Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “below water”

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 379 records · Page 21
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management 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. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to included within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state.

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2023

Non-Fouling, Low Cost Electrolytic Coagulation & Disinfection for Treating Flowback and Produced Water for Reuse

Executive Summary This Final Report is composed of two major sections. The first section presents experimental results obtained in the laboratory during Budget Period 1. The second section presents results from the field test conducted during Budget Period 2. Laboratory Results This research investigated a novel electrochemical process for producing a ferric iron coagulant for use in treating flowback and produced water from hydraulic fracturing and oil production operations. The treatment system improves the effectiveness and lowers the cost of coagulation processes using Fe3+ as the coagulant. The electrolytic coagulant generation (ECG) system uses an electrochemical cell to produce acid and base from oilfield brine solutions. The acid is used to dissolve scrap iron to provide a Fe3+ coagulating agent. The base is used to neutralize the treated water. Compared to conventional electrocoagulation (EC), the main advantage of the ECG system is an order of magnitude lower cost for the source of iron. The second advantage over conventional EC is that it can deliver Fe3+ doses greater than 1 mM, since it is not limited by the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water required to oxidize ferrous to ferric iron. The capital costs for conventional EC and the ECG system are similar, but the operational costs for the ECG system are an order of magnitude lower than conventional EC. The combined costs for iron and electrical energy for treating 1 m3 of FPW with 1 mM Fe3+ is estimated to be $0.87 for conventional EC, and $0.087 for the ECG system. The estimated all-in cost for treating FPW with a 2 mM Fe3+ dose is $0.73/m3 ($0.12/bbl). Field Test Results The field test was conducted at the Paul Foster Central Tank Battery (CTB) in Lea County, New Mexico from November 10, 2022 through December 15, 2022. The feed water to the system was produced water from the Tatanka 1H formation. After approximately two weeks of testing, the initial batch of produced water had been treated and no untreated produced water was available. Thus, after this time, the feed water to the system consisted of previously treated water (i.e., recycled water). The recycled water had nearly all colloidal particles removed, and had a much lower alkalinity due to precipitation of carbonate minerals during the first pass through the system. Although the recycled water was not an ideal test solution due to its low particulate concentrations, its lower alkalinity did allow us to identify the main problem with the treatment system. The main problem with the treatment system was caused by the high alkalinity of the initial feed water (5.4 meq/L) that consumed a significant fraction of the electrochemically generated acid. This resulted in pH values exiting the iron contact tank that were too high to dissolve enough iron to effectively treat the produced water. Tests performed with recycled water with lower alkalinity did not have this issue, and dissolved iron concentrations greater than 20 mM could be achieved. One consistent observation was that effluent water from the iron contact tank was always free of particulates, even when fed with circumneutral solutions. This suggests that there is no need to dissolve high concentrations of iron if all the water to be treated is passed through the scrap iron canister. In this case, dissolved O2 and hypochlorous acid can promote sufficient iron corrosion to provide an effective coagulating agent – even in neutral pH water. This solves the problem resulting from highly alkaline produced water. Modifications to the design of the treatment system were made based on the field test results. These modifications will add minimal additional cost, and were tested in bench-scale laboratory experiments. In short-term testing, the modified treatment process was able to remove colloidal FeS particulates to levels below detection. Long-term, steady state testing will be required to determine whether the modified process is suitable for commercial treatment systems.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Improving Discovery, Sharing, and Use of Water Data: Initial Findings and Suggested Future Work

