Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Surface Science”

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 289 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Estimating soil thermal inertia profiles from the passive equilibration of a temperature probe: Supporting data and code

This dataset contains measurements of soil thermal properties and organic layer thickness at three field sites on the Seward Peninsula near Nome, Alaska, USA. Code is also provided for estimation of soil thermal properties from temperature data, including a forward heat transfer mode, a library of simulated temperature data, and an inversion scheme to retrieve thermal properties from temperature measurements (Lamb et al., 2025). This dataset and code is published in support of the manuscript “Estimating Soil Thermal Inertia Profiles from the Passive Equilibration of a Temperature Probe” by Lamb et al., 2025, in which an experimental thermal measurements technique is developed. The dataset contains measurements of soil thermal properties and organic layer thickness obtained with an industry standard thermal properties analyzer and direct observations, as well as data generated using the experimental technique to estimate thermal properties and soil structure from temperature observations. All data is reported in .csv format, and all code is written in Python 3.7 using standard packages. This research was performed as a part of the NGEE Arctic project, which aims to advance model predictions of arctic carbon cycle responses to a changing climate over the 21st Century.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Soil pH Buffering Capacity, Geochemical Characterization, and Soil Water Retention for Arctic Soils of Seward Peninsula and Utqiagvik, Alaska, 2013-2019

This dataset provides pH titration data and soil pH buffering capacities of 21 Arctic soils that were collected between 2013-2019. Geochemical data including soil organic carbon, carbon:nitrogen ratio, initial pH, and gravimetric water content are also reported. Additional measurements of cation exchange capacity and soil water retention (dry range) are presented for selected soils. A script, developed in R, is also included for a simple biogeochemical simulation that incorporates soil pH buffering capacity. This dataset contains 7 csv files and one R script.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Soil water content, matric potential, carbon dioxide and oxygen concentrations, Oct 2018-Dec 2021, Slate River Floodplain, Crested Butte, Colorado

This data package includes a time series of soil sensor data (temperature, water content, bulk electrical conductivity, porewater dissolved oxygen and porewater dissolved carbon dioxide) in a vertical profile from the Slate River floodplain outside Crested Butte, Colorado, a focus field site for the SLAC Floodplain Hydro-Biogeochemistry SFA. The data was generated as part of the work targeting the overarching research question for the SLAC SFA: How do ubiquitous subsurface interfaces mediate molecular-scale biogeochemical processes and groundwater quality in floodplains and watersheds? The package includes: (1) soil temperature, volumetric water content and electrical conductivity at 40, 60 and 82.5 cm depth; (2) soil matric potential at 40, 60, 79 and 100 cm depth; (3) soil CO2 concentrations at 40, 60 and 82.5 cm depth; and (4) soil oxygen concentrations at 60, 82.5, 100, 135, 170 and 182 cm depth. Both the carbon dioxide and oxygen sensors are optical sensors that can measure the partial pressure of oxygen in both saturated and unsaturated conditions. Unfortunately, soil CO2 in the profile is unexpectedly high and above the sensor calibration range (0-25,000 ppm). In addition, soil CO2 sensors failed within a year of deployment, so we only report CO2 data from 2019-2020.Within the data package, "FLMD.csv" describes file-level metadata and "dd.csv" defines column headers and universal terms across the dataset. The data package includes 4 "*data.csv" files, one for each calendar year in the dataset. Each "*data.csv" file has a corresponding "*_InstallationMethods.csv" file that describes the location, sensor model, sensor serial number and other metadata corresponding for each measured parameter. Because sensors have been added over time, not every sensor has data dating back to Oct 2018. Note that there is a data gap over winter 2019-2020 due to a power outage. While this repository currently only contains data through December 2021, the dataset will be updated as additional years are collected and processed.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Science Opportunities on the Lunar Surface and Gateway

The presentation will be made at the International Microgravity Strategic Planning Group (IMSPG). The presentation is an overview of the science platforms for physical and fundamental physics in near lunar orbit on on the moon's surface. The presentation includes some timeline information for lunar missions. All of the information in the presentation is publicly available.

