SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Aggregate structure”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

1,677 records · Page 94

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Transmission Electron Microscopy Study of a Refractory Metal Grain from a Calcium-Aluminum-Rich Inclusion in the Leoville CV3 Chondrite

Introduction: Calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions (CAIs) are an important component of chondritic meteorites. They can contain materials that are thermodynamically predicted and isotopically age dated to be among the first-formed solids in our solar system [1-5]. Observed in some CAIs are micron to sub-micron sized inclusions rich in Fe, Ni, and high-Z elements such as Pt, Os, Ir and W, in the form of refractory metal nuggets (RMNs), fremdlinges, and ‘nugget like objects’ (NLOs) [1,6]. Refractory siderophile elements such as Os, Ir and Ru are thermodynamically predicted to condense at temperatures well in excess of the major CAI phases such as melilite, perovskite, spinel and hibonite [2,7-9]. These refractory metal inclusions in CAIs can therefore serve as probes into the thermodynamic landscape of the early solar protoplanetary disk. Here we report on a refractory grain identified in a CAI of the Leoville CV3 chondrite. This work is part of an ongoing effort to gain insight into the thermochemistry of the early solar system through systematic analyses of the structure and chemistry of various components in CAIs [10-13]. Sample and Analytical Techniques: A fluffy type A CAI (Fig. 1A) was identified in a section of the Leoville, CV3 chondrite (Center for Meteorite Studies, Arizona State University collection, #821_C_3) using a JOEL-JXA 8530F electron microprobe at Arizona State University. Backscattered electron (BSE) imaging and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) were used to identify refractory metal grains in the CAI using a Thermo Fisher (formerly FEI) Helios NanoLab 660 G3 focused-ion-beam scanning-electron microscope (FIBSEM) located at the Kuiper Materials Imaging and Characterization Facility (KMICF) at the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona. The FIB is equipped with an EDAX EDS system. We selected one of the larger (micron-sized) refractory metal grains, designated as ‘Spud’ (Fig. 1B) for further analysis. ‘Spud’ was extracted and thinned to electron transparency (<100 nm) using the FIB-SEM located in KMICF, following methods described by [14- 15]. The FIB section was analyzed using a 200 keV Hitachi HF5000 scanning transmission electron microscope (S/TEM) located at KMICF. The HF5000 is equipped with cold-field emission gun, 3rd-order spherical aberration corrector for STEM imaging, and an Oxford Instruments X-Max N 100 TLE energydispersive spectroscopy (EDS) system with dual 100 mm2 windowless silicon-drift detectors (Ω = 2.0 sr). Selected-area electron-diffraction (SAED) patterns were acquired to aid in determination of crystallinity and phase. Results: The mineralogy, texture, and morphology of the CAI are consistent with that of a fluffy type A (FTA) CAI [16]. BSE imaging at high magnifications revealed grains with high contrast, indicative of compositions rich in elements of higher atomic number relative to surrounding material. These high-Z grains have sizes that range from ∼250 nm to 4 µm. EDS analyses confirm that the bright grains are metal-rich inclusions. A minor fraction of the grains are composed of only Fe and Ni, but the majority (∼60%) of the identified inclusions also contained various refractory siderophiles including Os, Ru, Zr, Ir and Mo. EDS analysis on the FIB-SEM of Spud shows that it contains Fe, Ni, Mo and Ru. High-angle annular dark-field (HAAFD) imaging and EDS mapping in the TEM (Fig. 2) show that Spud occurs in melilite (Ca1.9Al1.99Si1.06O7). Spud contains a subhedral to anhedral morphology and is compositionally heterogenous (polyphasic, Fig. 2). Local spatial correlation occurs among Fe, Ni, and Pt, and also among Os, Ru, and Mo. SAED patterns show that the Fe-Ni-Pt, Fe-Os-Mo-Ru and Fe-Pt regions are crystalline. Discussion: CAIs can contain various types of inclusions rich in Fe, Ni and refractory siderophiles such as Os, Ru, W and Pt [1]. RMNs are micron-sized, single phase alloy grains and can contain Os, Ir, Ru and Rh [1,7,17]. NLOs are also micron-sized inclusions, but contain two phases, a refractory metal, and an oxide [6]. Fremdlinge are the largest of such inclusions (tens of microns in size) and are complex aggregates of Fe-Ni alloy, silicates, oxides, and sulfides [1,17]. While the size of Spud matches previous descriptions of RMNs and NLOs, Spud is neither a single-phase alloy like RMNs, nor does it contain one metal phase and one oxide like NLOs. Spud does not match the above described categories of refractory metal inclusions. The presence of refractory siderophiles such as Mo, Os, Ru, and Pt suggests a high-temperature origin. Thermodynamic modelling by [7] indicates condensation temperatures of 1917 K, 1693 K, 1613 K and 1415 K for Os, Mo, Ru and Pt respectively. These models also show that following the initial condensation of a refractory metal, alloying of solutes such as Fe, Ni and W, occurs in levels proportional to their partial pressures in the surrounding gas. Such alloying occurs at temperatures above the condensation temperatures of common CAI phases such as melilite (1529 K), perovskite (1441 K), spinel (197 K) and forsterite (1354 K) [2]. The polyphasic nature of Spud could be the result of such high-temperature alloying, possibly shortly after the condensation of Mo and Ru at 1693 K and 1613 K respectively. That Spud occurs as an inclusion is consistent with it having formed prior to and at temperature above that of its host melilite