SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “High Altitude Operations”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

66 records · Page 4

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

High-Spectral Resolution Lidar (HSRL) Instrument Handbook

High-spectral-resolution lidar (HSRL) systems provide vertical profiles of optical depth, backscatter cross-section, depolarization, and backscatter phase function. All HSRL measurements are calibrated by reference to molecular scattering, which is measured at each point in the lidar profile. Like the Raman lidar (RL), but unlike simple backscatter lidars such as the micropulse lidar (MPL), this enables the HSRL to measure backscatter cross-sections and optical depths without prior assumptions about the scattering properties of the atmosphere. The depolarization observations allow robust discrimination between ice and water clouds. Rigorous error estimates can be computed for all measurements. A very narrow angular field of view reduces multiple scattering contributions. The small field of view, coupled with a narrow optical bandwidth, nearly eliminates noise due to scattered sunlight. The laser transmitter is a diode-pumped, frequency-doubled Nd:YAG laser. Narrow-band, single-frequency operation is provided by injection seeding with a single-frequency, cw-diode-pumped diode laser. The main laser cavity is maintained in resonance with the seed laser by adjusting the cavity length to minimize the time between the Q-switch trigger and the emission of the laser pulse. The emission wavelength is tuned via temperature control of the seed laser crystal and is locked to line #1109 of the iodine absorption spectra. Locking is accomplished by minimizing the transmission through a 2-cm-long iodine absorption cell. Use of a high-repetition-rate laser and expansion of the transmitted beam through a 400-mm telescope reduces the transmitted energy density to eye-safe levels. It is possible to look directly into the output beam without hazard. The receiver and transmitter use the same afocal telescope, simplifying the maintenance of stable alignment of the transmitter and receiver although the angular FOV is only 100 μrad. The small FOV and the 4-kHz repetition rate also limit the near-field signal strength, making it possible to record continuous profiles that start at an altitude of ~100 m and extend to 30 km using photon counting detectors. The small FOV also suppresses multiple scattering contributions.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Upper-air soundings collected during the CROCUS Urban Canyons 2024 campaign in Chicago, Illinois USA

Funded by the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research program, Community Research on Climate and Urban Science (CROCUS) studies urban climate change and the impact it has on communities, with particular focus on disinvested, under-resourced communities. This information leads to new insights on urban climate challenges and informs future actions for mitigating and adapting to climate change at the street, neighborhood and regional levels.As part of the CROCUS effort, the Urban Canyons 2024 project was undertaken to study conditions at unprecedented detail over various neighborhoods in Chicago, Illinois. This dataset consists of upper air soundings that were collected as part of this effort. Soundings were launched during two intensive observing periods, IOP1 occurred on 22-23 July 2024, while IOP2 occurred on 27-28 July 2024. For IOP1, soundings were launched at coordinated times from three sites, Shedd Aquarium in Downtown Chicago, Abizu Campus High School in Humboldt Park, and Gary Comer Youth Center in West Woodlawn. For IOP2, the Gary Comer site was replaced by a neighborhood site in West Woodlawn, Chicago. The Abizu Campos site was operated by Valparaiso University and used iMET-4 rawinsondes, the other sites were operated by the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and used GRAW DFM-19 sondes.This dataset contains netCDF files containing quality-controlled temperature, dewpoint, geopotential height, pressure, and vector wind measurements at 1 second intervals following launch. These files are readable by the open-source netCDF software libraries available in many software packages (i.e., python, R, fortran, C++, etc.). The dataset also contains quicklook plots of each launch on a skew-T log-p thermodynamic diagram. These are in png format viewable by most web browsers.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Stratospheric temperature measurements from nanosatellite stellar occultation observations of refractive bending

