There are a spread of Sm–O bond distances ranging from 2.30–2.86 Å. In the fourth Sm3+ site, Sm3+ is bonded in a 5-coordinate geometry to five O2- atoms. There are a spread of Sm–O bond distances ranging from 2.29–2.44 Å. In the fifth Sm3+ site, Sm3+ is bonded in a 8-coordinate geometry to eight O2- atoms. There are a spread of Sm–O bond distances ranging from 2.33–2.97 Å. In the sixth Sm3+ site, Sm3+ is bonded in a 7-coordinate geometry to seven O2- atoms. There are a spread of Sm–O bond distances ranging from 2.27–2.94 Å. In the seventh Sm3+ site, Sm3+ is bonded in a 5-coordinate geometry to seven O2- atoms. There are a spread of Sm–O bond distances ranging from 2.30–2.97 Å. In the eighth Sm3+ site, Sm3+ is bonded in a 5-coordinate geometry to five O2- atoms. There are a spread of Sm–O bond distances ranging from 2.26–2.59 Å. In the ninth Sm3+ site, Sm3+ is bonded in a 5-coordinate geometry to seven O2- atoms. There are a spread of Sm–O bond distances ranging from 2.29–3.00 Å. In the tenth Sm3+ site, Sm3+ is bonded in a 6-coordinate geometry to six O2- atoms. There are a spread of Sm–O bond distances ranging from 2.26–2.85 Å. In the eleventh Sm3+ site, Sm3+ is bonded in a 5-coordinate geometry to six O2- atoms. There are a spread of Sm–O bond distances ranging from 2.30–2.78 Å. In the twelfth Sm3+ site, Sm3+ is bonded in a 7-coordinate geometry to seven O2- atoms. There are a spread of Sm–O bond distances ranging from 2.33–2.98 Å. In the thirteenth Sm3+ site, Sm3+ is bonded in a 8-coordinate geometry to eight O2- atoms. There are a spread of Sm–O bond distances ranging from 2.33–2.90 Å. In the fourteenth Sm3+ site, Sm3+ is bonded in a 7-coordinate geometry to eight O2- atoms. There are a spread of Sm–O bond distances ranging from 2.34–3.02 Å. In the fifteenth Sm3+ site, Sm3+ is bonded in a 5-coordinate geometry to five O2- atoms. There are a spread of Sm–O bond distances ranging from 2.31–2.50 Å. In the sixteenth Sm3+ site, Sm3+ is bonded in a 5-coordinate geometry to five O2- atoms. There are a spread of Sm–O bond distances ranging from 2.30–2.51 Å. There are sixteen inequivalent La3+ sites. In the first La3+ site, La3+ is bonded in a 8-coordinate geometry to eight O2- atoms. There are a spread of La–O bond distances ranging from 2.40–2.96 Å. In the second La3+ site, La3+ is bonded in a 8-coordinate geometry to eight O2- atoms. There are a spread of La–O bond distances ranging from 2.38–2.87 Å. In the third La3+ site, La3+ is bonded in a 8-coordinate geometry to eight O2- atoms. There are a spread of La–O bond distances ranging from 2.39–2.98 Å. In the fourth La3+ site, La3+ is bonded in a 8-coordinate geometry to eight O2- atoms. There are a spread of La–O bond distances ranging from 2.36–2.96 Å. In the fifth La3+ site, La3+ is bonded in a 8-coordinate geometry to eight O2- atoms. There are a spread of La–O bond distances ranging from 2.37–2.91 Å. In the sixth La3+ site, La3+ is bonded in a 5-coordinate geometry to six O2- atoms. There are a spread of La–O bond distances ranging from 2.36–2.89 Å. In the seventh La3+ site, La3+ is bonded in a 8-coordinate geometry to eight O2- atoms. There are a spread of La–O bond distances ranging from 2.39–2.96 Å. In the eighth La3+ site, La3+ is bonded in a 8-coordinate geometry to eight O2- atoms. There are a spread of La–O bond distances ranging from 2.37–3.05 Å. In the ninth La3+ site, La3+ is bonded in a 8-coordinate geometry to eight O2- atoms. There are a spread of La–O bond distances ranging from 2.39–3.00 Å. In the tenth La3+ site, La3+ is bonded in a 8-coordinate geometry to eight O2- atoms. There are a spread of La–O bond distances ranging from 2.37–3.05 Å. In the eleventh La3+ site, La3+ is bonded in a 8-coordinate geometry to eight O2- atoms. There are a spread of La–O bond distances ranging from 2.38–2.88 Å. In the twelfth La3+ site, La3+ is bonded in a 8-coordinate geometry to eight O2- atoms. There are a spread of La–O bond distances ranging from 2.37–2.92 Å. In the thirteenth La3+ site, La3+ is bonded in a 5-coordinate geometry to eight O2- atoms. There are a spread of La–O bond distances ranging from 2.36–3.01 Å. In the fourteenth La3+ site, La3+ is bonded in a 8-coordinate geometry to eight O2- atoms. There are a spread of La–O bond distances ranging from 2.39–2.89 Å. In the fifteenth La3+ site, La3+ is bonded in a 5-coordinate geometry to eight O2- atoms. There are a spread of La–O bond distances ranging from 2.30–3.04 Å. In the sixteenth La3+ site, La3+ is bonded in a 8-coordinate geometry to eight O2- atoms. There are a spread of La–O bond distances ranging from 2.40–2.96 Å. There are twenty-eight inequivalent Ni+2.14+ sites. In the first Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with four NiO6 octahedra and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 15–16°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 2.01–2.22 Å. In the second Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with four NiO6 octahedra and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 15–17°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 2.01–2.22 Å. In the third Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with