SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “WATER CONTENT”
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.
Influence of Water Content on Crushed Salt Pressure Solution Creep Rate: A Capillary & Sorption Model
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Characterizing soil water content variability across spatial scales from optimized high-resolution distributed temperature sensing technique
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Prominent role of organics in aerosol liquid water content over the south-eastern Atlantic during biomass burning season
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Estimating Ice Water Content for Winter Storms from Millimeter-Wavelength Radar Measurements Using a Synthesis of Polarimetric and Dual-Frequency Radar Observations
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Investigating Morphology and Diffusion in Simulations of Precise Anion-Conducting Polymers
Using atomistic molecular dynamics simulations, we investigate the morphology and transport properties of a new class of polymers which are functionalized with quaternary ammonium groups for use as anion exchange membranes. The polymers are precision polyolefins with either a trimethylammonium (p5CNMe3) or a dimethyl-hexyl ammonium (p5CNMe2Hx) pendant group at every fifth carbon along a polyethylene backbone. Simulations are performed at hydration levels of 5, 10, 15, and 20 water molecules per ammonium group. The hydrated polymers form nanoscale, percolated hydrophilic domains (water channels) in the hydrophobic polymer matrix that become wider with increasing water content. Water and hydroxide anion diffusion coefficients also increase with increasing water content. The morphology of the water domains is similar in both polymers, while the diffusion coefficients are somewhat lower in p5CNMe2Hx at fixed water content. Furthermore, the diffusion coefficients in both polymers fall on the same curve as a function of the fractal dimension of the percolated water channels, which appears to be a useful scalar measure of the effects of the nanoscale morphology on water and hydroxide anion transport.
Topographical shifts in fine root lifespan in a mixed, mesic temperate forest
Root lifespan, often is estimated in landscape- and ecosystem-level carbon models using linear approximations. In water manipulation experiments, fine root lifespan can vary with soil water content. Soil water content is generally structured by complex topography, which is largely unaccounted for in landscape- and ecosystem-scale carbon models. Topography governs the range of soil water content experienced by roots which may impact their lifespan. We hypothesized that root lifespan varied nonlinearly across a temperate, mesic, forested catchment due to differences in soil water content associated with topographic position. We expected regions of the landscape that were too wet or too dry would have soils that were not optimal for roots and thus result in shorter root lifespans. Specifically, we hypothesized that root lifespan would be longest in areas that consistently had soil water content in the middle of the soil water content spectrum, while in soils at either very low or very high soil water content, root lifespan would be relatively short. We tested this hypothesis by collecting and analyzing two years of minirhizotron and soil moisture data in plots widely distributed in the Shale Hills catchment of the Susquehanna-Shale Hills Critical Zone Observatory in Pennsylvania. We found that fine root lifespans were longer in traditionally wetter topographic regions, but detected no short term (biweekly) effect of soil moisture on root lifespan. Additionally, depth in soil, soil series, slope face orientation, and season of birth strongly affected root lifespans across the catchment. In contrast, lifespan was unaffected by root diameter or mycorrhizal association. Failure to account for these variables could result in erroneous estimates of fine root lifespan and, consequentially, carbon flux in temperate forested regions.