in this FTA CAI, which is qualitatively consistent with such prior thermodynamic modeling. Further, the polyphasic nature of Spud is similar to refractory grains from a FTA CAI in the Northwest Africa (NWA) 8323, CV3 chondrite [11-13]. These data suggest that such refractory metal grains could have been widespread in the inner and early solar protoplanetary disk and represent some of the earliest formed solids to have condensed. Acknowledgments: Research and instrumentation supported by NASA grants #NNX12AL47G, #NNX15AJ22G and #80NSSC19K0509, and NSF grants #1531243 and #0619599. Fig 2. STEM data on ‘Spud’. HAADF Image (Top) False-color EDS Maps (Bottom) References: [1] MacPherson G. J. (2014) T. of Geochem. Vol I: Met. And Cosmochem. Processes, 139-179. [2] Lodders K. (2003) ApJ, 591, 1220-1247. [3] Ebel D. S. (2006) Met. & the Early S. Sys. II., 253- 277. [4] Amelin Y. (2002) Science, 297, 1678-1683. [5] Connelly J.N. et.al. (2012) Science, 338, 651-655. [6] Schwander D. et al. (2015) GCA, 18, 70-87. [7] Palme H. and Wlotzka F. (1976) EPSL, 33, 45-60. [8] Berg T. et al. (2009) ApJ, 702, 172-176. [9] Liffman K. et al. (2021) Icarus, 221, 89-105. [10] Zega T.J. et al. (2021) PSJ, 2, 115. [11] Ramprasad T. et al. (2020) LPSC LI, Abstract #2472. [12] Ramprasad T. et al. (2021) Microscopy & Microanalysis, S1, 2792-2794. [13] Ramprasad T. et al. (2021) 84th MetSoc, Abstract #6123. [14] Zega T.J. et al. (2007) MAPS, 42, 1373-1386. [15] Ramprasad T. et al. (2022) MAPS, in revision. [16] Grossman L. (1975), GCA, 39, 433-454. [17] El Goresy A. et al. (1978) LPSC IX, Abstract#1100

T. Ramprasad↗

DOE OSTI2021

The Role of Quantum Science Concepts in Enhancing Sensing and Imaging Technologies: Applications for Biology: Proceedings of a Workshop

Quantum concepts hold the potential to enable significant advances in sensing and imaging technologies that could be vital to the study of biological systems. The workshop Quantum Science Concepts in Enhancing Sensing and Imaging Technologies: Applications for Biology, held online March 8–10, 2021, was organized to examine the research and development needs to advance biological applications of quantum technology. Hosted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the event brought together experts working on state-of-the-art, quantum-enabled technologies and scientists who are interested in applying these technologies to biological systems. Through talks, panels, and discussions, the workshop facilitated a better understanding of the current and future biological applications of quantum-enabled technologies in fields such as microbiology, molecular biology, cell biology, plant science, mycology, and many others. The workshop was organized around three main themes. The first, quantum in biology, examined quantum concepts that are hypothesized to be important for life processes and that researchers are working to observe through biological imaging and sensing. The second, quantum for biology, addressed ways to use quantum concepts to enhance technologies for biological imaging and sensing. The third, biology for quantum, offered a wider discussion of how the frontiers of biological imaging and sensing could enable future study using quantum concepts, tools, or technologies. Throughout the workshop, participants identified a wide range of emerging approaches and opportunities at the intersection of quantum physics and biological sensing and imaging. During the workshop, there were some differences in how each speaker defined the term quantum. During one of the panels, Prem Kumar offered thoughts on what phenomena are classical versus quantum, explaining that techniques get progressively more quantum as you move from just having superposition to having superposition with measurement and entanglement. Another explanation from Clarice Aiello delineates the definition into several levels. This includes a base level of “quantum-ness,” which reflects that all matter is made of atoms, and when these particles are isolated they behave based on quantum mechanical principles. A second level is related to quantum coherence, where a single quantum object might be found in a coherent superposition state. A final level, which she described as the quantum-entangled level, involves multiple quantum systems which are entangled among themselves. Overall, the workshop touched on concepts such as superposition, entanglement, and squeezing and their potential implications for communication, computing, and simulation, in addition to the workshop’s main focal area, biological sensing and imaging. At the opening of the workshop, Thorsten Ritz of the University of California, Irvine, identified two questions at the heart of quantum biology: Is the machinery of life quantum mechanical, and can quantum mechanics be used to study the machinery of life in new ways? Participants highlighted systems in which researchers have explored these questions, from the vast array of molecular interactions involved in biological processes such as photosynthesis, to the mechanics involved in cellular functions such as differentiation and aggregation, to the role of oscillating magnetic fields in flight orientation among birds. Sensing and imaging technologies are crucial to biological research; these technologies could both enhance the study of quantum effects and be enhanced by quantum concepts. A critical challenge in biological research is to develop imaging and sensing tools that do not damage or interfere with the often fragile and fleeting systems being studied. Attendees discussed a variety of established and emerging technologies that could enhance noninvasive biological imaging, including single- and two-photon spectroscopy, single-molecule spectroscopy, quantum illumination, ghost imaging, and cryo-electron