Abstract. Stellar occultation observations from space can probe the stratosphere and mesosphere at a fine vertical scale around the globe. Unlike other measurement techniques like radiosondes and aircraft, stellar occultation has the potential to observe the atmosphere above 30 km, and unlike radio occultation, stellar occultation probes fine-scale phenomena with potential to observe atmospheric turbulence. We imaged the refractive bending angle of a star centroid for a series of occultations by the atmosphere. Atmospheric refractivity, density, and then temperature are retrieved from the bending observations with the Abel transformation and Edlén's law, the hydrostatic equation, and the ideal gas law. The retrieval technique is applied to data collected by two nanosatellites operated by Terran Orbital. Measurements were primarily taken by the GEOStare SV2 mission, with a dedicated imaging telescope, supplemented with images captured by spacecraft bus sensors, namely the star trackers on other Terran Orbital missions. The bending angle noise floor is 10 and 30 arcsec for the star tracker and GEOStare SV2 data, respectively. The most significant sources of uncertainty are due to centroiding errors due to the fairly low-resolution stellar images and telescope pointing knowledge derived from noisy satellite attitude sensors. The former mainly affects the star tracker data, while the latter limits the GEOStare SV2 accuracy, with both providing low vertical resolution. This translates to a temperature profile retrieval up to roughly 20 km for both star tracker and GEOStare SV2 datasets. In preparation of an upcoming 2023 mission designed to correct these deficiencies, SOHIP, we simulated bending angle measurements with varying magnitudes of error. The expected maximum altitude of retrieved temperature is 41 km on average for these simulated measurements with a noise floor of 0.39 arcsec. Our work highlights the capabilities of stellar occultation observations from nanosatellites for atmospheric sounding. Future work will investigate high-frequency observations of atmospheric gravity waves and turbulence, mitigating the major uncertainties observed in these datasets.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Identifying a regional aerosol baseline in the eastern North Atlantic using collocated measurements and a mathematical algorithm to mask high-submicron-number-concentration aerosol events

Abstract. High-time-resolution measurements of in situ aerosol and cloud properties provide the ability to study regional atmospheric processes that occur on timescales of minutes to hours. However, one limitation to this approach is that continuous measurements often include periods when the data collected are not representative of the regional aerosol. Even at remote locations, submicron aerosols are pervasive in the ambient atmosphere with many sources. Therefore, periods dominated by local aerosol should be identified before conducting subsequent analyses to understand aerosol regional processes and aerosol–cloud interactions. Here, we present a novel method to validate the identification of regional baseline aerosol data by applying a mathematical algorithm to the data collected at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility in the eastern North Atlantic (ENA). The ENA central facility (C1) includes an aerosol observing system (AOS) for the measurement of aerosol physical, optical, and chemical properties at time resolutions from seconds to minutes. A second temporary supplementary facility (S1), located ∼0.75 km from C1, was deployed for ∼1 year during the Aerosol and Cloud Experiments (ACE-ENA) campaign in 2017. First, we investigate the local aerosol at both locations. We associate periods of high submicron number concentration (Ntot) in the fine-mode condensation particle counter (CPC) and size distributions from the Ultra-High Sensitivity Aerosol Spectrometer (UHSAS) as a function of wind direction using a meteorology sensor with local sources. Elevated concentrations of Aitken-mode (< 100 nm diameter) particles were observed in correspondence with the wind directions associated with airport operations. At ENA, the Graciosa Airport and its associated activities were found to be the main sources of high-concentration aerosol events at ENA, causing peaks in 1 min Ntot that exceeded 8000 and 10 000 cm−3 at C1, in summer and winter, respectively, and 5000 cm−3 at S1 in summer. Periods with high Ntot not associated with these wind directions were also observed. As a result, the diverse local sources at ENA yielded a poor relationship between Ntot measurements collected at C1 and S1 (R2=0.03 with a slope =0.05±0.001). As a first approach to mask these events, the time periods when the wind direction was associated with the airport operations (west to northwest and southeast to south at C1 and east to south at S1) were applied. The meteorological masks removed 38.9 % of the data at C1 and 43.4 % at S1, and they did not significantly improve the relationship between the two sites (R2=0.18 with a slope =0.06±0.001). Due to the complexity of high-Ntot events observed at ENA, we develop and validate a mathematical ENA Aerosol Mask (ENA-AM) to identify high-Ntot events using 1 min resolution data from the AOS CPC at C1 and S1. After its parameterization and application, ENA-AM generated a high correlation between Ntot in the summer at C1 and S1 (R2=0.87 with a slope =0.84±0.001). We identified the regional baseline at ENA to be 428±228 cm−3 in the summer and 346±223 cm−3 in the winter. Lastly, we compared masked measurements from the AOS with the ARM Aerial Facility (AAF) during flights over C1 in the summer to understand submicron aerosol vertical mixing over C1. The high correlation (R2=0.71 with a slope of 1.04±0.01) observed between C1 and the AAF Ntot collected within an area of 10 km surrounding ENA and at altitudes < 500 m indicated that the submicron aerosol at ENA was well mixed within the first 500 m of the marine boundary layer during the month of July during ACE-ENA. Our novel method for determining a regional aerosol baseline at ENA can be applied to other time periods and at other locations with validation by a secondary site or additional collocated measurements.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Million Worker Study