Bentonite buffer under high temperature: laboratory experiments and coupled process modeling
Abstract. Bentonite buffer in a geological repository will be simultaneously heated from decaying radioactive waste and hydrated from the surrounding host rock, triggering complex and coupled THMC (thermal–hydrological–mechanical–chemical) processes. Understanding the THMC behavior of bentonite-based engineered barrier system (EBS) is key to the evaluation and prediction of its long-term performance. Studies on the THMC process have been focused on conditions under 100 ∘C, as most design concepts impose a thermal limit of 100 ∘C in bentonite. Recently, studies under high-temperature conditions have been conducted to evaluate the possibility of raising the thermal limit and expanding the data/knowledge base to increase the confidence level. In this abstract, we present a series of bench-scale laboratory experiments at high temperatures (up to 200 ∘C) and the corresponding modeling work. Two sets of column tests were conducted, and each set consisted of two test columns: a control column undergoing only hydration (non-heated) and an experiment column experiencing both heating and hydration (heated). During the experiment, frequent X-ray computed tomography (CT) images were collected to provide a 3D visualization of the density distribution and present the spatiotemporal evolution of (1) hydration/dehydration, (2) clay swelling/shrinkage, (3) displacement, and (4) mineral precipitation. The two sets of tests differ with respect to several experimental conditions, such as bentonite type, compacted density and water content, water chemistry, and hydration pressure, but the important difference is that the first set used bentonite powder with a dry density of 1.28 g cm−3, whereas the second set used granulated bentonite (mixture of pellets and powder) with a dry density of 1.45–1.5 g cm−3. In both sets of experiments, a comprehensive post-dismantling characterization of bentonite samples was carried out after the column tests had been running for 1.5 years. Comparing non-heated and heated columns, the temperature gradient led to lower degree of homogenization of bentonite after bentonite became fully saturated; comparing the first and second sets, granulated and powdered bentonite exhibited drastically different hydration behavior. A THM model with a 2D axisymmetric grid system was used to interpret the data from the first set of tests. The model considers the combined impact of saturation, fluid pressure, and porosity change due to swelling/compression on the spatiotemporal distribution of bulk density and movement of the thermocouple modules. Observations from the tests help us understand the early perturbation of bentonite buffer under high temperature, and data from these tests improve the calibration of key constitutive hydrological and mechanical models and, therefore, enhance the modeling capability with respect to calculating the long-term evolution of bentonite buffer.
Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025
This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024
This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025
This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
What is the Role of Relative Humidity on Conductivity in Polymer Electrolytes?
Ion transport properties in polymer electrolytes have been widely studied under rigorously dry and highly water-swollen conditions. However, the transition between these extremes, i.e., the low hydration regime, is still poorly understood at the molecular level and relevant to applications ranging from battery electrolytes to electrophoretic separations. Here, in this study, we apply atomistic molecular dynamics simulations to probe the role of hydration on ion mobilities and conductivities in LiTFSI-doped polyethers at low water content (less than 10% water by volume), which corresponds to 0−80% relative humidity conditions. With increasing water content, Li + ions exhibit two distinct regimes in their mobilities. At low water content, the majority of the Li + ions are weakly hydrated (two or fewer water molecules per Li + ion), maintaining strong interactions with their polymer solvation cage, and therefore exhibit only a weak increase in mobility relative to dry conditions. As water content increases, Li + ions form complete hydration shells, residing within water-rich domains that promote faster mobilities. Further, Li + mobilities increase more significantly in polymer electrolytes composed of more hydrophilic polymers and higher salt concentrations due to the formation of larger water-rich domains. In contrast, TFSI − has comparatively weak interactions with both the polymer and water, exhibiting a monotonic increase in mobility as a function of water content. Overall, these results help clarify the molecular mechanisms underlying ionic mobilities and conductivities in polymer electrolytes at low water content.