microscopy. One example came from Marlan Scully who gave a keynote address on the first day of the workshop. Scully emphasized the use of different laser technologies, which exhibit coherence and other quantum properties, in moving toward real-world biological applications, such as the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Both tools and theory will play an important role in advancing quantum biology research and applications. Several participants suggested theorists and experimentalists should work in tandem to understand and model biological processes. While physics often reduces systems to their simplest forms for fundamental insights, participants also noted the value of observing and understanding biological systems in all their “messiness,” capturing both the inner workings of biological systems and the complex interactions that occur within and between organisms. In discussions among participants, several attendees stressed the need to match emerging tools with the right scientific questions. Rather than developing quantum technologies as “a hammer looking for a nail,” participants emphasized a focus on exploring the problems these technologies are best suited to address. For example, it is important to consider the size of the phenomenon being studied, the timescales that are important in answering the scientific question, and other relevant considerations. Every tool along the spectrum from classical to quantum involves its own set of trade-offs. For example, Ted Laurence of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory said that quantum measurements, such as single photon counting, fluorescence transitions, and lasers, can take longer to produce the same results as classical measurements. These quantum measurements, however, do not require calibration and can enable new research questions to be answered. Prem Kumar, Northwestern University, noted that, despite their promise, quantum approaches should not be used simply for the sake of using quantum, especially in situations where classical approaches better meet the needs of the researcher. Understanding and applying quantum concepts could enable advances in a wide range of application areas including energy, synthetic biology, medicine, and sustainability. For example, Michelle O’Malley, University of California, Santa Barbara, described how improved noninvasive imaging approaches could help capture the complex interactions and functions involved in the breakdown of organic matter by microbial communities and lead to new technologies for capturing valuable products from plant waste. Several other participants discussed needs in tracking the movement of metabolites and molecules in microbial communities for insights into nutrient cycling in environments such as soil. Margaret Ahmad, Sorbonne University, discussed potential opportunities to leverage the magnetic properties of cryptochromes to advance new treatment approaches for diseases such as COVID-19 and cancer. Looking toward the future development of the field, participants discussed challenges to advancing quantum biology that arise from disciplinary disconnects between physicists and biologists. The siloing of academic research disciplines represents a significant barrier to progress. Disconnects in terminology, motivations and priorities, and structural barriers to collaborative work underscore the need for concerted efforts to bridge these divides. Attendees and speakers offered suggestions for resolving these divergences, establishing a shared language, moving the field forward, and fostering meaningful feedback between disciplines. Overall, participants stressed a need for balance, open communication, collaboration, unity, and clear dialogue on trade-offs between quantum and classical approaches. Keiko Torii, The University of Texas at Austin, said that the best collaborations happen when the project provides mutual advantages that can show off everyone’s talents, each team finds the work interesting, and partners develop a camaraderie to pursue new knowledge. To enable near- and long-term opportunities in this space, participants suggested that exploratory, high-risk funding could improve existing instrumentation to explore quantum enhancement collaboratively. They also emphasized the need for collaboration between quantum physicists and sensing/imaging scientists, which could be advanced through a dedicated quantum biology investigator program. People, even more than technology, will be crucial to the future of quantum biology. Participants explored training, education, and workforce needs to further develop this burgeoning field and cultivate the next generation of scientists. While many programs are still in their nascent stages, participants highlighted examples of approaches and programs being developed at various types of institutions to engage students and professional scientists in quantum biology research. Several participants stressed the need for an inclusive approach, spanning disciplines as well as communities to foster a diverse field fueled by the intellectual contributions of a wide range of people, including historically under-resourced schools and students. To increase awareness and excitement about quantum physics and related areas of biology, attendees suggested capitalizing on the “buzz” around quantum. Several participants emphasized the need to start early, introducing students to quantum concepts and their appealing “weirdness” in K–12 education. Engaging students early—before they become entrenched in traditional disciplinary siloes as typically happens in graduate school—could help to galvanize interest in the area and foster a generation of scientists with the interdisciplinary mindset and skills needed to advance this interdisciplinary field. While these efforts could be advanced at many levels and across multiple sectors, several participants suggested a national quantum biology center could be a valuable hub to coordinate and support quantum biology education and workforce development across academia, industry, and government.