four NiO6 octahedra and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 15–19°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 2.00–2.21 Å. In the fourth Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share a cornercorner with one AgO6 octahedra, corners with three NiO6 octahedra, and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 16–32°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.99–2.25 Å. In the fifth Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with four NiO6 octahedra and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 16–18°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 2.00–2.20 Å. In the sixth Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share a cornercorner with one NiO6 octahedra, corners with three AgO6 octahedra, and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 20–33°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.97–2.25 Å. In the seventh Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with four NiO6 octahedra and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 16–19°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 2.01–2.20 Å. In the eighth Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share a cornercorner with one NiO6 octahedra, corners with three AgO6 octahedra, and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 16–27°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.95–2.27 Å. In the ninth Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with four NiO6 octahedra and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 15–17°. There are four shorter (2.01 Å) and two longer (2.16 Å) Ni–O bond lengths. In the tenth Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share a cornercorner with one NiO6 octahedra, corners with three AgO6 octahedra, and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 18–28°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.96–2.23 Å. In the eleventh Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with four NiO6 octahedra and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 15–16°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 2.01–2.16 Å. In the twelfth Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with four NiO6 octahedra and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 16–18°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 2.00–2.19 Å. In the thirteenth Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form NiO4 tetrahedra that share a cornercorner with one NiO6 octahedra, a cornercorner with one AgO6 octahedra, and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 37–61°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.92–2.05 Å. In the fourteenth Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form NiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with two NiO6 octahedra and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 37–41°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.96–2.05 Å. In the fifteenth Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form NiO4 tetrahedra that share a cornercorner with one NiO6 octahedra, a cornercorner with one AgO6 octahedra, and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 38–60°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.90–2.08 Å. In the sixteenth Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form NiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with two NiO6 octahedra and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 38–44°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.95–2.04 Å. In the seventeenth Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form NiO4 tetrahedra that share a cornercorner with one NiO6 octahedra, a cornercorner with one AgO6 octahedra, and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 36–62°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.91–2.06 Å. In the eighteenth Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form NiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with two NiO6 octahedra and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 39–41°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.96–2.04 Å. In the nineteenth Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form NiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with two NiO6 octahedra and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 39–44°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.94–2.04 Å. In the twentieth Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form NiO4 tetrahedra that share a cornercorner with one NiO6 octahedra, a cornercorner with one AgO6 octahedra, and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 36–63°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.93–2.07 Å. In the twenty-first Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form NiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with two NiO6 octahedra and corners with two NiO4 tetrahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 39–49°. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.96–2.06 Å. In the twenty-second Ni+2.14+ site, Ni+2.14+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form NiO4 tetrahedra that share corne