Quantification of Residual Water in Spent Fuel Dry Storage Canisters Using Mass Spectrometry
The purpose of this report is to document updates on the apparatus to simulate commercial vacuum drying procedures at the Nuclear Energy Work Complex at Sandia National Laboratories. Validation of the extent of water removal in a dry spent nuclear fuel storage system based on drying procedures used at nuclear power plants is needed to close existing technical gaps. Operational conditions leading to incomplete drying may have potential impacts on the fuel, cladding, and other components in the system during subsequent storage and disposal, such as fuel degradation; cladding corrosion, embrittlement, or breaching; and the creation of a flammable environment via radiolysis of water. A general lack of data suitable for model validation of commercial nuclear canister drying processes necessitates well-designed investigations of drying process efficacy and water retention. Scaled tests that incorporate relevant physics and well-controlled boundary conditions are essential to provide insight and guidance to the simulation of prototypic systems undergoing drying processes. This report documents details on the quantification of residual water in the Advanced Drying Cycle Simulator (ADCS), an apparatus built to simulate commercial drying procedures and quantify the amount of residual water remaining in a pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuel assembly after drying. The ADCS was constructed with a prototypic 17×17 PWR fuel skeleton and waterproof heater rods to simulate decay heat. The ADCS is outfitted with thermocouples to measure the thermal response of the ADCS to simulated decay heats and internal helium fill pressures relevant to commercial drying procedures. The ADCS is also instrumented with pressure transducers to measure the pressures and vacuum levels observed during simulated commercial drying. The most unique instrumentation used for quantifying residual water in the ADCS is a Hiden Analytical HPR-30 mass spectrometer (MS), which measures gas compositions of the ADCS internal free volume, based on partial pressures calculated from relative proportions of gas molecules detected by the MS. This report details the methodology used to implement MS measurements in quantifying residual water in the ADCS. This methodology includes the calibration of the HPR-30 MS to a Buck Research Instruments CR-4 chilled mirror hygrometer, which itself is calibrated to a NIST-traceable standard. Data collected by both the MS and the chilled mirror hygrometer from water/helium mixtures ranging from 150 to 500,000 ppmv water in helium were used to generate calibration curves, establishing a source of verification of MS measured water contents. Details regarding water content measurement uncertainties are included in this report, defining the accuracy and verifiability of the HPR-30 MS in measuring residual water content in simulated dry storage canister environments.
Properties of Arctic liquid and mixed-phase clouds from shipborne Cloudnet observations during ACSE 2014
This article presents Cloudnet retrievals of Arctic clouds from measurements conducted during a 3-month research expedition along the Siberian shelf during summer and autumn 2014. During autumn, we find a strong reduction in the occurrence of liquid clouds and an increase for both mixed-phase and ice clouds at low levels compared to summer. About 80 % of all liquid clouds observed during the research cruise show a liquid water path below the infrared black body limit of approximately 50 g m -2 . The majority of mixed-phase and ice clouds had an ice water path below 20 g m -2 . Cloud properties are analysed with respect to cloud-top temperature and boundary layer structure. Changes in these parameters have little effect on the geometric thickness of liquid clouds while mixed-phase clouds during warm-air advection events are generally thinner than when such events were absent. Cloud-top temperatures are very similar for all mixed-phase clouds. However, more cases of lower cloud-top temperature were observed in the absence of warm-air advection. Profiles of liquid and ice water content are normalized with respect to cloud base and height. For liquid water clouds, the liquid water content profile reveals a strong increase with height with a maximum within the upper quarter of the clouds followed by a sharp decrease towards cloud top. Liquid water content is lowest for clouds observed below an inversion during warm-air advection events. Most mixed-phase clouds show a liquid water content profile with a very similar shape to that of liquid clouds but with lower maximum values during events with warm air above the planetary boundary layer. The normalized ice water content profiles in mixed-phase clouds look different from those of liquid water content. They show a wider range in maximum values with the lowest ice water content for clouds below an inversion and the highest values for clouds above or extending through an inversion. The ice water content profile generally peaks at a height below the peak in the liquid water content profile – usually in the centre of the cloud, sometimes closer to cloud base, likely due to particle sublimation as the crystals fall through the cloud.
Molecular-Level Overhaul of y-Aminopropyl Aminosilicone/Triethylene Glycol Post-Combustion CO2-Capture Solvents
Capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from post-combustion gas streams is an energy-intensive process that is required prior to either converting or sequestering CO2. There are a few commercial offerings of 1st and 2nd generation aqueous amine technologies, however the cost of capturing CO2 with these technologies remains high. To decrease costs of capture, researchers are designing efficient solvent systems with the goal of being drop-in replacements for 1st and 2nd generation infrastructure. One approach has seen the development of water-lean solvents that aim to increase efficiency by reducing the water content in solution. Water-lean solvents such as GE’s GAP/TEG are promising technologies, with potential to halve the parasitic load to a coal-fired power plant, only if the intrinsically high solution viscosities and hydrolysis of the siloxane moieties could be mitigated. We present here, an integrated multidisciplinary approach to overhaul the GAP/TEG solvent system at the molecular level to mitigate hydrolysis while also reducing viscosity. We present molecular-level insights into chemical speciation of CO2-containing ions, showing that co-solvents and diluents have a negligible effect on reducing viscosity and are not needed. This finding allowed for the design of singlecomponent siloxane-free diamine derivatives with site-specific incorporation of selective chemical moieties for direct placement and orientation of hydrogen bonding to reduce viscosity. Ultimately, we present new single-component diamine formulations less susceptible to hydrolysis that exhibit up to a 98% reduction in viscosity compared to the initial GAP/TEG formulation.