Radiation health issues have been an important aspect of DOE's Worker Safety and Health programs. The goal is to ensure that workers are adequately protected from the various radiological hazards associated with DOE sites and operations. Since the early 1940’s DOE has supported the conduct of epidemiologic studies of practically every DOE (AEC) facility and collected these data, now managed by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), in remarkable detail. In the early 2000s, the Office of Health, Safety and Security authorized access to specific DOE worker datasets. Shortly thereafter, the DOE Office of Science provided funds for a pilot study that confirmed the feasibility of the Million Worker Study (MWS), and then additional resources were provided (with other agencies) to extend the follow-up of many populations, not just DOE workers, but also atomic veterans, industrial radiographers, nuclear power plant workers and medical radiation workers (the Million Persons Study (MPS)). This proposal was a continuation of support provided by DOE, specifically to extend the follow-up of the worker populations at the Mallinckrodt Chemical Works (MCW) and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The work addresses DOE’s interest in clarifying the health risks of their workers as well as contributing knowledge on radiation risks that is relevant today with regard to compensation schemes. The findings are also important for the US public in light of the increased population exposure to medical imaging, environmental circumstances such as hydraulic fracturing, increased exposures during high altitude flights, and with regard to nuclear accidents such as Fukushima and possible terrorist events. Furthermore, it is important to consider reducing the uncertainty in current risk estimates by developing risk coefficients based on healthy American workers who are more representative of U.S. workers and the general public than 1945 Japanese survivors of the atomic bombs living in a war-torn country which experienced deprivation, malnourishment, and increased rates of infections and other diseases. But more importantly, it is important to learn whether radiation exposures received gradually over time (e.g., years) are more or less effective in causing health effects, cancer in particular, than if the radiation dose is received all at once in a fraction of a second as experienced by the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Finally, the ability to evaluate and combine large populations with intakes of radionuclides such as uranium, radium, plutonium, americium and polonium will provide new quantitative knowledge on human health effects that hitherto has not been possible. This cost-efficient study has built on the investments made and foundations laid by investigators and government agencies, including DOE, over the past 30-40 years, which have established early worker cohorts that can now provide answers to questions on the lifetime human health risks associated with low-level radiation exposures. Collaborating institutions included: International Epidemiology Institute, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Landauer, Inc., and Vanderbilt University. Follow-up of these two populations and the integration of them with the many other cohorts (now a total of 31) in the MPS continues under a separate DOE grant (DE-AU0000046).

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Hydrogen Leak Modeling for Development of Smart Distributed Monitoring Under Unintended Releases