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on data sourced from WestDAAT - Changed using a Site ID column to identify unique records to using aa combination of Site ID and Allocation ID - Removed the Water Management Area (WMA) column from the harmonized records. The replacement is a separate file which stores the relationship between allocations and WMAs. This allows for allocations to contribute to water right amounts to multiple WMAs during the subsequent cumulative process. - Added a column describing a water rights legal status - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category - Added an acre-foot (AF) column - Added a column for the classification of the right's owner v1.02 - Added a .RData file to the dataset as a convenience for anyone exploring our code. This is an internal file, and the one referenced in analysis scripts as the data objects are already in R data objects. v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description Here we present an updated database of Western U.S. water right records. This database provides consistent unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of seven broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of inter-sectoral water allocation changes though water markets (Grogan et al., *in review*). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, Water Balance Model (WBM), with a water rights module (Grogan et al., *in review*). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, water management in the U.S. West is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al., 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. West. We produced the water rights database presented here in four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) data quality control, (3) data harmonization, and (4) generation of cumulative water rights curves. Each of steps (1)-(3) had to be completed in order to produce (4), the final product that was used in the modeling exercise in Grogan et al. (*in review*). All data in each step is associated with a spatial unit called a Water Management Area (WMA), which is the unit of water right administration utilized by the state in which the right came from. Steps (2) and (3) required use to make assumptions and interpretation, and to remove records from the raw data collection. We describe each of these assumptions and interpretations below so that other researchers can choose to implement alternative assumptions an interpretation as fits their research aims. Motivation for Changing Data Sources The most significant change has been a switch from collecting the raw water rights directly from each state to using the water rights records presented in WestDAAT, a product of the Water Data Exchange (WaDE) Program under the Western States Water Council (WSWC). One of the main reasons for this is that each state of interest is a member of the WSWC, meaning that WaDE is partially funded by these states, as well as many universities. As WestDAAT is also a database with consistent categorization, it has allowed us to spend less time on data collection and quality control and more time on answering research questions. This has included records from water right sources we had previously not known about when creating v1.0 of this database. The only major downside to utilizing the WestDAAT records as our raw data is that further updates are tied to when WestDAAT is updated, as some states update their public water right records daily. However, as our focus is on cumulative water amounts at the regional scale, it is unlikely most records updates would have a significant effect on our results. The structure of WestDAAT led to several important changes to how HarWR is formatted. The most significant change is that WaDE has calculated a field known as `SiteUUID`, which is a unique identifier for the Point of Diversion (POD), or where the water is drawn from. This separate from `AllocationNativeID`, which is the identifier for the allocation of water, or the amount of water associated with the water right. It should be noted that it is possible for a single site to have multiple allocations associated with it and for an allocation to be able to be extracted from multiple sites. The site-allocation structure has allowed us to adapt a more consistent, and hopefully more realistic, approach in organizing the water right records than we had with HarDWR v1.0. This was incredibly helpful as the raw data from many states had multiple water uses within a single field within a single row of their raw data, and it was not always clear if the first water use was the most important, or simply first alphabetically. WestDAAT has already addressed this data quality issue. Furthermore, with v1.0, when there were multiple records with the same water right ID, we selected the largest volume or flow amount and disregarded the rest. As WestDAAT was already a common structure for disparate data formats, we were better able to identify sites with multiple allocations and, perhaps more importantly, allocations with multiple sites. This is particularly helpful when an allocation has sites which cross WMA boundaries, instead of just assigning the full water amount to a single WMA we are now able to divide the amount of water between the number of relevant WMAs. As it is now possible to identify allocations with water used in multiple WMAs, it is no longer practical to store this information within a single column. Instead the