Kevin Sato↗
DOE OSTI2025

Data for Regier et al. (2025), "Short-term experimental flooding impacts soil biogeochemistry but not aboveground vegetation in a coastal forest"

Rising sea levels and intensifying storms increase flooding pressure on coastal forests, but the mechanisms that drive coastal forest mortality remain unclear. This study used an ecosystem-scale manipulation (TEMPEST, Terrestrial Ecosystem Manipulation to Probe the Effects of Storm Treatments) to simulate hurricane-level flooding of a coastal forest and explore the individual and interactive impacts of inundation and salinity. This dataset comprises the results reported by Regier et al. (2025) in their paper "Short-term experimental flooding impacts soil biogeochemistry but not aboveground vegetation in a coastal forest." It consists of measurements of:- Belowground conductance- Soil dissolved oxygen and redox- Soil and tree greenhouse gas fluxes- Leaf photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, and intercellular carbon dioxide- Sap flux- Soil volumetric water content and electrical conductivityAll files are plain-text CSV (comma separated value) and no special software is required to read them.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Biogeochemistry simulations for the Salt Marsh Accretion Response to Temperature eXperiment (SMARTX)

Coastal ecosystems have been largely ignored in Earth system models but are important zones for carbon and nutrient processing. Interactions between water, microbes, soil, sediments, and vegetation are important for mechanistic representation of coastal processes and ecosystem function. To investigate the role of these feedbacks, we used a reactive transport model (PFLOTRAN) that has the capability to be connected to the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM). PFLOTRAN was used to incorporate redox reactions and track chemical species important for coastal ecosystems as well as define simple representations of vegetation dynamics. Our goal was to incorporate oxygen flux, salinity, pH, sulfur cycling, and methane production along with plant-mediated transport of gases and tidal flux. Using porewater profile and incubation data for model calibration and evaluation, we were able to create depth-resolved biogeochemical soil profiles for saltmarsh habitat and use this updated representation to simulate direct and indirect effects of elevated CO2 and temperature on subsurface biogeochemical cycling. We found that simply changing the partial pressure of CO2 or increasing temperature in the model did not fully reproduce observed changes in the porewater profile, but the inclusion of plant or microbial responses to CO2 and temperature manipulations was more accurate in representing porewater concentrations. This indicates the importance of characterizing tightly coupled vegetation-subsurface processes for developing predictive understanding and the need for measurement of plant-soil interactions on the same time scale to understand how hotspots or moments are generated.Included in this data package are PFLOTRAN input (PFLOTRAN input files and chemical database) files for simulating single column biogeochemistry, root, and tide interactions at the Global Change Research Wetland (Kirkpatrick Marsh; Edgewater, MD). The biogeochemical network includes soil organic matter decomposition, nitrogen, iron, and sulfur cycling, and methanogenesis. Reduced species can be oxidized and plant processes include oxygen and nutrient priming, methane release, and nutrient uptake.Inputs:TAI_database.dat - geochemical database for reactions, more information on database structure and variables can be found here https://www.pflotran.org/documentation/user_guide/cards/pages/geochemical_database.htmlswamp.in - input file for biogeochemical network in PFLOTRANswamp_eCO2.in - input file for biogeochemical network in PFLOTRAN with input gas partial pressures/concentrations adjusted for elevated CO2 treatmentsOutputs:swamp_obs_0.tec - hourly porewater concentrations from from multiple depths in the soil columnswamp_eCO2_obs_0.tec - hourly porewater concentrations from multiple depths in the soil column for elevated CO2 treatmentsPFLOTRAN code access: https://github.com/fmyuan/pflotran-elm-interface.git

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluating Extravehicular Activity Access Options for a Lunar Surface Habitat

