Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS”

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

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

At least 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

FAIR to WISE (F2W) v1.0.0

FAIR to WISE (F2W) is an iterative, large-language model (LLM) driven pipeline that turns unstructured research PDFs into structured, queryable knowledge graphs (KGs). Core features include schema-driven extraction to a LinkML model; full provenance capture; ontology-grounded enrichment (e.g., chemical validation and ChEBI lookup); graph construction to JSON-LD with stable IDs; and KG-RAG question answering with evidence-aware retrieval. The system is engineered for reproducibility and accessibility (open-source Ollama models, temperature=0, NVTX/Nsight profiling) with robust QA (relation verification, deduplication, and deterministic outputs). Primary uses are literature-to-KG automation, knowledge-grounded Q&A, and experimental steering support. We demonstrate the approach in organic photovoltaics, where the pipeline ingests papers, builds a domain KG, and evaluates answers against expert competency questions to guide experimental planning and interpretation. Compared with off-the-shelf LLMs and ad-hoc NLP tools, F2W addresses ontology gaps and reduces hallucination risk by grounding responses in extracted evidence and enforcing schema constraints; it also offers deterministic, provenance-linked outputs and open, cost-aware deployment. Evidence-aware ranking further improves answer quality over pure vector search.

Abramov, David [Lawrence Berkeley National Laborat↗
DOE OSTI2022

Polar Cloud Microphysics and Surface Energy Budget from AWARE (Final Technical Report)

This was a collaborative project between the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego (SIO), Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center at The Ohio State University (BPCRC), The Department of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science at The Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), and Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). The project’s over-arching objectives involved maximizing the scientific potential of the ARM West Antarctic Radiation Experiment (AWARE) data set, in two respects: (1) application of polar-optimized climate models to test the most current and comprehensive cloud microphysical parameterizations; and (2) analysis of the most advanced ARM Mobile Facility sensors (e.g., cloud radar, spectroradiometer, and aerosol observing system data) to advance understanding of Antarctic cloud microphysical and radiative properties, particularly on a climatological basis with emphasis on contrasts with the high Arctic. The team’s efforts have resulted in 16 peer-review publications, in addition to an overview of the AWARE campaign in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Our emphasis throughout this program was to go beyond the traditional “case study” approach to model evaluation, in which a “classical” or otherwise well-characterized surface-atmosphere-cloud system of short duration is simulated by several climate models. Instead, we attempted analysis of longer time series in the AWARE data, both climatologically and with models. We have numerous successful results from both AWARE locations: The main AMF-2 deployment at McMurdo Station on Ross Island (13 months duration), and the extended facility at the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Divide Ice Camp (40 days during austral summer 2015-16).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

An overview of the evolving jurisdictional scope of the U.S. Clean Water Act for hydrologists

Abstract The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal mechanism by which the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of streams, lakes, and wetlands are protected in the United States. The CWA has evolved considerably since its initial passage in 1948, including explicit expansions and contractions of jurisdictional scope through a series of legislative actions, court decisions, and agency rules. Here, we provide a practical summary of the CWA's evolution, detailing the major updates or revisions and their circumstances. Additionally, we identify the jurisdictional scope of the law for rivers and streams, lakes, and wetlands based on the language used and implementation by the agencies during the same time period. While the rulemaking process commonly uses language that will be abstract to many hydrologists, understanding the on‐the‐ground implications, quantifying regulatory (un)certainties, and assessing the magnitude of changes through time is important to understanding the implications of environmental regulation development, litigation, and enforcement. Thus, we translate the enforcement norms and definitions into quantitative estimates for Clean Water Act scope in the Wabash River Basin (Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, USA) as a demonstration of the spatial consequences of changing regulatory language. This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Planning Water Human Water > Water Governance Water and Life > Conservation, Management, and Awareness

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

Uncertainty-Guided Prediction Horizon of Phase-Resolved Ocean Wave Forecasting Under Data Sparsity: Experimental and Numerical Evaluation