Collaborative management of water resources requires a broad suite of “water data” that extends beyond basic information about water quantity and quality to other related topics such as water infrastructure, aquatic ecosystem health, socioeconomic factors, and power generation. Water data are disparate in nature because they are collected and provided by many entities, and in some cases, remain challenging to access and use. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Water Power Technologies Office initiated a project to characterize relevant categories of water data; describe the current state of accessing, using, and visualizing water data; and outline investigatory pathways for future efforts aimed at improving the discovery, sharing, and use of water data. Input on these topics was solicited from a small but diverse cross section of members of the water resources community. Fourteen broad categories of water data were identified: dams; ecology; flood control; hydroclimatology; hydrography; hydrology; hydropower; management landscape; migratory barriers; recreation and aesthetic importance; socioeconomic; water quality; water availability and use; and weather. Stakeholder perspectives on the accessibility and usability of water data indicate these aspects are affected by a complex set of technical and social factors. However, stakeholders generally agreed that better access to water data can provide a range of benefits to water management, and they stressed the need to generate broad support from water data users and producers. Two investigatory pathways were outlined that, taken together, provide a logical progression toward the goals of the project. The first pathway emphasizes further investigation to better define target audiences and data needs, identify opportunities for collaboration between related efforts, and conduct value demonstration activities to generate further support for improving discovery and access of water data. The second pathway focuses on creating a comprehensive vision for potential solutions that improve the discovery of water data. Several activities that align with the first pathway are suggested for the next phase of the project.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Evaluating cross-sectoral impacts of climate change and adaptations on the energy-water nexus: a framework and California case study

Abstract Electricity and water systems are inextricably linked through water demands for energy generation, and through energy demands for using, moving, and treating water and wastewater. Climate change may stress these interdependencies, together referred to as the energy-water nexus, by reducing water availability for hydropower generation and by increasing irrigation and electricity demand for groundwater pumping, among other feedbacks. Further, many climate adaptation measures to augment water supplies—such as water recycling and desalination—are energy-intensive. However, water and electricity system climate vulnerabilities and adaptations are often studied in isolation, without considering how multiple interactive risks may compound. This paper reviews the fragmented literature and develops a generalized framework for understanding these implications of climate change on the energy-water nexus. We apply this framework in a case study to quantify end-century direct climate impacts on California’s water and electricity resources and estimate the magnitude of the indirect cross-sectoral feedback of electricity demand from various water adaptation strategies. Our results show that increased space cooling demand and decreased hydropower generation are the most significant direct climate change impacts on California’s electricity sector by end-century. In California’s water sector, climate change impacts directly on surface water availability exceed demand changes, but have considerable uncertainty, both in direction and magnitude. Additionally, we find that the energy demands of water sector climate adaptations could significantly affect California’s future electricity system needs. If the worst-case water shortage occurs under climate change, water-conserving adaptation measures can provide large energy savings co-benefits, but other energy-intensive water adaptations may double the direct impacts of climate change on the state’s electricity resource requirement. These results highlight the value of coordinated adaptation planning between the energy and water sectors to achieve mutually beneficial solutions for climate resilience.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2020

HarDWR - Cumulative Water Rights Curves

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 Harmonized Water Rights Records v2.0 sourced from WestDAAT - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category, and files associated with this category 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 This product an updated version of the database used as input to the WBM model (Grogan et al. in review; Grogan et al. 2022), and is the result of the step creating cumulative water rights curves described in Lisk et al. (2024). This database contains 2,667 individual .csv files, three for each Water Management Area (WMA) in the 11-state region. File Naming WMA_[###]_[X]W.csv, where [###] is the unique identifier for each WMA, and [X] is either "S" for surface water rights, "G" for groundwater rights, or "U" for unspecified. Column headers in each file: Year: the priority date year CUML: the total cumulative water rights allocated up to this priority date year (ft3s-1) Irrigation: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Irrigation category up to this priority date year (%) Domestic: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Domestic category up to this priority date year (%) Livestock: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Livestock category up to this priority date year (%) Fish: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Fish category up to this priority date year (%) Industrial: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Industrial category up to this priority date year (%) Environmental: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Environmental category up to this priority date year (%) Other: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Other category up to this priority date year (%) In addition to the database files, there is a companion .csv file, called stateWMAs_ID.csv. The main purpose of this file is to provide the means of translating between the [###] unique identifier and the various other id of the WMA the file is attached to. This translation file has five columns, which are: basinNum: The official state given alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA basinName: the state provided English name of the area, where applicable state: the state name uniID: a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID ID: a unique numeric identifier we created as a requirement for the files to be used within WBM (Grogan et al. in review) For those whom may be interested in exploring our code more in depth, we are also making available an internal data file for convenience. The file is in .RData format and contains everything described above as well as some minor additional objects used within the code calculating the cumulative curves. For completeness, here is a detailed description of the various objects which can be found within the .RData file: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in the study region. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the second index in this object, the data for California will also be in the second index for each accompanying list. wmasRightsPersGrd: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The data frames in this object are the same as the above described .csv files, specifically for groundwater. wmasRightsPersSur: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The data frames in this object are the same as the above described .csv files, specifically for surface water. wmasRightsPersUnsp: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The data frames in this object are the same as the above described .csv files, specifically for water from an unspecified source. wmasRightsTotsGrd: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The values in the data frames of this object would be the equivalent to multiplying the CUML column by the sector percentage columns to create the sector total ft3s-1, specifically for groundwater. This object is provided for convenience to check out original total values, if desired. wmasRightsTotsSur: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The values in the data frames of this object would be the equivalent to multiplying the CUML column by the sector percentage columns to create the sector total ft3s-1, specifically for surface water. This object is provided for convenience to check out original total values, if desired. wmasRightsTotsUnsp: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The values in the data frames of this object would be the equivalent to multiplying the CUML column by the sector percentage columns to create the sector total ft3s-1, specifically for water from an unspecified source. This object is provided for convenience to check out original total values, if desired. wmaIDByState: A list of data frames which contain the by state allocation by WMA matrix. There is a matrix for each state in a different data frame within the object.