NASA’s upcoming return to the moon includes a plan for longer duration lunar missions that prioritize science and surface exploration. The current Artemis Base Camp reference proposes a Surface Habitat (SH) that will support 2 to 4 crewmembers with adequate capability for living and working for 30 days or more. An important aspect of the SH’s design will be its ability to support a high frequency of Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) for scientific purposes. There are multiple airlock designs that can support EVA access from inside the SH out to the lunar surface. This paper explores three unique options for EVA access: a traditional airlock, a suitlock, and a suitport-airlock.A traditional airlock is accessed by use of a hatch, crewmembers don and doff their EVA suits inside the airlock, and it must be depressurized and repressurized for every EVA. A suitlock is also depressurized and repressurized for every EVA but thesuits are donned through a suitport attached to the airlock bulkhead. A suitport-airlock is access through suitports that are attached to the airlock bulkhead as well, but the suitport-airlock stays in vacuum, and it does not have to be depressurized and repressurized for each EVA. This study also evaluated the use of an Airlock Airsave System in the cases of a traditional airlock and suitlock. This system captures a fraction of the airlock gas instead of venting all of the gas pre-EVA. The captured gas isthen used to partially repressurize the airlock post-EVA.In this study, each option is evaluated based on seven different areas of analysis. The metrics include overhead time for EVAs, dust mitigation, consumables for resupply mass, systems mass, system power, safety and mission assurances, and programmatic considerations. The EVA access options are evaluated and compared under each area of analysis. While the baseline case assumes the SH is at 8.2 psia, the authors also investigate the impact of a 10.2 psia habitat as an alternative in this analysis. Following the conclusion of the analysis, the authors recommend the usage of a Suitport-Airlock for Lunar SH missions and detail the reasoning behind the recommendation.

EVA↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluating Extravehicular Activity Access Options for a Lunar Surface Habitat

NASA’s upcoming return to the moon includes a plan for longer duration lunar missions that prioritize science and surface exploration. The current Artemis Base Camp reference proposes a Surface Habitat (SH) that will support 2 to 4 crewmembers with adequate capability for living and working for 30 days or more. An important aspect of the SH’s design will be its ability to support a high frequency of Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) for scientific purposes. There are multiple airlock designs that can support EVA access from inside the SH out to the lunar surface. This paper explores three unique options for EVA access: a traditional airlock, a suitlock, and a suitport-airlock. A traditional airlock is accessed by use of a hatch, crewmembers don and doff their EVA suits inside the airlock, and it must be depressurized and repressurized for every EVA. A suitlock is also depressurized and repressurized for every EVA but the suits are donned through a suitport attached to the airlock bulkhead. A suitport-airlock is accessed through suitports that are attached to the airlock bulkhead as well, but the suitport-airlock stays in vacuum, and it does not have to be depressurized and repressurized for each EVA. This study also evaluated the use of an Airlock Airsave System in the cases of a traditional airlock and suitlock. This system captures a fraction of the airlock gas instead of venting all of the gas pre-EVA. The captured gas is then used to partially repressurize the airlock post-EVA. In this study, each option is evaluated based on seven different areas of analysis. The metrics include overhead time for EVAs, dust mitigation, consumables for resupply mass, systems mass, system power, safety and mission assurances, and programmatic considerations. The EVA access options are evaluated and compared under each area of analysis. While the baseline case assumes the SH is at 8.2 psia, the authors also investigate the impact of a 10.2 psia habitat as an alternative in this analysis. Following the conclusion of the analysis, the authors recommend the usage of a Suitport-Airlock for Lunar SH missions and detail the reasoning behind the recommendation.

EVA↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Lunar Science and Mission Systems Integration for Real-Time Long Duration Remote Robot Surface Operations

Conducting lunar science with a robot on the Moon that is commanded in real-time from Earth by distributed workgroups for long durations is a specific activity that has been developed by many projects including NASA’s Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) mission. VIPER’s nominal mission period for surface operations was set for 100 Earth days (four lunar days). VIPER’s science knowledge acquisition was set to focus on characterizing the distribution of water and volatiles across a range of thermal environments, within a traverse planned to optimize science return across up to 20 km. While VIPER’s status is the subject of discussion, there is research and analysis from the development and simulations phases that are of benefit to the lunar science community and future remote science operations projects. Discussed here are some findings on the process of integrating lunar science with mission system operations.