Accurate short-term wave forecasting is critical for the safe and efficient operation of marine structures that rely on real-time, phase-resolved ocean wave information for control and monitoring purposes (e.g., digital twins). These systems often depend on environmental sensors (e.g., waverider buoys, wave-sensing LIDAR). Challenges arise when upstream sensor data are missing, sparse, or phase-shifted due to drift. This study investigates the performance of two machine learning models, time-series dense encoder (TiDE) and long short-term memory (LSTM), for forecasting phase-resolved ocean surface elevations under varying degrees of data degradation. We introduce the τ-trimming algorithm, which adapts the prediction horizon based on uncertainty thresholds derived from historical forecasts. Numerical wave tank (NWT) and wave basin experiments are used to benchmark model performance under short- and long-term data masking, spatially coarse sensor grids, and upstream phase shifts. Results show under a 50% probability of upstream data loss, the τ-trimmed TiDE model achieves a 46% reduction in error at the most upstream target, compared to 22% for LSTM. Furthermore, phase misalignment in upstream data introduces a near-linear increase in forecast error. Under moderate model settings, a ±3 s misalignment increases the mean absolute error by approximately 0.5 m, while the same error is accumulated at ±4 s using the more conservative approach. These findings inform the design of resilient, uncertainty-aware wave forecasting systems suited for realistic offshore sensing environments.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Region and cloud regime dependence of parametric sensitivity in E3SM atmosphere model

Abstract The Department of Energy (DOE)’s Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM), including its atmosphere model (EAM), has many relatively new features. In a previous study we conducted a systematic parametric sensitivity analysis for EAM based on short, perturbed parameter ensemble (PPE) simulations, mainly focusing on global mean climate features and metrics. While parameter values in global climate models are generally invariant in space and time, model response to parameters perturbation may vary by regions and climate regimes, which motivates the need to better understand the EAM model behaviors and physics at regional scale and process level. In this study, using the same set of PPE simulations and a similar sensitivity analysis framework, we identify parameters that cause largest sensitivities over different regions and compare model responses in fast atmospheric processes to the parameters across different cloud regimes for several important cloud-related fidelity metrics. We find that cloud forcing has opposite response to some parameters over mid-latitude vs. tropical land. We also analyze how the parametric sensitivity varies as stratocumulus transitions to shallow convection and to deep convection over ocean. Low cloud forcing and shortwave cloud forcing in the subtropical eastern Pacific are most sensitive to the parameters controlling the width of the probability density function (PDF) of the subgrid vertical velocity ( w’ ) ( gamma ) and the damping of the w’ skewness ( c8 ) near the coast but become more sensitive to the parameter affecting the damping of the w’ variance ( c1 ) further offshore. Detailed interpretation of the spatial dependence of parametric sensitivity is provided. We also investigate how the parametric sensitivity evolves with prediction duration. This study improves our process-level understanding of cloud physics and parameterization and provides insights for developing more advanced regime-aware parameterization schemes in global climate model.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

An Investigation of LES Wall Modeling for Rayleigh–Bénard Convection via Interpretable and Physics-Aware Feedforward Neural Networks with DNS

Abstract The traditional approach of using the Monin–Obukhov similarity theory (MOST) to model near-surface processes in large-eddy simulations (LESs) can lead to significant errors in natural convection. In this study, we propose an alternative approach based on feedforward neural networks (FNNs) trained on output from direct numerical simulation (DNS). To evaluate the performance, we conduct both a priori and a posteriori tests. In the a priori (offline) tests, we compare the statistics of the surface shear stress and heat flux, computed from filtered DNS input variables, to the stress and flux obtained from the filtered DNS. Additionally, we investigate the importance of various input features using the Shapley additive explanations value and the conditional average of the filter grid cells. In the a posteriori (online) tests, we implement the trained models in the System for Atmospheric Modeling (SAM) LES and compare the LES-generated surface shear stress and heat flux with those in the DNS. Our findings reveal that vertical velocity, a traditionally overlooked flow quantity, is one of the most important input features for determining the wall fluxes. Increasing the number of input features improves the a priori test results but does not always improve the model performance in the a posteriori tests because of the differences in input variables between the LES and DNS. Last, we show that physics-aware FNN models trained with logarithmic and scaled parameters can well extrapolate to more intense convection scenarios than in the training dataset, whereas those trained with primitive flow quantities cannot. Significance Statement The traditional near-surface turbulence model, based on a shear-dominated boundary layer flow, does not represent near-surface turbulence in natural convection. Using a feedforward neural network (FNN), we can construct a more accurate model that better represents the near-surface turbulence in various flows and reveals previously overlooked controlling factors and process interactions. Our study shows that the FNN-generated models outperform the traditional model and highlight the importance of the near-surface vertical velocity. Furthermore, the physics-aware FNN models exhibit the potential to extrapolate to convective flows of various intensities beyond the range of the training dataset, suggesting their broader applicability for more accurate modeling of near-surface turbulence.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Facilitating International Collaboration on Climate Change Research