stAllocationToWMATab.csv file was created, which is an allocation by WMA matrix containing the percent Place of Use area overlap with each WMA. We then use this percentage to divide the allocation's flow amount between the given WMAs during the cumulation process to hopefully provide more realistic totals of water use in each area. However, not every state provides areas of water use, so like HarDWR v1.0, a hierarchical decision tree was used to assign each allocation to a WMA. First, if a WMA could be identified based on the allocation ID, then that WMA was used; typically, when available, this applied to the entire state and no further steps were needed. Second was the spatial analysis of Place of Use to WMAs. Third was a spatial analysis of the POD locations to WMAs, with the assumption that allocation's POD is within the WMA it should belong to; if an allocation still had multiple WMAs based on its POD locations, then the allocation's flow amount would be divided equally between all WMAs. The fourth, and final, process was to include water allocations which spatially fell outside of the state WMA boundaries. This could be due to several reasons, such as coordinate errors / imprecision in the POD location, imprecision in the WMA boundaries, or rights attached with features, such as a reservoir, which crosses state boundaries. To include these records, we decided for any POD which was within one kilometer of the state's edge would be assigned to the nearest WMA. Other Changes WestDAAT has Allowed In addition to a more nuanced and consistent method of assigning water right's data to WMAs, there are other benefits gained from using the WestDAAT dataset. Among those is a consistent categorization of a water right's legal status. In HarDWR v1.0, legal status was effectively ignored, which led to many valid concerns about the quality of the database related to the amounts of water the rights allowed to be claimed. The main issue was that rights with legal status' such as "application withdrawn", "non-active", or "cancelled" were included within HarDWR v1.0. These, and other water rights status' which were deemed to not be in use have been removed from this version of the database. Another major change has been the addition of the "unspecified water source category. This is water that can come from either surface water or groundwater, or the source of which is unknown. The addition of this source category brings the total number of categories to three. Due to reviewer feedback, we decided to add the acre-foot (AF) column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. We added the ownerClassification column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. File Descriptions The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. In addition, each file begins with the state's name, in case the file is separate from its sub-directory for some reason. After the state name is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file described in detail. Note that st is a placeholder for the state's name. stFullRecords_HarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the complete water records for each state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state to which the allocations belong to. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. siteID - The site location ID for POD locations. A site may have multiple allocations, which are the actual amount of water which can be drawn. In a simplified hypothetical, a farm stead may have an allocation for "irrigation" and an allocation for "domestic" water use, but the water is drawn from the same pumping equipment. It should be noted that many of the site ID appear to have been added by WaDE, and therefore may not be recognized by a given state's water rights database. allocationID - The allocation ID for the water right. For most states this is the water right ID, and what is recommended to use should a right be looked up on a given state's water rights database. The water amounts associated with these IDs tend to be finer scaled than those associated with siteID. It should be noted that some allocations may be extracted from multiple sites, particularly for larger Places of Use. ownerClassification - A classification of the types of owners for water rights. The most common is `Private` which incorporates a wide range of entities. Several classifications would be grouped into a government category, most of which are for the U.S. Federal Government. These allocations could be listed as "Federal", "United States of America", or as the names of any number of federal agencies. The last major grouping of entities is for "Native American"s. priorityDate - The date we use as the water right priority date for our modeling analysis. This is the legal priority date when it is available. However, for some rights, specifically from California and New Mexico, we used a pseudo priority date (e.g. well completion date or start of well drilling date) when a legal priority date was not available. The most questionable dates come from New Mexico, where the only date associated with certain water right records was the date the allocation was recorded in the database. As the allocation record creation tended to be within a few months of the filing of the application of the water right, from manually double checking the water rights, and our analysis focuses on aggregating water rights on the timescale of years, we determined it was acceptable to use such dates to include as many records as possible. primaryBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category for the primary water use at the PoD site. allocationBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories for WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category

Economics↗