Leaf structural and chemical traits, and vegetation temperature and height, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2019.
Leaf nitrogen and carbon content, leaf water content (LWC) and leaf mass per area (LMA) of leaves, and vegetation height and temperatures sampled from locations on the Teller MM 27, Kougarok MM 64 and Kougarok MM 80 NGEE Arctic sites, Seward Peninsula, Alaska. These data were collected in support of ongoing NASA ABoVE AVIRIS data synthesis work. Samples were collected in July 2019 from 24 species. This data package includes leaf sample information and vegetation trait data (*.csv). Metadata files include data descriptions (_dd.csv) for tabular data and a key to species symbols used in data files. All included files are listed and described in NGA210_flmd.csv. See data package NGA212 "Full spectrum 350-2500 nm leaf and canopy spectral reflectance, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2019" for linked spectral reflectance data. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).
The direct and indirect drivers shaping RNA viral communities in grassland soil
Recent studies have revealed diverse RNA viral communities in soils. Yet, how environmental factors influence soil RNA viruses remains largely unknown. Here, we recovered RNA viral communities from 24 metatranscriptomes sequenced from grassland soils managed under a range of environmental conditions including 1) water content: 100% and 25% water holding capacity, 2) plant presence: planted with tall wheatgrass (Thinopyrum ponticum) and bare soil, 3) cultivar type: Alkar and Jose, and 4) soil depth: 0-5 cm and 15-25 cm. The recovered RNA viral communities were novel with nearly one-third of the RNA viral contigs uniquely detected in the studied grassland. The classified RNA viral contigs are mostly known as eukaryotic RNA viruses (74.7%) belonging to Phyla Duplornaviricota, Kitrinoviricota, Lenarviricota, and Pisuviricota. Eukaryotic RNA viruses of Family Mitoviridae as well as their natural hosts, Fungi, are one of the most dominant taxa. Consistent with the results of nonmetric multidimensional scaling analysis, the four environmental conditions (water content, plant presence, cultivar, and soil depth) significantly influence the assemblages of soil RNA viral communities as suggested by the correlation analysis and the random forest algorithm. The modularity analysis of the factor network and the structural equation modeling further support the hierarchical associations among the four environmental factors and the community factors representing the co-existing eukaryotic, prokaryotic, and RNA viral communities. The soil water content, plant presence, and type of cultivar demonstrate a significant positive impact on eukaryotic RNA viral richness directly as well as indirectly on eukaryotic RNA viral abundance via influencing the co-existing eukaryotic members in this soil. Our data also provide statistical support for the negative influence of soil depth on soil eukaryotic richness and abundances resulting in its indirect impact on soil eukaryotic RNA viral communities. This study provides field-relevant information on how environmental and community factors collectively shape soil RNA communities and contribute to ecological understanding of RNA viral survival under various environmental conditions and virus-host interactions in soil.
microbase.c1
MICROBASE is a baseline retrieval of cloud microphysical properties. It uses a combination of observations from the cloud radar, ceilometer, micropulse lidar, microwave radiometer, and balloon-borne radiosonde soundings in order to produce instantaneous vertical profiles of cloud liquid water content (LWC), cloud ice water content (IWC), liquid cloud particle effective radius (LIQRE), and ice cloud particle effective radius (ICERE). Uncertainites are also produced by the VAP. The inputs are by the following VAPs: Active Remote Sensing of Clouds (ARSCL) Merged Sounding (MERGESONDE) Microwave Radiometer Retrievals (MWRRET) The output are daily files.