Hydrogen is a versatile and clean energy carrier that can be produced from various renewable sources such as wind, solar, and hydropower. Hydrogen has the potential to play a crucial role in decarbonizing industrial processes that are currently reliant on fossil fuels and provide long-duration and/or seasonal energy storage to enable electricity decarbonization. Hydrogen can also be used as a fuel for fuel cell vehicles, providing a zero-emission alternative to traditional internal combustion engines. DOE launched the Hydrogen Energy Earthshot (Hydrogen Shot) in June 2021 to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen by 80% to $1 per 1 kilogram in 1 decade ("1 1 1"). While promising, Hydrogen is highly-flammable, and in the presence of oxygen, it can form explosive mixtures. . Therefore, understanding leak scenarios is essential to evaluate and mitigate the safety risks associated with potential hydrogen leaks. An increased understanding of leak behavior, and having tools to model leaks, can help assess how hydrogen would disperse in different environments, influencing emergency response plans and safety measures, and identify potential issues with materials and design systems that can withstand the challenges posed by hydrogen. Recently, researchers have attempted to study hydrogen leaks for development of risk management strategies. However, the focus has been on closed or semi-closed spaces like storage rooms, vehicles, garages, and fueling stations - all promising locations for future hydrogen infrastructure. In this presentation, the modeling environment extends the span of research further by modeling hydrogen leak in an outdoor, open space. We will present the key challenges with modeling hydrogen leaks in an uncontrollable environment, how they were handled, and how modeling results informed sensor selection and placement. A Hydrogen research facility at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) was used as a case study to model hydrogen leaks. In the future, Hydrogen wide area detection methodologies will be developed and tested at this site to monitor for unintended and operational hydrogen releases. The data generated from modeling will be used to develop a predictive model to detect hydrogen leak location based on concentration measured by sensors in this open space. Furthermore, the facility was also chosen because controlled hydrogen releases can be performed. A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) based modeling approach was taken to model hydrogen leak. The full-scale hydrogen facility was modeled with a large ambient domain. The electrolyzer at the facility can produce a controlled release rate of 27 kg-H2/hr. Site-specific atmospheric and weather condition data such as wind direction, wind speed at various altitudes, and temperature were used as inputs to the model. To capture the variability of weather conditions, a subset of the weather conditions experienced during daytime hours without precipitation over the course of three months was generated; using established data clustering techniques, a total of 100 condition sets were chosen. The results show statistical distributions and ranges of hydrogen concentrations at locations throughout the domain. These distributions are compared to experimental data from a constant mass flow, controlled hydrogen release at the facility. The stochastic wind conditions of the release make direct validation difficult, therefore, statistical comparison approaches were used. Wind conditions are found to significantly impact the release behavior, including direction and concentration. Sensor selection and placement is proposed for the facility and is now based on release behavior predicted for the facility given its weather patterns; this is much more informed than without the modeling results. The methodology and analysis procedure can be translated to other facilities using modified geometries and site-specific weather conditions. Hydrogen holds great promise as a renewable energy fuel, but ensuring safety in its production, storage, and use is paramount. Studying potential leak scenarios in an open space will help develop sensors to detect hydrogen on a large spectrum of concentration and eventually build a smart distributed monitoring system.

CFD↗

DOE OSTI2020

Data-driven analysis of relight variability of jet fuels induced by turbulence

For safety purposes, reliable reignition of aircraft engines in the event of flame blow-out is a critical requirement. Typically, an external ignition source in the form of a spark is used to achieve a stable flame in the combustor. However, such forced turbulent ignition may not always successfully relight the combustor, mainly because the state of the combustor cannot be precisely determined. Uncertainty in the turbulent flow inside the combustor, inflow conditions, and spark discharge characteristics can lead to variability in sparking outcomes even for nominally identical operating conditions. Prior studies have shown that of all the uncertain parameters, turbulence is often dominant and can drastically alter ignition behavior. For instance, even when different fuels have similar ignition delay times, their ignition behavior in practical systems can be completely different. In practical operating conditions, it is challenging to understand why ignition fails and how much variation in outcomes can be expected. The focus of this work is to understand relight variability induced by turbulence for two different aircraft fuels, namely Jet-A and a variant named C1. A detailed, previously developed simulation approach is used to generate a large number of successful and failed ignition events. Using this data, the cause of misfire is evaluated based on a discriminant analysis that delineates the difference between turbulent initial conditions that lead to ignition or failure. From the discriminant analysis, a compressed sensing algorithm is then applied to help pinpoint the locations of relevant turbulent features. Findings from the discriminant analysis are confirmed with the time history of near kernel properties. Next, a clustering strategy is used to identify ignition and misfire modes. With this approach, it was determined that the cause of ignition failure is different for the two fuels. While it was found that Jet-A is influenced by fuel entrainment, C1 was found to be more sensitive to small scale turbulence features. Finally, a larger variability is found in the ignition modes of C1, which can be subject to extreme events induced by kernel breakdown.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2023