The Chinese American Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (COAA) organized the 8th COAA International Conference on Atmosphere, Ocean, and Climate Change (ICAOCC), which was held at the Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology (NUIST) campus in Nanjing, China during July 10-12, 2019. The conference was locally hosted by NUIST and co-sponsored by Nanjing University. This international conference provided a platform for weather and climate experts in the international oceanic and atmospheric sciences community to communicate their research, share ideas and experiences, inspire new research strategies and identify opportunities for future collaborations. It also provided a great opportunity for students and young scholars to forge professional relationships and be more aware of cutting-edge research areas through their interactions with experts and senior professionals.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

An Optimized Parameterization of Sub‐Grid Scale Advection for Convection Permitting Models

Convection‐permitting models (CPMs) explicitly resolve deep convection yet under‐resolve the organized lateral exchanges among drafts and their environment that control entrainment/detrainment, precipitation efficiency, and mesoscale structure. In this work, we introduce the Optimized Advection Scheme (OAS), which introduces a small rotation of the Cartesian frame of reference for the horizontal winds relative to other variables used in advection that induces cross‐gradient transport to mimic under‐resolved convective mixing. The rotation angle is selected to minimize the Kullback–Leibler divergence between the simulated and satellite observed precipitation intensity distributions, yielding a physically consistent perturbation that is computationally inexpensive and portable. Optimized Advection Scheme is implemented in WRF and evaluated over Amazon (April 2014). It shifts precipitation–precipitable‐water joint distributions toward lighter rain, reduces overly intense rates, and improves mesoscale convective system (MCS) lifetime and propagation. Mechanistically, the added cross‐gradient transport promotes convective detrainment and environmental mixing, which cools and moistens the mid‐troposphere, weakens downward momentum transport, alleviates excessive downwelling shortwave biases, and warms the surface temperature. The optimized rotation angle yields comparable improvements at 4‐km and 1‐km grid spacing, demonstrating resolution‐independent benefits across the CPM gray zone. By targeting the dynamical root of under‐mixed convective circulations, rather than tuning model microphysics or closures, OAS delivers robust, scale‐aware improvements in precipitation statistics, cloud vertical structure, and characteristics of MCS (MCSs), offering a practical pathway to more reliable CPM simulations for weather and climate applications.

CPM↗
DOE OSTI2024

Severe Convective Storms in Limited Instability Organized by Pattern and Distribution

Abstract Severe convection occurring in high-shear, low-CAPE (HSLC) environments is a common cool-season threat in the southeastern United States. Previous studies of HSLC convection document the increased operational challenges that these environments present compared to their high-CAPE counterparts, corresponding to higher false-alarm ratios and lower probability of detection for severe watches and warnings. These environments can exhibit rapid destabilization in the hours prior to convection, sometimes associated with the release of potential instability. Here, we use self-organizing maps (SOMs) to objectively identify environmental patterns accompanying HSLC cool-season severe events and associate them with variations in severe weather frequency and distribution. Large-scale patterns exhibit modest variation within the HSLC subclass, featuring strong surface cyclones accompanied by vigorous upper-tropospheric troughs and northward-extending regions of instability, consistent with prior studies. In most patterns, severe weather occurs immediately ahead of a cold front. Other convective ingredients, such as lower-tropospheric vertical wind shear, near-surface equivalent potential temperature (θ e ) advection, and the release of potential instability, varied more significantly across patterns. No single variable used to train SOMs consistently demonstrated differences in the distribution of severe weather occurrence across patterns. Comparison of SOMs based on upper and lower quartiles of severe occurrence demonstrated that the release of potential instability was most consistently associated with higher-impact events in comparison to other convective ingredients. Overall, we find that previously developed HSLC composite parameters reasonably identify high-impact HSLC events. Significance Statement Even when atmospheric instability is not optimal for severe convective storms, in some situations they can still occur, presenting increased challenges to forecasters. These marginal environments may occur at night or during the cool season, when people are less attuned to severe weather threats. Here, we use a sorting algorithm to classify different weather patterns accompanying such storms, and we distinguish which specific patterns and weather system features are most strongly associated with severe storms. Our goals are to increase situational awareness for forecasters and to improve understanding of the processes leading to severe convection in marginal environments.

Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences↗
DOE OSTI2021

Comparing Satellite- and Ground-Based Observations of Cloud Occurrence Over High Southern Latitudes

The 2B-CLDCLASS-LIDAR R05 (2BCL5) and the raDAR/liDAR (DARDAR) satellite retrievals of cloud occurrence are compared as a function of altitude and latitude. The largest disparities are observed at low altitudes over high southern latitudes. These data sets are cross referenced to ground-based measurements from the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) West Antarctic Radiation Experiment (AWARE) campaign at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. Compared with AWARE observations, both 2BCL5 and DARDAR underestimate cloud occurrence below 1.5 km, with 2BCL5 and DARDAR distinguishing roughly one third of cloud occurrences observed by AWARE at 0.5 km. While DARDAR identifies greater cloud occurrences than 2BCL5 below 1.5 km, cloud occurrence values for the two data sets have similar differences relative to ground-based measurements. Therefore, the DARDAR retrievals of greater cloud occurrence at low altitudes are likely due to a larger quantity of false positives associated with radar ground clutter or attenuated lidar retrievals. DARDAR cloud occurrences match better with AWARE than 2BCL5 above 5 km. However, the likely underestimation of ground-based measurements at higher altitudes suggests DARDAR may underestimate high level cloud occurrence. Finally, both data sets indicate the presence of liquid containing clouds at temperatures within the homogeneous freezing regime, despite the fact that the ECMWF-AUX data set implemented in their processing clearly indicates temperatures below -38°C. Finally, using AWARE radiosonde (ECMWF-AUX) temperature data, we find that 2BCL5 detects 13.3% (13.8%) of mixed phase clouds below -38°C, while DARDAR detects 5.7% (6.6%) of mixed phase and 1.1% (1.3%) of liquid phase clouds below -38°C.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Advanced Sensors and Instrumentation (ASI) Program Plan. Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies (NEET)

The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE) sponsors a crosscutting technology development (CTD) program addressing common instrumentation & controls (I&C) needs in all DOE-NE sponsored programs. In 2012, DOE-NE initiated the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technology (NEET) Program to conduct research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) in crosscutting technologies that directly support and enable the development of existing, new and advanced reactor designs, and fuel cycle technologies. These technologies will advance the state of nuclear technology, improve its competitiveness, and promote continued contribution to meeting our Nation’s energy and environmental challenges. The NEET Program has spurred innovation in the field of sensors and instrumentation, advanced methods for manufacturing, and cyber security. The Advanced Sensors and Instrumentation (ASI) program is one element of the NEET CTD that has spurred innovation in the measurement science field by funding research on sensors, instrumentation and controls, communication, and advanced analytics that measure system parameters, gauge component control input, and provide power plant owners and operators critical awareness so they can plan and safely manage operational evolutions. The NEET ASI Program has carried out research and development (R&D) required to develop and deploy innovative and advanced sensors, and instrumentation and control capabilities for current and future nuclear energy systems, and to enable the advanced technologies essential to NE’s R&D efforts needed to realize mission goals. The concept of technology readiness assessment is helpful for the classification of instrumentation technology as part of the program strategy. A technology readiness assessment evaluates technology maturity using the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale and was pioneered by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the 1980s for space technology. It has recently been adopted to advance fuels and materials. The NEET ASI program objective is to mature instruments technology to TRL 6, which is “demonstration of the technology in relevant environment.” While there may be instances in which a different strategy is justified, the aim of the program is to respond to DOE program and stakeholder needs for nuclear instrumentation then hand off the technology after demonstration for integration in a more complex system, for example an irradiation test, experimental loop or a plant component such as the core, primary system or heat exchanger. A mechanism to continue some level of support from NEET ASI during and after the adoption (for example, to maintain fabrication and calibration capabilities) will be defined as the first example of technology hand off comes to fruition. In addition, several paths exist within DOE to complement NEET ASI activities to extend the maturity beyond TRL, for example through GAIN, technology commercialization funding, and small-business programs. Role of NEET ASI CINR projects in the TRL space, and integration with direct funded demonstration.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2021

Interagency Agreement No. DE-SC0006988 (Final Technical Report)

The overarching goal of this project was to advance understanding of deep convection updraft microphysics—the source of long-lived stratiform ice—by combining detailed mining of in situ and remote sensing data from the MC3E field campaign with detailed 3D simulations. The project began with parallel work, first strictly on the remote-sensing observation side via dedicated analysis of polarimetric radar signatures, which is a relatively new area, on the one hand. On the other hand, a more traditional but well-formulated preparation and comparison of detailed aerosol-aware simulations with in situ measurements was prepared. In the final phase of this work, these parallel elements were brought together into an integrated analysis of in situ and remote-sensing observations with model results. The project also supported team member involvement in collaborative activities.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
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 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.

