SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
Drinking water infrastructure in urban settings is increasingly affected by population growth and disruptions like extreme weather events. This study explores how the integration of direct wastewater reuse can help to maintain drinking water service when the system is compromised.
Not provided.
Not provided.
Not provided.
Aggregation-dependent shifts in plasmon frequency (colorimetric sensor); • Local refractive index-dependent shifts in plasmon frequency; • Inelastic (surface-enhanced Raman) light scattering; • Elastic (Rayleigh) light scattering CONCLUSIONS Generate unique classes of nanoscale materials for environmental stewardship applications o Characterization of nanomaterials provides understanding of structural properties for sorption of contaminants o Surface charge influences interaction between nanomaterial and contaminant o Surface charge can be modified to allow for more contaminant sorption • Demonstrate innovative nanomaterial science and technology solutions that meet our environmental stewardship needs: • Detect contaminants • Sequester contaminants
Not provided.
Not provided.
Abstract Measuring water use in co‐occurring loblolly pine (Pinus taedaL.) and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinataMill.) enhances our understanding of their competitive water use and aids in refining watershed water budget model parameters. This study was conducted in a 12‐ha forested headwater catchment in the Piedmont of North Carolina, southeastern U.S., from 2018 to 2019 (pre‐thinning) to 2020 (post‐thinning). Sap flux density (J s ), species‐level transpiration (T s ), and watershed‐level transpiration (T w ) were quantified. Water use efficiency (WUE) in loblolly and shortleaf pines was compared, alongside an investigation into how both species'J s andT s responded to atmospheric vapor pressure deficit (VPD). Loblolly pine had 19%–36% higherJ s than shortleaf pine. DailyT s for loblolly pine ranged from 15.0 to 29.0 L/day whileT s in shortleaf pine ranged from 3.0 to 6.8 L/day. TheT s was significantly higher in loblolly pine when compared to shortleaf pine likely due to higher canopy position and higher growth rates of the former. WUE, defined by annual tree biomass growth per tree water use, was not significantly different between the two. DailyJ s andT s in both species responded nonlinearly to VPD, with loblolly pine being more sensitive and variable. Species‐specific water use should be considered when quantifyingT w and developing reliable models to predict the effects of forest management practices on water resources.
The implementation of environmental flows (e-flows) aims to reduce the negative impacts of hydrological alteration on freshwater ecosystems. Despite the growing attention to the importance of e-flows since the 1970s, actual implementation has lagged. Therefore, we explore the limitations in e-flows implementation, their systemic reasons, and solutions. We conducted a systematic review and a bibliometric analysis to identify peer-reviewed articles published on the topic of e-flows implementation research in the last two decades, resulting in 68 research and review papers. Co-occurrence of terms, and geographic and temporal trends were analyzed to identify the gaps in environmental water management and propose recommendations to address limitations on e-flows implementation. We identify the underlying causes and potential solutions to such challenges in environmental water management. The limitations to e-flow implementation identified were categorized into 21 classes. The most recognized limitation was the competing priorities of human uses of water (n = 29). Many secondary limitations, generally co-occurring in co-causation, were identified as limiting factors, especially for implementing more nuanced and sophisticated e-flows. The lack of adequate hydrological data (n = 24) and ecological data (n = 28) were among the most mentioned, and ultimately lead to difficulties in starting or continuing monitoring/adaptive management (n = 28) efforts. The lack of resource/capacity (n = 21), experimentation (n = 19), regulatory enforcement (n = 17), and differing authorities involved (n = 18) were also recurrent problems, driven by the deficiencies in the relative importance given to e-flows when facing other human priorities. In order to provide a clearer path for successful e-flow implementation, system mapping can be used as a starting point and general-purpose resource for understanding the sociohydrological problems, interactions, and inherited complexity of river systems. Secondly, we recommend a system analysis approach to address competing demands, especially with the use of coupled water-energy modeling tools to support decision-making when hydropower generation is involved. Such approaches can better assess the complex interactions among the hydrologic, ecological, socioeconomic, and engineering dimensions of water resource systems and their effective management. Lastly, given the complexities in environmental water allocation, implementation requires both scientific rigor and proven utility. Consequently, and where possible, we recommend a move from simplistic flow allocations to a more holistic approach informed by hydroecological principles. To ease conflicts between competing water demands, water managers can realize more 'pop per drop' by supporting key components of a flow regime that include functional attributes and processes that enhance biogeochemical cycling, structural habitat formation, and ecosystem maintenance.
