Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “post access report”

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.

78 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Electrochemistry in the Large Tunnels of Lithium Postspinel Compounds

Lithium spinels (Li MM 'O 4 ) are an important class of mixed-cation materials that have found uses in batteries, catalysis, and optics. Postspinels are a series of related framework structures with the AMM 'O 4 host composition that are formed with larger A -site cations, typically under high pressure. Postspinels have one-dimensional tunnel structures with pores that are larger than those in spinel and triangular in cross-section, but they are relatively unexplored as intercalation electrodes. While lithium postspinels have been previously found to be thermodynamically stable only at high pressures, we have identified a synthetic pathway that produces the lithium-containing materials at ambient pressure using an ion-exchange process from the corresponding sodium postspinels. Here, in this work, we report the synthesis and a survey of the electrochemical properties of 10 new lithium CaFe 2 O 4 -type postspinel compounds where M = Mn 3+ , V 3+ , Cr 3+ , Rh 3+ , Fe 2+ , Mg 2+ , Co 2+ and M ' = Ti 4+ and/or Sn 4+ . Although complete delithiation is not achieved during electrochemical cycling, many of the lithium postspinels have substantial charge storage capacity in Li battery cells owing to the ability of the large framework tunnels to accommodate more than one lithium ion per formula unit. Multiple redox couples are accessed for LiMnSnO 4 , Li 0.96 Mn 0.96 Sn 1.04-x Ti x O 4 , Li 0.96 V 0.96 Ti 1.04 O 4 , Li 0.96 Cr 0.96 Ti 1.04 O 4 , and LiFe 0.5 Ti 1.5 O 4 . Compositions with moderate or poor lithium cyclability are also discussed for comparison. Redox mechanisms and trends are identified by comparing this new redox-active framework to related spinels, ramsdellites, and 'Na 0.44 MnO 2 ' structures, and from density functional theory (DFT) electronic structures. Operando diffraction shows complex structural responses to lithium insertion and extraction in this postspinel framework. A DFT framework was proposed to identify promising lithium postspinel phases that could be accessed metastably under ambient pressure conditions and to assess their stability to lithium insertion and extraction. This work suggests that CaFe 2 O 4 -type hosts are a promising new class of lithium-ion energy storage materials.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2021

Coal-dependent Communities in Transition: Identifying Best Practices to Ensure Equitable Outcomes

The U.S. coal industry is experiencing a sharp increase in the numbers of retired and/or decommissioned coal-fired power plants across the U.S. In the years between 2010-2019, around 102 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired generating capacity has been announced to be decommissioned, representing more than 546 coal-fired power plant units, and an additional 17 GW is planned to be decommissioned by 2025. This change in the energy production landscape presents an impact on the social, environmental, and economic prospects of coal-dependent communities. This report examined the role of communities in the coal power plant decommissioning process and provided community-identified best practices to ensure an equitable process. The experiences of four coal-dependent communities—Wise County, VA, Muskegon, MI, Anderson County, TN, and Becker, MN—are presented as case studies to understand the impacts of the decommissioning process, and associated best practices, from the communities’ perspective. The report results highlight the need to recognize that the decommissioning decision-making process must be community-based to be equitable. Each community’s input is key to the transition away from coal power because there is no one-size-fits-all development plan. In other words, each community’s trajectory through the decommissioning process—from the retirement decision-making stage to the final site redevelopment phase—is unique because each community has distinct needs and wants from the energy transition. What is best for one community may not be suited for another. Ultimately, the framework for site development and community revitalization post-decommissioning cannot be universal because each community’s profile—from a social, cultural, and economic perspective—is different. Community impacts of power plant decommissioning are not limited to job and revenue losses. Communities are likely to be impacted culturally, socially, environmentally, and have long-term health-based impacts that should be acknowledged and addressed in post-retirement plans. Commonly identified decommissioning best practices include: Early and continued engagement throughout, with a number of mediums for communication and feedback (e.g., in-person sessions, virtual meetings, written comment opportunities); Early planning of post-decommissioning projects to replace lost jobs, revenue, and economic activity; Recognition (and mitigation, if possible) of social impacts on the community due to plant closure; Transparency throughout the process, with trusted information being provided about the decommissioning process and timeline; potential impacts on the workforce, economy, and environment; and the feasibility of alternative site uses; Identification of funding sources, technical experts, and/or strategic partnerships to support decommissioning and the affected communities upfront; and, Acknowledgment of communities as stakeholders who have a role in the conversation and right to determine their futures. Three key areas for assisting coal-dependent communities affected by the energy transition: Technical assistance: assessment of site feasibility for alternative uses or to repower with new technologies; Cross-partnership engagement and collaboration: facilitate knowledge-sharing of “lessons learned” about the decommissioning process between communities and provide guidance for decision-making processes; and, Financial assistance: access to grant and/or loan programs to assist with redevelopment survey, bolster community economic security through job creation, and cover environmental clean-up costs. Technical assistance, cross-partnership engagement, and financial aid can be mobilized to help communities throughout various stages of the decommissioning process, including the retirement decision, the site reclamation phase, and eventual revitalization of the site and surrounding community.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2022

Activating Opportunity Zones for Rapid Solar+Storage Deployment in Low Income Communities (Final Report)