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2021

Plant functional types broadly describe water use strategies in the Caatinga, a seasonally dry tropical forest in northeast Brazil

In seasonally dry tropical forests, plant functional type can be classified as deciduous low wood density, deciduous high wood density, or evergreen high wood density species. While deciduousness is often associated with drought-avoidance and low wood density is often associated with tissue water storage, the degree to which these functional types may correspond to diverging and unique water use strategies has not been extensively tested. We examined (a) tolerance to water stress, measured by predawn and mid-day leaf water potential; (b) water use efficiency, measured via foliar δ 13 C; and (c) access to soil water, measured via stem water δ 18 O. We found that deciduous low wood density species maintain high leaf water potential and low water use efficiency. Deciduous high wood density species have lower leaf water potential and variable water use efficiency. Both groups rely on shallow soil water. Evergreen high wood density species have low leaf water potential, higher water use efficiency, and access alternative water sources. These findings indicate that deciduous low wood density species are drought avoiders, with a specialized strategy for storing root and stem water. Deciduous high wood density species are moderately drought tolerant, and evergreen high wood density species are the most drought tolerant group. Our results broadly support the plant functional type framework as a way to understand water use strategies, but also highlight species-level differences.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Drivers of Future Physical Water Scarcity and Its Economic Impacts in Latin America and the Caribbean

Future water scarcity is a global concern with significant impacts on the energy, water, and land (EWL) sectors. Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) are significant producers of agricultural goods consumed around the world, so disruptions resulting from land and water scarcity in LAC are a source of global supply chain risk. Understanding where water scarcity in LAC could occur and what could drive that scarcity to emerge is critical for strategic resource management and planning, both regionally and globally. Assessing future water scarcity impacts in LAC is challenging given the multisector dynamic interactions among the EWL sectors and the multiple uncertainties acting across different spatial scales. We use scenario discovery to explore the drivers of future water scarcity, considering assumptions related to climate, socioeconomics, and the EWL sectors. Understanding what factors drive uncertainty across outcomes can help stakeholders in targeting long-term solutions and future data collection efforts. To illuminate these dynamics, we use a database consisting of a large ensemble of scenarios representing diverse worlds simulated using the Global Change Analysis Model. We quantify future water scarcity and its economic impacts across the scenarios using three metrics: (1) physical water scarcity, (2) water price, and (3) crop profit. We find that physical water scarcity and water price are driven primarily by reservoir storage capacity assumptions, highlighting the importance of strategic water infrastructure development in maintaining future water availability and accessibility. Crop profit is driven by a combination of water supply and demand assumptions, which emphasizes the complex nature of EWL multisector dynamics. While most of LAC is poised to have abundant land and water resources available for development, water basins in Mexico and along the Pacific coast of South America experience high levels of severity and uncertainty across the future scenarios for at least one of the metrics. We find that the drivers of extreme scarcity vary spatially and across the metrics, further highlighting the heterogeneity of the region and the importance of considering multiple metrics to assess water scarcity vulnerability.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Vegetation water sources in California's Sierra Nevada (USA) are young and change over time, a multi-isotope ( δ 18 O, δ 2 H, 3 H) tracer approach.