VIPER↗
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 OSTI2022

Role of copper in nitrous oxide accumulation in wetland soils from Illinois and South Carolina and stream sediments from Tennessee

Denitrification is microbially-mediated through enzymes containing metal cofactors. Laboratory studies of pure cultures have highlighted that the availability of copper (Cu), required for the multicopper enzyme nitrous oxide reductase, can limit nitrous oxide (N2O) reduction. However, in natural aquatic systems, such as wetlands and hyporheic zones in stream beds, the role of Cu in controlling denitrification remains incompletely understood. In this study, we collected soils and sediments from three natural environments -- riparian wetlands, marsh wetlands, and a stream -- to investigate their nitrogen species transformation activity at background Cu levels and different supplemented Cu loadings. All of the systems contained solid-phase associated Cu below or around geological levels (40–280 nmol g-1) and exhibited low dissolved Cu (3–50 nM), which made them appropriate sites for evaluating the effect of limited Cu availability on denitrification.The dataset contains the variation in the nutrient (nitrate (NO3-), nitrite (NO2-), and ammonium (NH4+)) and N2O concentrations during the incubation experiments to evaluate the effect of Cu. We have also reported the variation in metal concentrations (Cu, iron(Fe) and manganese (Mn)) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentrations during the incubations. The parameters obtained using a kinetic model to quantitatively report the effect of Cu on nitrogen species conversion in natural aquatic systems are also added in the dataset. The dataset also contains the labile concentration of Cu estimated using a speciation model in MINTEQ. All data are provided in text-based CSV format with header sections indicating the data contained in each file and the corresponding units.Our study suggests that high concentrations of N2O accumulated in all microcosms lacking Cu amendment except for one stream sediment sample. With Cu added to provide dissolved concentrations at trace levels (10–300 nM), the reduction rate of N2O to N2 in the wetland soils and stream sediments was enhanced. A kinetic model could account for the trends in nitrogen species by combining the reactions for microbial reduction of NO3- to NO2-/N2O/N2 and abiotic reduction of NO2 to nitrogen (N2_. The model revealed that the rate of N2O to N2 conversion increased significantly in the presence of Cu. For riparian wetland soils and stream sediments, the kinetic model also suggested that overall denitrification is driven by abiotic reduction of NO2- in the presence of inorganic electron donors. This study demonstrated that natural aquatic systems containing Cu at concentrations less than or equal to crustal abundances may display incomplete reduction of N2O to N2 that would cause N2O accumulation and release to the atmosphere.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Wetland Soil Characterization and Methane Production Impacted by Nickel Addition, Argonne and Tims Branch Wetlands, September and October 2020

Abstract:Freshwater wetland soils are foci of biogeochemical cycling as they serve as key sources of methane to the atmosphere. An array of metalloenzymes is essential to anaerobic microbial carbon transformations. Nickel is notably recognized as playing key roles in the enzymatic pathways of methanogenesis. Low availability of trace metals limits microbial element cycling in laboratory studies, but the occurrence of such limitations in natural subsurface aquatic systems is poorly understood. Microcosm incubation studies were carried out using two distinct wetland soils, one from a marsh wetland and the second from a riparian wetland, to explore the effect of dissolved Ni concentrations on methane production. Data are provided for wetland soil characterization and soil incubation experiments using materials from marsh wetlands at Argonne National Laboratory and riparian wetlands in the Tims Branch watershed at Savannah River National Laboratory. The characterization data consists soil carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and iron contents plus as well as the solid-phase concentrations of copper, nickel, cobalt, and zinc, bioessential trace metals that may limits microbial metabolic process if they have low availability. The data for the soil incubation experiments include fluid pH, fluid dissolved trace metal concentrations, and cumulative methane production. Three soil incubations are reported: marsh wetland soil with increasing nickel addition, marsh wetland soil in sulfate-free water with increasing nickel addition, and riparian wetland soil with increasing nickel addition. All data are provided in text-based CSV format with header sections indicating the data contained in each file and the corresponding units. Note that "u" is used in place of Greek lower case mu to indicate the micro prefix on units. A Table of Contents file (Yan_Soil_Incubations_2020_TOC.txt) provides an index for the data contained in the individual files.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Classified channel masks of the East River, Colorado, U.S.A and areas of floodplain erosion and accretion ranging from 1955 to 2015