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2020

Materials Data on Li2CoNi3O8 by Materials Project

Li2CoNi3O8 is Spinel-derived structured and crystallizes in the triclinic P1 space group. The structure is three-dimensional. there are eight inequivalent Li1+ sites. In the first Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form LiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three CoO6 octahedra and corners with nine NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 55–64°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 1.92–1.97 Å. In the second Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form LiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three CoO6 octahedra and corners with nine NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 56–64°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 1.93–1.97 Å. In the third Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form LiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three CoO6 octahedra and corners with nine NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 56–63°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 1.93–1.98 Å. In the fourth Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form LiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three CoO6 octahedra and corners with nine NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 55–63°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 1.92–1.97 Å. In the fifth Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form LiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three CoO6 octahedra and corners with nine NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 55–63°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 1.93–1.97 Å. In the sixth Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form LiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three CoO6 octahedra and corners with nine NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 57–63°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 1.93–1.98 Å. In the seventh Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form LiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three CoO6 octahedra and corners with nine NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 56–64°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 1.93–1.97 Å. In the eighth Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form LiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three CoO6 octahedra and corners with nine NiO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 55–63°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 1.92–1.97 Å. There are four inequivalent Co4+ sites. In the first Co4+ site, Co4+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form CoO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO4 tetrahedra and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Co–O bond distances ranging from 1.89–1.93 Å. In the second Co4+ site, Co4+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form CoO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO4 tetrahedra and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Co–O bond distances ranging from 1.89–1.93 Å. In the third Co4+ site, Co4+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form CoO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO4 tetrahedra and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Co–O bond distances ranging from 1.89–1.93 Å. In the fourth Co4+ site, Co4+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form CoO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO4 tetrahedra and edges with six NiO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Co–O bond distances ranging from 1.89–1.93 Å. There are twelve inequivalent Ni+3.33+ sites. In the first Ni+3.33+ site, Ni+3.33+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO4 tetrahedra, edges with two CoO6 octahedra, and edges with four NiO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.87–1.91 Å. In the second Ni+3.33+ site, Ni+3.33+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO4 tetrahedra, edges with two CoO6 octahedra, and edges with four NiO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.91–2.05 Å. In the third Ni+3.33+ site, Ni+3.33+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO4 tetrahedra, edges with two CoO6 octahedra, and edges with four NiO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.86–1.91 Å. In the fourth Ni+3.33+ site, Ni+3.33+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO4 tetrahedra, edges with two CoO6 octahedra, and edges with four NiO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.86–1.91 Å. In the fifth Ni+3.33+ site, Ni+3.33+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO4 tetrahedra, edges with two CoO6 octahedra, and edges with four NiO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.92–2.06 Å. In the sixth Ni+3.33+ site, Ni+3.33+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO4 tetrahedra, edges with two CoO6 octahedra, and edges with four NiO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.87–1.91 Å. In the seventh Ni+3.33+ site, Ni+3.33+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO4 tetrahedra, edges with two CoO6 octahedra, and edges with four NiO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.87–1.91 Å. In the eighth Ni+3.33+ site, Ni+3.33+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO4 tetrahedra, edges with two CoO6 octahedra, and edges with four NiO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.92–2.06 Å. In the ninth Ni+3.33+ site, Ni+3.33+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO4 tetrahedra, edges with two CoO6 octahedra, and edges with four NiO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.86–1.91 Å. In the tenth Ni+3.33+ site, Ni+3.33+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO4 tetrahedra, edges with two CoO6 octahedra, and edges with four NiO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.86–1.91 Å. In