Sierra Nevada forests transpire a significant amount of California's water resources, sparking interest in applying forest management to improve California's water supply. Determining the source water of evapotranspiration enables forest managers to make informed decisions. To this end, a significant interest in critical zone science is to develop new methods to work across time scales to predict subsurface water storage and use. Here, forest vegetation accessed young water and switched sources depending on availability, suggesting that forest drought vulnerability may depend on the range of water sources available (rain, snowmelt and deeply stored water). This finding also suggests that changes in transpiration rates may have immediate effects on water sources in close proximity to vegetation, and delayed effects on storage and runoff. New δ 18 O, δ 2 H and 3 H data were used to track precipitation, runoff, evapotranspiration and storage through the critical zone seasonally, including seasons where evapotranspiration and snowmelt were in phase (winter snowmelt) and out of phase (seasonally dry summer). The main source of this headwater catchment's runoff is derived from its meadow saturated zone water, which was dominated by snowmelt. Water that originated as snowmelt contributed to transpiration, unless other sources, such as recent rain, became available. In cases where xylem δ 18 O and δ 2 H signatures matched those of deeper saturated zone water, 3 H data showed that xylem water was distinctly younger than the deep saturated zone water. During 2016, which experienced relatively normal snowpack in winter and seasonally dry summer conditions, mean summer saturated zone water and vegetation water were similar in δ 18 O, –12.4 ± 0.04 ‰ and – 12.5 ± 0.3 ‰, respectively, but were distinctly different in 3 H, 5.5 ± 0.2 pCi/L and 13.7 ± 1.1 pCi/L, respectively. While δ 18 O shows that vegetation and meadow saturated zone water have similar origins, 3 H shows they have dissimilar ages.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Water level changes in Lake Erie drive 21st century CO 2 and CH 4 fluxes from a coastal temperate wetland

Wetland water depth influences microbial and plant communities, which can alter the above- and below-ground carbon cycling of a wetland. Wetland water depths are likely to change due to shifting precipitation patterns, which will affect projections of greenhouse gas emissions; however, these effects are rarely incorporated into wetland greenhouse gas models. Seeking to address this gap, we used a mechanistic model, ecosys, to simulate a range of water depth scenarios in a temperate wetland, and analyzed simulated predictions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) andmethane (CH 4 ) fluxes over the 21st century. We tested our model using eddy covariance measurements of CO 2 and CH 4 fluxes collected at the Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve (OWC) during 2015 and 2016. OWC is a lacustrine, estuarine, freshwater, mineral-soil marsh. An empirical model found that the wetland water depth is highly dependent on the water depth of the nearby Lake Erie. Future wetland surface water depths were modeled based on projection of Lake Erie's water depth using four separate NOAA projections, resulting in four wetland water-depth scenarios. Two of the four 21st century projections for Lake Erie water depths used in this study indicated that the water depth of the wetland would remain nearly steady; however, the other two indicated decreases in the wetland water depth. In our scenario where the wetland dries out, we project the wetland's climatological warming effect will decrease due to smaller CH 4 fluxes to the atmosphere and larger CO 2 uptake by the wetland. We also found that increased water level can lower emissions by shifting the site towards more open water areas, which have lower CH 4 emissions. We found that decreased water depths would cause more widespread colonization of the wetland by macrophyte vegetation. Using an empirical relationship, we also found that further drying could result in other, non-wetland vegetation to emerge, dramatically altering soil carbon cycling. In three of our four projections, we found that in general the magnitude of CO 2 and CH 4 fluxes steadily increase over the next 100 years in response to higher temperatures. However, in our driest simulations, we projected a different response due to increased oxidation of soil carbon, with CH 4 emissions decreasing substantially from an annual cumulative peak of 224.6 to a minimum of 104.7 gC m –2 year –1 . In that same simulation, net cumulative flux of CO 2 changed from being a sink of 56.5 gC m –2 year –1 to a source of 369.6 gCm –2 year –1 over the same period, despite a temperature increase from 13.7 °C to 14.2 °C. This temperature shift in our other three cases with greater water depths increased the source strength of CH 4 and the sink strength of CO 2 . Here, we conclude that the magnitude of wetland greenhouse-gas fluxes depended on the water depth primarily as it affected the areal percentage of the wetland available for plant colonization, but dramatic decreases in water depths could cause significant reductions in the wetland CH 4 fluxes, while simultaneously altering the wetland vegetation.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Degradation of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Water via High Power, Energy-Efficient Electron Beam Accelerator