This dataset provides four sets of geotiffs used for the mapping and analysis an alluvial floodplain reach of the East River, downstream of Gothic, CO, U.S.A near Crested Butte. The files include binary masks of the river channel at five in intervals from 1955 to 2015. Another set of rasters provide a map of the channel centerline pixels of the river for each date. Also included in the dataset are rasters of the areas of channel change due to migration over 8 time intervals. The masks were generated from aerial and satellite imagery collected on seven dates over a sixty-year timespan: 1955, 1973, 1983, 1990, 2001, 2011, and 2015. The masks were analyzed using the Spatially Continuous Riverbank Erosion and Accretion Measurements (SCREAM) software detailed in Rowland et al. 2016 to create the channel centerlines and the change area rasters. The change masks were generated for the following time periods: 1955-1973; 1955-2015; 1973-1983; 1983-1990; 1990-2001; 2001-2011; 2001-2015; and 2011-2015.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Organic layer thickness and carbon concentration in burned and unburned sites, Seward Peninsula, AK, 2022

Measurements associated with organic layer samples collected from naturally burned (1971, 2002, 2015, 2019) and unburned sites at the Kougarok Fire Complex, Seward Peninsula, AK, 2022. Here, a discontinuous permafrost underlies an arctic tundra ecosystem. Measurements include elemental carbon and nitrogen concentrations and stocks, organic layer thickness, and thaw depth. There are five files in *.csv format with one data file and four data description files including data dictionary, methods, terminology, and file-level metadata. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2017

Long-Lived In-Situ Solar System Explorer (LLISSE)

This presentation provides an update on development of the Long-Lived In-situ Solar System Explorer (LLISSE). LLISSE is a small probe being developed to provide long-term measurements of simple but important scientific parameters from the surface of Venus. High level summary of recent activities and progress is provided. LLISSE is a small and completely independent probe for Venus surface applications

Venus↗
DOE OSTI2021

Data from : "Warming promotes loss of subsoil carbon through accelerated degradation of plant-derived organic matter". Blodgett warming experiment

This dataset contains data used for the paper: Warming promotes loss of subsoil carbon through accelerated degradation of plant-derived organic matter. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 156, 108185. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108185On April 2018 (after 4.5 years of warming), we collected O-horizon (organic horizon) material and soil core down to 90 cm depth from a whole-soil warming experiment in a mixed-coniferous temperate forest, located at the University of California Blodgett experimental forest in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, CA USA. The goal was to assess how 4.5 years of +4 °C whole-soil warming affected the quantity and quality of soil organic matter. Cores were collected from 6 experimental plots (three replicated blocks); samples were collected in 10 cm increments from 0 to 90 cm depth.This dataset contains a compressed (.zip) archive of the data used for this manuscript. The dataset includes files in .xlsx format, which can be accessed and processed using MS Excel or R. Carbon and nitrogen concentrations, as well as stable carbon isotope composition ((δ13C) and solvent extractable lipid biomarker (alkanoic acids and alkanes) data are provided as processed data files. Diffuse reflectance infrared Fourier transform (DRIFT) spectroscopy data are provided as raw output and processed data files.The dataset files "Blodgett_warming_Data" and "Blodgett_warming_raw_data.xlsx" were updated on July 7, 2021. The following updates were made: (1) specification of the units of measurements in the dataset (the unit of measurement was missing in some parameters) and (2) the column name "pulled depth" was changed to "pooled depth" in the updated data files.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