Ice Cryo-Encapsulation Balloon (Project ICEBall) Field Campaign Report

The Ice Cryo-Encapsulation Balloon (ICEBall) field campaign was designed to sample the ice crystals that compose high-altitude cirrus with a passive device. The campaign made use of a new instrument, ICEBall, which is a balloon-borne ice crystal sampling system. The ice crystal sounding system is capable of measuring ice crystal concentration, temperature, atmospheric pressure, ice crystal habit, aerosol particle morphology, and residual composition. The 3-kg instrument is carried upwards at 5 m s-1 by a high-altitude balloon. The instrument can be cut down from the balloon at any altitude up to 20 km, and the apparatus returns to the surface by parachute. Basic measurements such as temperature and pressure are recorded onboard, and high-frequency Global Positioning System (GPS) records altitude and latitude/longitude. Ice crystal concentrations are measured through the use of a high-resolution video camera mounted on the device. Ice crystals are collected through an open aperture leading to insulated collection chambers cooled with dry ice. Upon exiting the top of the cloud system, the chamber aperture is closed, and the ~1 mm3 sample cell is magnetically sealed and isolated at -78 °C, ensuring that ice particles do not sublimate or grow after collection. Once the crystals are returned to the surface, they are double-sealed and immersed at liquid nitrogen temperature in “dry-cryo shippers” before being transported back to the laboratory. Dr. Magee’s laboratory at The College of New Jersey contains a cryo-stage scanning electron microscope (SEM), which was used to interrogate the crystals and aerosol particles. The main purpose of this pilot field campaign was to provide an unprecedented level of detail on the crystal habits and ice surface complexity in mid-latitude cirrus, which may help resolve issues associated with habit identification and classification in cirrus. The ICEBall campaign was originally scheduled to run from March 28 to April 18 of 2021 at the U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Southern Great Plains observatory. The COVID-19 pandemic intervened and caused us to shift the dates of the experiment to October 16-November 6 of 2021. This period is also climatologically favorable for cirrus. The approximately six-month gap between our original field campaign dates and the actual dates afforded us the opportunity to build two new ICEBall payload instruments. These instruments were tested during an August 2021 trip to The College of New Jersey. During this field testing phase, we decided to launch the ICEBall payload upstream from the ARM SGP site with the goal of landing in the vicinity of the site. Our goal was to sample the ice crystals before the cirrus were advected over the remote-sensing instruments at the SGP site. The team assembled for the field campaign consisted of the Principle Investigator (PI) and Co-Principle Investigator (Co-PI) (Drs. Harrington and Magee), The Pennsylvania State University research scientist Dr. Alfred Moyle, and two graduate students (Ms. Marley Majetic and Gwenore Pokrifka). The team operated out of a house rented in Enid, Oklahoma. We successfully sampled seven cirrus cloud systems during the three-week field campaign (October 21, 23-26, 31, and November 1). This was a much higher success rate than either of the PIs anticipated (our goal was closer to sampling three or four cases). The balloon was typically launched from oil pads or farm fields northwest of Enid and the payload was typically retrieved somewhat north of the SGP site. We never landed directly at the SGP site, and so did not need regular access to the SGP facilities. Our greatest concern going into the field campaign was the longer-term storage of crystals in the -196°C cryo dry-shipper dewars and the subsequent transport across the country. We had tested storage and transport prior to the field campaign, but we had never stored crystals for a few weeks nor had we transported the dewars over long distances. To our great relief, the storage and transport worked flawlessly and we were able to image a large number of crystals from six of the seven cases. Working with the staff at the ARM SGP office was excellent. They not only helped us find the sources we needed for helium, liquid nitrogen, and other materials, but also helped with contacts within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Vance Air Force Base. One goal of our field project was to tie the in situ measurements of ice crystal habits to the radar signatures derived from the Ka-band ARM Zenith-pointing Radar (KAZR). Unfortunately KAZR was down for the duration of our experiment. However, the Ka-band Scanning ARM Cloud Radar (KASACR) was put into vertically pointing mode during the ICEBall campaign and those data, along with Doppler lidar measurements, have proved very useful.

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↗

DOE OSTI2022

Comparison of scattering ratio profiles retrieved from ALADIN/Aeolus and CALIOP/CALIPSO observations and preliminary estimates of cloud fraction profiles