The goal of the 2-year workplan was to see if electron beam (EB) could be used to break down a sub-set of the larger chemical family of per and polyfluoroalkylated substances (PFAS) in an energy efficient and economical manner when compared to conventional water treatment technologies. Year one (Y1) work focused on sample EB treatment work in the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory’s (FNALs) Accelerator Applications Demonstration and Development (A2D2) EB accelerator. While there are reportedly thousands of types of PFAS, for the point of most of the work herein, a small subset was examined, typically perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA). PFOA and PFOS are two of the most well studied PFAS and are studied for baseline evaluations and are considered most useful. The work from Y1 provided information about the optimal operating parameters and additives to use when treating PFOS and PFOA via EB. The data were then used to see where in a water treatment system an EB accelerator would be best suited to treat PFAS. A conventional water treatment technology, GAC, was then compared to e-beam treatment technology with respect to energy and costs for treatment. In year two (Y2), several conventional e-beam accelerator designs, and FNAL’s developmental compact SRF accelerator design, were evaluated for their suitability in PFAS treatment, from an energy efficiency and cost standpoint. Several EB parameters were evaluated and optimized for the removal of PFOA and PFOS from water at normal pressure and temperature, measured as total PFAS removal. Under the optimized test conditions both PFOA showed complete destruction to inorganic fluoride, and PFOS to inorganic fluoride and sulfate, with mass balance. The effect on PFAS removal relative to solution pH, total EB dose, EB dose rate, dissolved oxygen concentration (DO), temperature, and initial PFAS concentration were evaluated. In general, PFOA was easier to destroy than PFOS. Degradation products, typically observed under less-than-optimal EB conditions, provided insight to degradation mechanisms. Products were identified to rule out possible deleterious biproduct formation. The water radiolysis radical reaction kinetics with PFOS and PFOA were not dependent on the initial concentration over 5-orders of magnitude from 2 μg/L to 20 mg/L. This is thought to be because there was an overabundance of the reactive water radiolysis radicals relative to PFAS molecules and largely attributed to aqueous electrons. The reaction rates appeared to be diffusion limited. Testing at higher concentrations (100-200 mg/L) showed a decrease in removal efficiency, suggesting alternative kinetics, possibly second order rates, at higher concentrations. In all, we successfully defined a set of optimal EB parameters to treat PFOA and PFOS at concentrations of 20 mg/L in water with destruction efficiencies near 100%. We further tested the optimized EB parameters with other types of PFAS, including shorter and longer fluorocarbon chain homologs of PFOA and PFOS, and PFAS with alternative functional groups such as sulfonamides. Based on our results EB can be optimized as an effective destructive technology for removing PFAS from water. The conditions optimized for PFOA and PFOS were less effective with ultra-short fluorocarbon compounds like TFMS, PFES, PFPS and PFBS, and likely require re-optimization of parameters to them. In all, it was determined that from a cost and energy efficiency standpoint, EB would be best applied to waste streams with relatively high concentrations of PFOS and PFOA and is not as cost effective as GAC treatment for removing low concentrations of PFAS from water. Higher concentrations of PFAS can be found in the wastewater of conventional treatment processes such as RO and IE and therefore EB may be used to supplement such treatment technologies. Some real-world IE regeneration wash water and RO reject water containing higher concentrations of PFAS and obtained from pilot scale industrial wastewater treatment system at a fluorochemical manufacturing facility, showed that EB could remove PFAS from such types