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↗
DOE OSTI2026

Haze–cloud correlations mediated by supersaturation fluctuations

Atmospheric aerosol particles that contain water-soluble components can absorb water vapor in humid environments and form either haze particles or cloud droplets, depending on supersaturation conditions. Laboratory and in situ measurements have shown that haze particles and cloud droplets often coexist and compete for available water vapor in shallow clouds and fogs, especially under polluted conditions. It is expected that more aerosol particles can form more haze particles and cloud droplets, so that the haze and cloud number concentrations are positively correlated. However, recent large-eddy simulations show that haze and cloud number concentration can be negatively correlated under extremely polluted conditions. Haze–cloud interactions across different environmental settings remain poorly understood. In this study, experiments in a convection cloud chamber with the same aerosol injection rate show that, as supersaturation forcing increases (i.e., changing from polluted to clean conditions), the covariance between haze and cloud droplet number concentration changes from negative to positive and finally to zero. Large-eddy simulations (LES) of the cloud chamber with a fixed supersaturation forcing but varying aerosol injection rates show a similar result for the haze–cloud correlation: near zero in clean, mean-supersaturation-dominated activation conditions; positive in moderate, supersaturation-fluctuation-influenced activation conditions; and negative in polluted, supersaturation-fluctuation-dominated activation conditions. A theoretical covariance framework was developed to interpret this behavior based on the relative magnitude and signs of the correlations between supersaturation and the populations of haze and cloud droplets. Significantly, experiments, LES, and theory all yield the same three-regime behavior for the sign of the haze–cloud covariance. Furthermore, our results show that the haze–cloud covariance remains robust and easily measurable, thereby providing a useful metric for regime identification in the atmosphere, improving regime-aware parameterizations, and informing aerosol interventions such as fog dispersion, rainfall enhancement, and albedo modification.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Blowing Snow at McMurdo Station, Antarctica During the AWARE Field Campaign: Multi-Instrument Observations of Blowing Snow

In polar regions, blowing snow (BLSN) can play a substantial role in regional thermodynamics and radiation properties. The extent of the impact depends upon the depth of the BLSN layer, a property that is difficult to measure and not well understood. The West Antarctic Radiation Experiment (AWARE) Field Campaign saw the deployment of a large suite of observational instruments to McMurdo Station, Antarctica, allowing for in-depth investigation of BLSN. During the year of the campaign, BLSN occurred ~7.4% of the time. In this study, additional remote sensing observations are used to supplement an existing ceilometer-based BLSN characterization algorithm creating a multi-instrument (MI) depth estimation algorithm to yield layer depths with more certainty. Backscatter coefficient and linear depolarization ratios from the micropulse and high spectral resolution lidar (HSRL) are incorporated along with color ratio derived from HSRL backscatter and Ka-band radar reflectivity observations. This provided estimates of BLSN depth that were less impacted by noise/artifacts in any one set of observations. When applied to the data from AWARE, the MI algorithm yielded an average depth of 168.2 m with ~60% of plumes less than 200 m in depth. Events occurring with precipitation saw the most value in the additional instruments, with the suite of observations allowing for more separation of BLSN particles from fallstreaks.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Recent progress in atomic-scale controlled plasma processing

Atomic-scale control in plasma processing is becoming increasingly critical for fabricating of advanced semiconductor devices, particularly as the industry shifts toward three-dimensional (3D) architectures and high-aspect-ratio (HAR) structures. This review presents a comprehensive overview of recent developments in atomic-scale controlled plasma processes, organized along two key directions: the hierarchical structure of plasma–surface interactions and the generational evolution of atomic layer processing (ALP) technologies. We examined the gas phase, where molecular design enables selective generation of ions and radicals; the boundary layer, where transport phenomena govern species delivery into nanoscale features, and the surface, where temperature-dependent reactions and cyclic processing determine etching selectivity and precision. Building on this foundation, we outline five generations of ALP—from thermal atomic layer deposition to transport-aware, temporally and structurally decoupled processes—highlighting the increasing sophistication of process control. The review further explores the transition from empirical recipe development to science-based, data-driven methodologies. By integrating quantum-chemical modeling, advanced diagnostics, and machine learning, we demonstrated how predictive models can link plasma species composition to process outcomes, enabling autonomous and adaptive control strategies. Finally, this review discusses the broader societal implications of plasma process innovation through the E4 quartet: energy and resource efficiency, environmental sustainability, evolutionary advancement, and educational promotion. These principles guide the development of sustainable and intelligent atomic-scale manufacturing technologies that are not only technically advanced but also socially responsible.

Ishikawa, Kenji [Nagoya Univ. (Japan)] (ORCID:0000↗