The space-borne active sounders have been contributing invaluable vertically resolved information of atmospheric optical properties since the launch of Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) in 2006. To build long-term records from space-borne lidars useful for climate studies, one has to understand the differences between successive space lidars operating at different wavelengths, flying on different orbits, and using different viewing geometries, receiving paths, and detectors. In this article, we compare the results of Atmospheric Laser Doppler INstrument (ALADIN) and Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization (CALIOP) lidars for the period from 28 June to 31 December 2019. First, we build a dataset of ALADIN–CALIOP collocated profiles (Δdist<1°; Δtime<6 h). Then we convert ALADIN's 355 nm particulate backscatter and extinction profiles into the scattering ratio vertical profiles SR(z) at 532 nm using molecular density profiles from Goddard Earth Observing System Data Assimilation System, version 5 (GEOS-5 DAS). And finally, we build the CALIOP and ALADIN globally gridded cloud fraction profiles CF(z) by applying the same cloud detection threshold to the SR(z) profiles of both lidars at the same spatial resolution. Before comparing the SR(z) and CF(z) profiles retrieved from the two analyzed lidar missions, we performed a numerical experiment to estimate the best achievable cloud detection agreement CDA norm (z) considering the differences between the instruments. We define CDA norm (z) in each latitude–altitude bin as the occurrence frequency of cloud layers detected by both lidars, divided by a cloud fraction value for the same latitude–altitude bin. We simulated the SR(z) and CF(z) profiles that would be observed by these two lidars if they were flying over the same atmosphere predicted by a global model. By analyzing these simulations, we show that the theoretical limit for CDA$_{norm}^{theor}$(z) for a combination of ALADIN and CALIOP instruments is equal to 0.81±0.07 at all altitudes. In other words, 19 % of the clouds cannot be detected simultaneously by two instruments due to said differences. The analyses of the actual observed CALIOP–ALADIN collocated dataset containing ~78 000 pairs of nighttime SR(z) profiles revealed the following points: (a) the values of SR(z) agree well up to ~3 km height. (b) The CF(z) profiles show agreement below ~3 km, where ~80 % of the clouds detected by CALIOP are detected by ALADIN as expected from the numerical experiment. (c) Above this height, the CDA$_{norm}^{obs}$(z) reduces to ~50 %. (d) On average, better sensitivity to lower clouds skews ALADIN's cloud peak height in pairs of ALADIN–CALIOP profiles by ~0.5±0.6 km downwards, but this effect does not alter the heights of polar stratospheric clouds and high tropical clouds thanks to their strong backscatter signals. (e) The temporal evolution of the observed CDA$_{norm}^{obs}$(z) does not reveal any statistically significant change during the considered period. This indicates that the instrument-related issues in ALADIN L0/L1 have been mitigated, at least down to the uncertainties of the following CDA$_{norm}^{obs}$(z) values: 68±12 %, 55±14 %, 34±14 %, 39±13 %, and 42±14 % estimated at 0.75, 2.25, 6.75, 8.75, and 10.25 km, respectively.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

Version 4 CALIPSO Imaging Infrared Radiometer ice and liquid water cloud microphysical properties – Part I: The retrieval algorithms

Following the release of the version 4 Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization (CALIOP) data products from the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations (CALIPSO) mission, a new version (version 4; V4) of the CALIPSO Imaging Infrared Radiometer (IIR) Level 2 data products has been developed. The IIR Level 2 data products include cloud effective emissivities and cloud microphysical properties such as effective diameter and ice or liquid water path estimates. Dedicated retrievals for water clouds were added in V4, taking advantage of the high sensitivity of the IIR retrieval technique to small particle sizes. This paper (Part I) describes the improvements in the V4 algorithms compared to those used in the version 3 (V3) release, while results will be presented in a companion (Part II) paper. The IIR Level 2 algorithm has been modified in the V4 data release to improve the accuracy of the retrievals in clouds of very small (close to 0) and very large (close to 1) effective emissivities. To reduce biases at very small emissivities that were made evident in V3, the radiative transfer model used to compute clear-sky brightness temperatures over oceans has been updated and tuned for the simulations using Modern-Era Retrospective analysis for Research and Applications version 2 (MERRA-2) data to match IIR observations in clear-sky conditions. Furthermore, the clear-sky mask has been refined compared to V3 by taking advantage of additional information now available in the V4 CALIOP 5 km layer products used as an input to the IIR algorithm. After sea surface emissivity adjustments, observed and computed brightness temperatures differ by less than ±0.2 K at night for the three IIR channels centered at 08.65, 10.6, and 12.05 µm, and inter-channel biases are reduced from several tens of Kelvin in V3 to less than 0.1 K in V4. We have also improved retrievals in ice clouds having large emissivity by refining the determination of the radiative temperature needed for emissivity computation. The initial V3 estimate, namely the cloud centroid temperature derived from CALIOP, is corrected using a parameterized function of temperature difference between cloud base and top altitudes, cloud absorption optical depth, and CALIOP multiple scattering correction factor. As shown in Part II, this improvement reduces the low biases at large optical depths that were seen in V3 and increases the number of retrievals. As in V3, the IIR microphysical retrievals use the concept of microphysical indices applied to the pairs of IIR channels at 12.05 and 10.6 µm and at 12.05 and 08.65 µm. The V4 algorithm uses ice look-up tables (LUTs) built using two ice habit models from the recent “TAMUice2016” database, namely the single-hexagonal-column model and the eight-element column aggregate model, from which bulk properties are synthesized using a gamma size distribution. Four sets of effective diameters derived from a second approach are also reported in V4. Here, the LUTs are analytical functions relating microphysical index applied to IIR channels 12.05 and 10.6 µm and effective diameter as derived from in situ measurements at tropical and midlatitudes during the Tropical Composition, Cloud, and Climate Coupling (TC4) and Small Particles in Cirrus Science and Operations Plan (SPARTICUS) field experiments.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