Millions of Texans choose their own power provider, giving them the option to have low-cost and even renewable energy delivered through their retail electric plan. However, Texans with less disposable income often pay more for electricity and have limited access to green energy and emergency backup power even though the costs of solar and wind power are at record lows and continue to decline. The Powered for Good initiative aimed to help deliver clean, affordable, 100% renewable electricity to low-income households in Texas’s Competitive Retail Areas, where households can choose their electricity provider. Objectives: The primary goal of this project was to develop and validate one or more affordable solar+storage products (i.e., priced less than of $0.14/kWh) that Retail Electricity Providers (REP) can offer to LI households. The team achieved three objectives: 1. Investigate how to best reduce electricity costs and increase availability of emergency power for LI customers; 2. Build momentum for, and facilitate an approach to, a Texas-based pilot deployment of such solar+storage products, with a goal of greatly expanding this approach to a large segment of the LI population in Texas; 3. Provide the structural framework, finance model, and roadmap to potentially increase investment of solar+storage projects in LI communities across U.S. states when modified to meet their state-specific laws and regulations. The team evaluated the market of viable solutions for low-income Texans through interviews and focus groups with professionals and residents with lived experience. The team then piloted a low-cost retail electric product. Following the pilot, the team developed educational materials, including fact sheets, a Go Green Save Green interactive guide, and an Electricity Bill Analysis Tool. The team is now working to increase power resilience and reduce energy insecurity with micro solar and storage in partnership with local entities in the Harris County area. Key Findings: Informed by Powered for Good research, including the experiences on Texas residents and electricity system experts, the Powered for Good team developed a pilot that was implemented by Energy Well Texas, a new company formed in late 2020. The pilot featured a combination of a 100% clean residential energy offering delivered through the electrical grid plus a selection of batteries, lights and a solar panel that provided participants with varying levels of backup power. For the 8 customers who submitted previous bills, the Energy Well Texas pilot reduced energy bills by about 30%. In Houston, residents earning less than 30% of Area median Income (AMI) spend an average 13% of their income on energy or about $1,555 per year. Repeating the pilot results for these residents could yield $466 in savings per customer or about 4% of their income. While this will not end energy poverty, it is a big step toward that goal. The Powered for Good and Energy Well Texas teams are currently planning their post-pilot phase of service offerings.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Quarterly Research Performance Progress Report (Q8)

As part of Task 1, we have started by testing our modeling capabilities by reproducing isothermal DFIT simulations presented in the literature. Once satisfied with the results we have started by targeting the modeling of the DFITs at conducted at well 58-32. We have a identified a specific test (cycle 4 in zone 2) as the most interesting to be model with GEOS hydraulic fracturing module. Thus, we have first produced results with an isothermal model and adjusted model parameters to get a satisfying match with field pressure data. The, we have added thermal effects and compared the modeling results with and without thermal effects to estimate how thermal effects may influence test interpretation. Models seem to suggest that, for small volumes of fluid, thermal effects are moderate. In Task 2, we have adapted GEOS phase-field formulation to be able to simulate near-wellbore hydraulic fracture nucleation and propagation. We have devised a novel formulation that, compared to other existing ones, incorporates rock strengths. We have submitted a journal publication about our work. We are currently employing this phase-field formulation to model the experiments taking place at U Pitt and help us understand the effect of various parameters. In Task 3, we have built a model of the region surround well 16A and have started modeling stage 3 stimulation because of its simpler planar geometry. After calibrating simulation parameters using known analytical solutions, we have simulated the stage 3 stimulation using our isothermal hydraulic fracturing module, varying the permeability field, the stress conditions including different physics to get a better understanding of the numerical challenges and of the effects of varying these parameters on the simulation results. In Task 4 laboratory experimentation, a set of specialized drilling and injection tools has been customized and constructed to accommodate an inclined well with an orientation of up to 30 degrees relative to material anisotropy or principal stress axes. These inclined samples have also undergone thermal stress and hydraulic fracturing at a temperature of 190 degrees Celsius. Furthermore, both vertical and deviated sampling testing setups enable an extended analysis of post-peak pressure behaviors, facilitating post-test pressure analyses such as the G-function, step rate, and fracture reopening measurements. Thus, the key components of in-situ stress estimation can be extracted and validated through our experiment, providing a solid foundation for validating existing in-situ stress estimation theories or proposing new ones. Simultaneously, we are integrating computer vision techniques with traditional experimental fracture observation methods such as multi-overcore/slicing and water-penetration fracture observation. This combination will prove beneficial in populating the hydraulic fracture patterns database, generated under challenging EGS conditions. This approach aims to deepen our understanding of the complexities in EGS reservoirs and pave the way for future data-driven investigations. Additionally, PITT has also equipped the ELE International compression machine, which is now prepared for conducting indirect tensile and fracture toughness tests. These tests will aid in characterizing how rock fabrics influence the resulting fracture patterns. Additionally, we have completed the required personnel training and gained access to Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) for conducting more detailed characterization and analysis of rock fabrics, as well as the examination of thermal and hydraulically induced fracture patterns. Thus, the PITT team has effectively demonstrated the capabilities of our experimental apparatuses in exploring the thermal effects, well deviation angles, material anisotropy, and operational choices (such as circulation rate, injection fluid viscosity, and injection rate) and their impact on pressure responses and fracture trajectories under the Utah FORGE conditions.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