Over the past several decades, hydrologic models have advanced from independent models of the surface and subsurface to integrated models that can capture the terrestrial hydrologic cycle within one framework. In recent years, these coupled frameworks have seen the inclusion of biogeochemical processes, ecohydrology, sedimentation and erosion, cold region hydrology, anthropogenic activities, and atmospheric processes. This expansion is the result of increased computational, data, and modeling capabilities and capacities, as well as improved understanding of the processes that drive these integrated systems. Here, in this study, we review these recent advances to integrate new processes and systems into existing terrestrial hydrologic models and highlight the significant challenges and opportunities that remain. We identify that with so many models currently available and in development, selecting the most appropriate model is difficult, and we suggest a path for new or novice modelers to find the most appropriate code based on their needs. In addition, data required to parameterize and calibrate these models can often constrain their applicability and usefulness. However, advances in environmental sensors and measurement technology, in addition to data assimilation of non-traditional data (e.g. remote sensing, qualitative data) are providing new ways of addressing this issue. As we expand hydrologic models to integrate more processes and systems, our computational demands also increase. Recent and emerging advances in computational platforms, including cloud and quantum computing, in addition to the use of machine learning to capture some processes, will continue to support the use of increasingly larger and more complex, process-based models. Finally, we highlight that it is critical to develop state-of-the-science models that are accessible to all model users, not just those applied for research and development. We encourage continued development of diverse modeling platforms, considering the user needs, data availability, and computational resources.
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 - No changes v1.0 - Initial public release Description Borders of all Water Management Areas (WMAs) across the 11 western-most states of the coterminous United States are available filtered through a single source. The legal name for this set of boundaries varies state-by-state. The data is provided as two compressed shapefiles. One, stateWMAs, contains data for all 11 states. For 10 of those states, Arizona being the exception, the polygons represent the legal management boundaries used by those states to manage their surface and groundwater resources respectively. WMAs refer to the set of boundaries a particular state uses to manage its water resources. Each set of boundaries was collected from the states individually, and then merged into one spatial layer. The merging process included renaming some columns to enable merging with all other source layers, as well as removing columns deemed not required for followup analysis. The retained columns for each boundary are: basinNum - the state provided unique numerical ID; basinName - the state provided English name of the area, where applicable; state - the state name; and uniID - a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID. Arizona is unique within this collection of states in that surface and groundwater resources are managed using two separate sets of boundaries. During our followup analysis (Grogan et al., in review) we decided to focus on one set of boundaries, those for surface water. This is due to the recommendation of our hydrologists that the surface water boundary set is a more realist representation of how water moves across the landscape, as a few of the groundwater boundaries are based on political and/or economic considerations. Therefore, the Arizona surface WMAs are included within stateWMAs. The Arizona groundwater WMAs are provided as a separate file, azGroundWMAs, as a companion to the first file for completeness and general reference. WMA spatial boundary data sources by state: Arizona: Arizona Surface Water Watersheds; Collected February, 2020; https://gisdata2016-11-18t150447874z-azwater.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/surface-watershed/explore?location=34.158174%2C-111.970823%2C7.50 Arizona: Arizona Ground Water Basins; Collected February, 2020; https://gisdata2016-11-18t150447874z-azwater.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/groundwater-basin-2/explore?location=34.158174%2C-111.970823%2C7.50 California: California CalWater 2.2.1; Collected February, 2020; https://www.mlml.calstate.edu/mpsl-mlml/data-center/data-entry-tools/data-tools/gis-shapefile-layers/ Colorado: Colorado Water District Boundaries; Collected February, 2020; https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdss/gis-data-category Idaho: Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) Administrative Basins; Collected November, 2015; https://data-idwr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/fb0df7d688a04074bad92ca8ef74cc26_4/explore?location=45.018686%2C-113.862284%2C6.93 Montana: Collected June, 2019; Directly contacted Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) Office of Information Technology (OIT) Nevada: Nevada State Engineer Admin Basin Boundaries; Collected April, 2020 https://ndwr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=1364d0c3a0284fa1bcd90f952b2b9f1c New Mexico: New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE) Declared Groundwater Basins; Collected April, 2020 https://geospatialdata-ose.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ose-declared-groundwater-basins/explore?location=34.179783%2C-105.996542%2C7.51 Oregon: Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) Administrative Basins; Collected February, 2020; https://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/access_Data/Pages/Data.aspx Utah: Utah Adjudication Books; Collected April, 2020; https://opendata.gis.utah.gov/datasets/utahDNR::utah-adjudication-books/explore?location=39.497165%2C-111.587782%2C-1.00 Washington: Washington Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA); Collected June, 2017; https://ecology.wa.gov/Research-Data/Data-resources/Geographic-Information-Systems-GIS/Data Wyoming: Wyoming State Engineer's Office Board of Control Water Districts; Collected June, 2019; Directly contacted Wyoming State Engineer's Office