Combined Mesonet and Tracker

Title: Combined Mesonet and Trackers (UNL Mobile Mesonets) Authors University of Nebraska PI: Adam Houston, UNL Professor (ahouston2@unl.edu) Mailing Address: 126 Bessey Hall P.O. Box 880340 Lincoln, NE 68588-0340 CoMeT Overview The University of Nebraska-Lincoln operates three Combined Mesonet and Tracker (CoMeTs). CoMeTs are Ford Explorers (model years 2015, 2017, and 2019) with forward-mounted suites of meteorological sensors and dual moonroofs, combining the capability of a mobile mesonet to collect near-surface observations with the capability of an unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) tracker vehicle, which enables an observer in the second row of seats to see the aircraft and maintain compliance with Federal Aviation Administration policies on UAS operation. The CoMeTs collect observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155A, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass (Barbieri et al. 2019). The HMP155A and 109SS-L thermistor are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). This list of sensors is also included in the CoMeT data file metadata. Manufacturer specifications for these instruments are given in Table 1 of Hanft and Houston (2018). The reported measured quantities are summarized below.CoMeT-3 was funded through an equipment allocation included in the NSF TORUS award (AGS-1824649). Instrument Description The specific sensors included on each CoMeT are summarized in the table at the end of this section. In general each CoMeT collects observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210 barometer with a Gill pressure port, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, position using a Garmin 19x HVS receiver, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass. The HMP155 and 109SS are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). Fast temperature and corrected RH measurements (using sensors housed within the U-tube) have a time constant of 10-12 s based on data collected across a temperature and RH shock during the CLOUD-MAP 2017 calibration/validation tests on June 26, 2017. Vehicle speed was < 10 kts for this test. CoMeT-1 CoMeT-2 CoMeT-3 Slow Temperature Slow RH Vaisala HMP155A-L20-PT Part #: 22280-7 Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Fast temperature Campbell Scientific 109SS-L20-PT Part #: 21448-3 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-109 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-150 Pressure Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Wind RM Young 05103-L20-PT Part #: 18435-310 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 GPS Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Compass KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 Logger Campbell Scientific CR6-NA-XT-SW Part #: 28385-9 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Data Collection and Real-Time Processing The reported measured quantities are summarized in the table below. Quantity Units Source Epoch time Seconds GPS Latitude and longitude Degrees GPS Altitude m GPS Pressure hPa PTB210 Temperature (fast) deg C 109SS-L Temperature (slow) deg C HMP155 RH (slow) % HMP155 Vehicle speed m/s GPS Vehicle heading deg C-100 and GPS In addition to the measured variables, several derived variables are calculated. Corrected/fast relative humidity (%) Relative humidity is adjusted to the fast temperature following Richardson et al. (1998) and Houston et al. (2016). Water vapor mixing ratio (g/kg) Dew point temperature (°C) Potential temperature (Kelvin) Virtual potential temperature (Kelvin) Equivalent potential temperature (Kelvin) Regular intercomparisons between all three CoMeTs were performed during TORUS 2019. Comparisons were also conducted between CoMeT-1 and CoMeT-2 during LAPSE-RATE (2018) on 14 July. In these intercomparisons, the vehicles were parked adjacent to each other aligned perpendicular to (and facing into) the wind. To minimize engine heating effects, intercomparisons were only conducted when the wind speed was >10 kts. Data Format Original data files for each deployment are saved as text files and then converted to NetCDF. NetCDF versions have units that are CF compliant and may not match the original units in the txt files. The naming convention for the NetCDF files is as follows: UNL.CoMeT3.{deployment date YYYYMMDD}.{start time of observation collection in UTC HHMM}.L2.