of wastewaters. The IE regenerant wash water appeared to be the most efficient of the two types of wastewaters tested. However, some further optimization of the EB parameters for the specific PFAS types present in those wastewaters may be required. Also, the effects of co-present TOC and mineral salts should be considered during such optimization efforts. From the experimental Y1 results it was seen that the aqueous electron drives degradation of the PFAS. In a hypothetical water treatment skid using EB for PFAS destruction the parameters of the system should be optimized to promote aqueous electron production. Before EB treatment, the PFAS should be preconcentrated when possible, the pH should be raised to pH 10 or higher to enhance aqueous electron production, and the water should be nitrogen purged to remove dissolved oxygen to minimize aqueous electron scavenging. An excel spreadsheet was created that calculates optimal conditions based on inlet PFAS concentration and desired outlet concentration, by optimizing the accelerator power, dose rate, water treatment rate, pH and dissolved oxygen levels to reach the desired endpoint. Given this information on accelerator operating conditions five different EB accelerator systems were compared. One EB system was a continuous-wave, linear superconducting accelerator being designed at Fermilab. Three other EB systems (IMPELA at 5% and 25% duty factor and the ILU-14) were normal conducting pulsed linear accelerators. The fifth system was an IBA Rhodotron which is a normal conducting, circular, continuous-wave accelerator. The accelerator efficiency (% of the incoming power that is used in water treatment) was the dominating factor in accelerator choice. The radio frequency (RF) power supply and the accelerator design (superconducting versus warm technology) drive the accelerator efficiency. The IBA Rhodotron was seen to be the most energy efficient commercially available technology with a wall-plug (total) power efficiency of 43% at 400 kW. The Fermilab design, with a prototype for a different application currently being fabricated, was the most energy efficient at 55% when driven by a Klystron RF power supply and as high as 77% when powered by a magnetron. As the Fermilab design was the most energy efficient by approximately 10-30%, further design work was done on the accelerator and beam delivery system specific to the destruction of PFAS in water. The Fermilab design is unique from industrial accelerators in that is superconducting. Superconducting technology allows for the acceleration of electrons without losses. The accelerator must be cooled to below the point where it is superconducting and is operated around 4 degrees Kelvin. The bulk of the design work for the accelerator is on making the accelerator as energy efficient as possible so that it does not require liquid helium and can be cooled with conduction cooling via cryocoolers. Final design work resulted in an EB accelerator that would operate at minimally 200 kW and 10 MeV. Prototype construction would cost $\$ $7.8 million dollars when driven by a Klystron power supply. A second version of the same accelerator would cost $\$ $5.5 million dollars when driven by a magnetron that is still under development. The commercially available 300 kW IBA Rhodotron cost was estimated at approximately $\$ $9 million. While it is hard to directly compare, an operational GAC system used by 3M for groundwater treatment capital cost (2022 dollars) was estimated to cost $\$ $3.3 million. While the capital expense of the EB accelerator systems was higher than GAC, the accelerator EB treatment would result in destruction of the PFAS and not just sequestration of PFAS to form a new waste stream that requires further treatment or disposal. The operating cost to destroy the PFAS via 400 kw EB system was less than $\$ $1000/kg of PFAS destroyed when treating at a 20 mg/L PFAS concentration, compared to GAC with operating costs that calculated at $\$ $27,530 per kg of PFAS sequestered when treating 100 μg/L PFOA and PFOS combined concentration.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2023