the eleventh Ni+3.33+ site, Ni+3.33+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO4 tetrahedra, edges with two CoO6 octahedra, and edges with four NiO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.91–2.05 Å. In the twelfth Ni+3.33+ site, Ni+3.33+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form NiO6 octahedra that share corners with six LiO4 tetrahedra, edges with two CoO6 octahedra, and edges with four NiO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Ni–O bond distances ranging from 1.88–1.91 Å. There are thirty-two inequivalent O2- sites. In the first O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms to form distorted OLiCoNi2 trigonal pyramids that share corners with two OLiCoNi2 tetrahedra, corners with three OLiCoNi2 trigonal pyramids, an edgeedge with one OLiNi3 tetrahedra, and an edgeedge with one OLiCoNi2 trigonal pyramid. In the second O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms. In the third O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+ and three Ni+3.33+ atoms to form a mixture of distorted edge and corner-sharing OLiNi3 tetrahedra. In the fourth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms to form a mixture of distorted edge and corner-sharing OLiCoNi2 tetrahedra. In the fifth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms. In the sixth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li1+ and three Ni+3.33+ atoms. In the seventh O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms. In the eighth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms to form distorted OLiCoNi2 trigonal pyramids that share corners with two OLiNi3 tetrahedra, corners with four OLiCoNi2 trigonal pyramids, and an edgeedge with one OLiCoNi2 tetrahedra. In the ninth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms to form a mixture of distorted edge and corner-sharing OLiCoNi2 trigonal pyramids. In the tenth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms. In the eleventh O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li1+ and three Ni+3.33+ atoms. In the twelfth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms to form a mixture of distorted edge and corner-sharing OLiCoNi2 tetrahedra. In the thirteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms to form a mixture of distorted edge and corner-sharing OLiCoNi2 tetrahedra. In the fourteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li1+ and three Ni+3.33+ atoms. In the fifteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms. In the sixteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms to form a mixture of distorted edge and corner-sharing OLiCoNi2 trigonal pyramids. In the seventeenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms to form a mixture of distorted edge and corner-sharing OLiCoNi2 trigonal pyramids. In the eighteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms. In the nineteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li1+ and three Ni+3.33+ atoms. In the twentieth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms to form a mixture of distorted edge and corner-sharing OLiCoNi2 tetrahedra. In the twenty-first O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms to form a mixture of distorted edge and corner-sharing OLiCoNi2 tetrahedra. In the twenty-second O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li1+ and three Ni+3.33+ atoms. In the twenty-third O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms. In the twenty-fourth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms to form a mixture of distorted edge and corner-sharing OLiCoNi2 trigonal pyramids. In the twenty-fifth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms to form a mixture of distorted edge and corner-sharing OLiCoNi2 trigonal pyramids. In the twenty-sixth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms. In the twenty-seventh O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li1+ and three Ni+3.33+ atoms. In the twenty-eighth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms to form distorted OLiCoNi2 trigonal pyramids that share corners with two OLiCoNi2 tetrahedra, corners with three OLiCoNi2 trigonal pyramids, an edgeedge with one OLiNi3 tetrahedra, and an edgeedge with one OLiCoNi2 trigonal pyramid. In the twenty-ninth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms to form a mixture of distorted edge and corner-sharing OLiCoNi2 tetrahedra. In the thirtieth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+ and three Ni+3.33+ atoms to form a mixture of distorted edge and corner-sharing OLiNi3 tetrahedra. In the thirty-first O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms. In the thirty-second O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, one Co4+, and two Ni+3.33+ atoms to form distorted OLiCoNi2 trigonal pyramids that share corners with two OLiCoNi2 tetrahedra, corn

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2019

AmeriFlux CA-ER1 Elora Research Station

This is the AmeriFlux version of the carbon flux data for the site CA-ER1 Elora Research Station. Site Description - This is an agricultural site that typically grows corn. It is part of a larger research project on N2O fluxes from different fertilizer treatments. The site is relatively flat and homogenous. The site has been managed as agricultural land since the 1960’s and records exist of the previously-grown crops.

Wagner-Riddle, Claudia↗
DOE OSTI2020

AmeriFlux US-DFC US Dairy Forage Research Center, Prairie du Sac

This is the AmeriFlux version of the carbon flux data for the site US-DFC US Dairy Forage Research Center, Prairie du Sac. Site Description - Former US ammunition plant converted to dairy farm in 1980 with annual and perennial croplands mostly comprised of alfalfa, corn, soybean and wheat, with natural vegetation (forest, grass and shrubland), as well as pastures and and hedgerows surrounding the fields. During spring and summer months, dry cows and heifer graze on pastures.

Duff, Alison↗