{post-processing codes}.cdf example: UNL.CoMeT3.20190627.1931.L2.g1.f1.cdf Post-processing codes are included to track modifications to the raw data. These codes are closely connected to error flags associated with each record. Each letter corresponds to a particular instrument: g: GPS p: Barometer tf: Fast temperature ts: Slow temperature rh: Relative humidity f: Compass w: Wind monitor a: All instruments Each number corresponds to a particular post-processing action described more below. Measured and derived variables are included in the following table. Variable Heading Standard Name Units time Time seconds since 00:00:00, 01-01-1970 Alt Altitude meters lat Latitude degrees north lon Longitude degrees east fast_temp Air Temperature kelvin slow_temp Air Temperature kelvin pressure Air Pressure pascals logger_RH Relative Humidity percent calc_corr_RH Relative Humidity percent wind_speed Wind Speed meters per second wind_dir Wind From Direction degrees vehicle_dir Vehicle Direction degrees dewpoint Dew Point Temperature kelvin mixing_ratio Humidity Mixing Ratio g/g theta Air Potential Temperature kelvin theta_v Virtual Potential Temperature kelvin theta_e Equivalent Potential Temperature Kelvin error_flag The error_flag variable is a string that matches the post-processing codes listed above. All instruments will have an associated code, but will have a “0” if the datum is unchanged from the initial processed value. Error Codes The following table summarizes the error codes for data collected before 2020: Error Code Relevant CoMeT Description g1 1,2,3 Exact correction. GPS position and time reprocessed from raw data g2 1 As far as we can tell this is an exact correction to an error in the GPS time. During the correct time periods the time suddenly went backwards ~250s and stayed at this offset for 750s when it corrected itself. The offset was applied to the “time warp” period. p1 2 Approximate correction. Hole in the pressure tube connecting the pressure port to the barometer. Resulted in erroneously low air pressure measurements when the vehicle was in motion. Derived variables recalculated (dew point temperature [e depends on qv and p], water vapor mixing ratio, potential temperature, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) a1 3 Exact correction. Missing data reprocessed from raw data a2 1 Bug fix to bias correction for ts1, ts2, and rh1: water vapor mixing ratio was off by a factor of 10 and virtual potential temperature was wrong because of this. f1 3 No correction, missing data. Fluxgate compass inoperable. Wind speed and direction calculated using GPS-derived vehicle heading instead. rh1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.7% removed from relative humidity. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +0.6 K removed from slow temperature. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts2 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.0 K removed. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) References Bolton, D., 1980: The Computation of Equivalent Potential Temperature. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1046–1053, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1980)108<1046:TCOEPT>2.0.CO;2. Hanft, W., and A. L. Houston, 2018: An Observational and Modeling Study of Mesoscale Air Masses with High Theta-E. Mon. Wea. Rev., 146, 2503–2524, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0389.1.Wexler Houston, A. L., R. J. Laurence III, T. W. Nichols, S. Waugh, B. Argrow, and C. L. Ziegler, 2016: Intercomparison of unmanned aircraft-borne and mobile mesonet atmospheric sensors. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. 33, 1569-1582, doi: 10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0178.1. Lowe, P. R., 1977: An Approximating Polynomial for the Computation of Saturation Vapor Pressure. J. Applied Meteorology, 16, 100–103. Richardson, S. J., S. E. Frederickson, F. V. Brock, and J. A. Brotzge, 1998: Combination temperature and relative humidity probes: Avoiding large air temperature errors and associated relative humidity errors. Preprints, 10th Symp. On Meteorological Observations and Instrumentation, Phoenix, AZ, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 278–283. Waugh, S., and S. E. Frederickson, 2010: An improved aspirated temperature system for mobile meteorological observations, especially in severe weather. 25th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Denver, CO, Amer. Meteor. Soc., P5.2. [Available online at https://ams.confex.com/ams/25SLS/techprogram/paper_176205.htm.]

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