Sensor Development for Liquid Water Detection in Dry Storage Casks: FY 2023 Status

Modeling efforts were undertaken in fiscal year (FY) 2023 to evaluate the feasibility and capability for sensing of liquid water inside canister-based dry cask storage systems (DCSSs). The focus was on the development of full-scale finite element models (FEMs) of ultrasound propagation through DCSS canister components. For these initial investigations, simulation of the baseplate component was targeted, envisioning water collection at the bottom of a vertically oriented canister. The effects of internal canister components (i.e., fuel basket, fuel assemblies) on ultrasound propagation in the baseplate component were evaluated in these efforts. The environment inside a DCSS confinement is intended to be inert and free of water to prevent potential corrosion of used fuel cladding or other internal hardware. Spent fuel assemblies are dried, after storage in water pools, to make sure water has been removed from assembly cavities. However, there is some uncertainty about the amount of residual water potentially left behind in a DCSS after drying processes, because water can become trapped in cavities or other small crevices in the surfaces formed by the fuel cladding, fuel assemblies, and other internal hardware components. Considering the complex space- and time-dependent temperature profiles in DCSSs, water may be in a liquid or gas phase depending on its location in the cask and how long the cask has been in storage. Evacuating most water and oxidizing agents contained within a canister is recommended by NUREG-1536 (NRC 2010), which covers DCSSs. As summarized by Salazar et al. (2020), existing guidance typically relies on achievable vacuum pumping pressures sustained over a hold period as a signal of dryness and water removal. However, time series data about water removal from full-scale commercial drying procedures are lacking (Hanson and Alsaed 2019). A review of drying specifications from several vendors led to the conclusion that if the specifications are followed correctly, the residual moisture in DCSSs should present an insignificant risk of cladding degradation (Knoll and Gilbert 1987). A more recent analysis concluded that much larger quantities of residual water could remain in DCSSs, but the amount would still not be expected to lead to significant corrosion of fuel cladding or other internal components (Jung et al. 2013). Industry drying procedures are mostly prescriptive in nature, and operational issues arising during the process could result in incomplete drying. A summary of operational issues and potential negative effects of residual water is provided by Salazar et al. (2019). Experimental efforts are ongoing to validate the extent of water removal in a DCSS based on drying procedures used at nuclear power plants through well-designed investigations of drying process efficacy and water retention (Durbin et al. 2021; Pulido et al. 2022a, Pulido et al. 2022b). This has been approached by simulating limited portions of a DCSS internal volume and fuel assemblies. So far, these efforts have focused on the effects of potential water trapping in the dashpot region of control rod guide tubes but are expected to be expanded to include the effects of other internal hardware features and failed fuel rod cladding. A method for detection and measurement of liquid water (Meyer et al. 2022; Meyer et al. 2021), in tandem with the drying information gained through experimental investigations, provides comprehensive bases for understanding the internal conditions of DCSSs and provides technical information to support licensing decisions.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

Determining Partial Atomic Charges for Liquid Water: Assessing Electronic Structure and Charge Models

Partial atomic charges provide an intuitive and efficient way to describe the charge distribution and the resulting intermolecular electrostatic interactions in liquid water. Many charge models exist and it is unclear which model provides the best assignment of partial atomic charges in response to the local molecular environment. In this work, we systematically scrutinize various electronic structure methods and charge models (Mulliken, natural population analysis, CHelpG, RESP, Hirshfeld, Iterative Hirshfeld, and Bader) by evaluating their performance in predicting the dipole moments of isolated water, water clusters, and liquid water as well as charge transfer in the water dimer and liquid water. Although none of the seven charge models is capable of fully capturing the dipole moment increase from isolated water (1.85 D) to liquid water (about 2.9 D), the Iterative Hirshfeld method performs best for liquid water, reproducing its experimental average molecular dipole moment, yielding a reasonable amount of intermolecular charge transfer, and showing modest sensitivity to the local water environment. The performance of the charge model is dependent on the choice of the density functional and the quantum treatment of the environment. The computed molecular dipole moment of water generally increases with the percentage of the exact Hartree–Fock exchange in the functional, whereas the amount of charge transfer between molecules decreases. For liquid water, including two full solvation shells of surrounding water molecules (within about 5.5 Å of the central water) in the quantum chemical calculation converges the charges of the central water molecule. Furthermore, our final pragmatic quantum chemical charge-assigning protocol for liquid water is the Iterative Hirshfeld method with M06-HF/aug-cc-pVDZ and a quantum region cutoff radius of 5.5 Å.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2023

The selective heating effect of microwave irradiation on a binary mixture of water and polyethylene oxide: a molecular dynamics simulation approach

In this study, we investigate the molecular mechanisms of a microwave-driven selective heating process by performing molecular dynamics simulations for three different systems including pure water, pure polyethylene oxide (PEO), and water-PEO mixed systems in the presence of a microwave with two different intensities of electric field such as 0.001 V/Å -1 and 0.01 V/Å -1 at a frequency of 100 GHz. First, from performing molecular dynamics simulations of CO and CO 2 in the presence of the microwave, it is confirmed that the molecular dipole moment is responsible for the rotational motion induced by the oscillating electric field. Second, by analyzing the MD simulations of the pure water system, we discover that the dipole moment of water exhibits a time lag with respect to the microwave. During the heating process, however, the temperature, kinetic, and potential energies increase synchronously with the oscillating electric field of the microwave, showing that the heating of the water system is caused by the molecular reaction of water to the microwave. Comparing the water-PEO mixed system to the pure water and pure PEO systems, the water-PEO mixed system has a higher heating rate than the pure PEO system but a lower heating rate than the pure water system. Therefore, we conclude that heating the water-PEO mixed system is driven by water molecules selectively activated by microwave irradiation. Furthermore, we also calculate the diffusion coefficients of water molecules and PEO chains by describing their mean square displacements, demonstrating that the diffusion coefficients are increased in the presence of microwaves for both water and PEO in pure and mixed systems. Lastly, during the microwave heating process, the structures of the water-PEO mixed system are altered as a function of the intensity of electric field, which is mainly driven by the response of water molecules.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2021

The many-body expansion for aqueous systems revisited: II. Alkali metal and halide ion – water interactions

We present a detailed study of the Many-Body Expansion (MBE) for alkali metal and halide ion-water interactions and quantify the effect of these ions on the strength of the surrounding aqueous hydrogen bonding environment. Building on our previous work on neutral water clusters [J. P. Heindel and S. S. Xantheas, J. Chem. Theor. Comput. 16 (11), 6843–6855 (2020)], we carry out the complete MBE for ion-water clusters, Z+/-(H2O)9, where Z = Li+, K+, Cs+, Cl-, Br-, I- and compare with the results for (H2O)10. The 2-B ion-water (I-W) interaction represents a larger percentage of the total cluster binding energy compared to a pure water cluster of the same size with the total 3-B term being smaller and of opposite sign (repulsive) whereas higher order terms are essentially negligible. The same oscillating behavior around zero for MBE terms higher than the 5-B with basis set that was reported for water clusters is also observed for the ion-water clusters considered with Basis Set Superposition Error (BSSE) corrections amending this like in the water cluster case. A remarkable, linear anti-correlation between the total 2-B ion-water and the total 2-B and 3-B water-water interactions is found, quantifying the effect of the different ions in disrupting and altering (weakening) the neighboring hydrogen bonded water network. Our results suggest a universal behavior of the two different families of ions (alkali metals and halides) for both the correlations of the various components of the total binding energies as well as the estimate of the 2-B BSSE correction which is reported to follow a common profile for ion-water and water-water interactions when cast in terms of reduced distances and energies. We expect our insights into the nature of BSSE will be important for future ab initio based, many-body molecular dynamics studies.

ion-water interactions, water-water interaction, m↗
DOE OSTI2024

Produced water sharing: Improved economics and reduced community impact – A Pennsylvania case study

Here, hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas extraction from unconventional reservoirs is water intensive. Between water sourced for fracturing purposes and water present in rock formations, operators often produce a greater volume of water than oil or gas. Historically, this surplus of produced water has mainly been disposed of via deep injection wells. Rising disposal costs, seasonally limited water availability, and concerns over induced seismicity have incentivized produced water recycling practices, where an operator uses produced water for hydraulic fracturing operations. The logistical challenges associated with produced water recycling have also encouraged operators to adopt ad-hoc water exchange practices, in which competing operators will exchange produced water for mutual cost savings. In this paper, we investigate the potential benefit from systematic produced water exchange among operators in Northeastern Pennsylvania. We leverage PARETO, a free and open-source modeling framework for produced water management optimization, to quantify the benefits of water exchange practices. In an example drawn from FracFocus data, we find that the adoption of systematic water sharing could improve produced water recycling rates from 49.2% to 99%, decreasing operating and trucking costs.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