Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “surface wetting”

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.

636 records · Page 36

Amazon drought resilience – emerging results point to new empirical needs

Will climate change turn tropical forests from a carbon sink to a source (Pan et al., 2011)? Tropical forests cycle more carbon, water, and energy than any other biome (Bonan, 2008). The Amazon is the largest tropical forest, spanning one-third of South America, and any perturbation in its function has repercussions on the global climate. Mild and severe droughts in the Amazon are predicted to double and triple in area, respectively, by 2100, while the area under wet extremes will increase (Duffy et al., 2015). Our understanding of the role of plants' hydrological environments in determining their drought response, however, is limited (Chitra-Tarak et al., 2018, 2021). An important review by Costa et al. (2023; pp. 714–733) published in this issue of New Phytologist highlights that shallow-water table (WT) forests constitute c. 50% of the Amazon and may act as hydrological refugia during droughts, yet they have been neglected in Amazon forest research to date. Emerging results suggest that the shallow-WT forests that dominate the Amazon basin may increase in productivity under moderate droughts due to relief from hypoxia, suggesting a potential buffer from drought relative to deeper WT forests (Fig. 1). During severe droughts, however, shallow-WT forests may be vulnerable to collapse due to drought-intolerant traits. Addressing the underrepresentation of relatively drought-resilient shallow-WT forests in the Amazon's forest inventories may help resolve the much-debated incongruence in recent studies of the Amazon's drought resilience. Data from forest inventories (biased toward deep-WT forests) indicate that the Amazon's carbon sink is declining, partially because of drought impacts (Phillips et al., 2009; Brienen et al., 2015), whereas basin-wide satellite-based measures of gross primary productivity, which include shallow-WT forests, indicate varied regional responses to droughts (Saleska et al., 2007; Brando et al., 2010). Costa et al.'s (2023) descriptive insights of the intricate balance of geology, topography, hydrology, vegetation, and drought on ecosystem function, as well as their conceptual predictive framework, are useful for developing new empirical research in these understudied ecosystems and improving Earth system models.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Pyrogenic Organic Matter Laboratory Experiment: Aerobic Respiration and Geochemistry from Variably Inundated Stream Sediments (v3)

This dataset supports a broader study examining the effects of variable inundation and pyrogenic organic matter on ecosystem respiration. The dataset provides data generated from a laboratory batch experiment investigating the interaction between variable inundation conditions (wet and dry sediment) and pyrogenic organic matter (burned and unburned treatments). The contents include time series dissolved oxygen, sediment geochemistry data, and field metadata (including qualitative information on instream and river corridor characteristics). This data package was originally published in November 2025. It was updated in April 2026 (v2; new and modified files) and May 2026 (v3; modified files). See the change history section in the readme for more details For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. In addition to a readme, this data package also includes a file-level metadata (FLMD) file that describes each file and a data dictionary (DD) that describes all column/row headers and variable definitions. This dataset is comprised of (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) field metadata; (4) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; (5) readme; (6) field protocol; (7) sample name metadata; (8) an environmental context picture for the dry and inundated sampling locations; and (9) a subfolder with sample data from the sediment incubation experiment. The sample data subfolder contains (1) dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC); (2) total nitrogen (TN); (3) gravimetric moisture; (4) partial pressure and production rates of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide; (5) field wet sediment mass, dry sediment mass, water mass, and field wet sediment volume in incubation and sediment NPOC/TN vials; (6) methods codes; (7) respiration rates, pH, and temperature from after the incubation, raw time series dissolved oxygen and temperature, and a subfolder containing associated plots and scripts; (8) ions; (9) FTICR-MS methods; and (10) a subfolder of 12 Tesla (12T) FTICR-MS data. This folder contains the CoreMS processed data and three subfolders, one containing the .xml files, one containing the CoreMS output files, and the other containing instructions and scripts for processing the files in CoreMS (https://github.com/EMSL-Computing/CoreMS). All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .xml, .html, .Rmd, .py, .cal, .json, or .jpg.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

Physical, Chemical, and Mineralogical Characterizations of MSWI Ash Product and Recommendations for Downstream Processing

The primary objectives of this project are to (1) systematically characterize MSWI ash, and (2) based on characterization findings, design preliminary flowsheets for downstream processing. To achieve these objectives, a total of ten tasks were completed, including sample collection, physical separation tests, liberation tests, synthetic MSWI ash preparation, elemental composition analysis, sequential chemical extraction, mineralogical characterization, pozzolanic activity characterization, thermal stability characterization, processing flowsheet design, TEA and T2M, and project performance reporting. Many useful findings and conclusions were obtained from the exhaustive efforts of this project from several different aspects, including: a) Valuable Metals in MSWI Ash: MSWI ash contains a diverse array of valuable metals. Based on potential recoverable values, the most valuable metals present in MSWI ash include Fe, Ti, Mn, Cu, Zn, V, Co, Ni, Sr, Sn, Ag, Mo, and Sc. Some of these metals have been identified as critical minerals by DOE and DOI, suggesting that MSWI is a promising feedstock for critical mineral recovery. Noticeable graphical and seasonable variations in the valuable metal content of MSWI ash were observed. Nevertheless, it was challenging to discern any clear, definitive patterns for conclusions from those observations. Compared with bottom ash, fly ash contains more volatile metals, such as Zn and Sn, but less nonvolatile metals, such as Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, Co, and Ni. Mineralogical analyses showed that MSWI ash contains a substantial amount of calcium minerals, such as portlandite, lime, gypsum, and calcite. In addition, it was found that different types of valuable metals often exist in the same particles. b) Physical Separation of MSWI Ash: Both dry sieving and wet sieving were performed on MSWI ash. A notable disparity in the size distribution of the same material was observed when using the two different sieving methods. The disparity is due to the agglomeration of small particles. For the valuable metals investigated, no significant enrichment in a specific size fraction was observed, suggesting that it is challenging to preconcentrate the valuable metals through size fractionation. Due to the presence of ferromagnetic materials, such as Fe, most of the materials reported to the magnetic products obtained by dry magnetic separation. However, the enrichment effect is minimal due to the existence of particle agglomerates. Density separation at a cut-off density of 2.7 SG or higher led to noticeable enrichment of selected valuable metals, particularly Ti. The unburned carbon present in MSWI ash was effectively removed by flotation using diesel as the collector. A novel reagent scheme, Na2S plus cationic collectors, that can efficiently beneficiate nonferrous metals plus Co was developed. c) Liberation Tests: The particle size of MSWI ash was effectively reduced by grinding, and as a result, the encapsulated valuable metal particles (if any) were liberated to a certain degree. However, particle size reductions did not noticeably enhance the beneficiation performance using the physical separation methods, primarily due to the inefficiency of these methods in processing fine particles and/or a possibility that insufficient liberation is not a limiting factor for achieving satisfactory physical separation performance. Valuable metals were classified into water leachable, ion-exchangeable, acid soluble, reducible, oxidable, and insoluble forms. It was found that the distributions in the different categories, i.e., the occurrence modes of the valuable metals, were not affected by the particle size. d) Leaching Characteristics of Metals from MSWI Ash: Most of the valuable metals were extracted from the fly ash samples when using 1 M HCl or HNO3 as the lixiviant. The leaching reaction is a very fast process, which can reach equilibrium within the first 5 min. The releasing of Co, Ni and Ag are sensitive to leaching temperature, a higher recovery value could be obtained when using relatively higher leaching temperatures. The leachability of the valuable metals present in MSWI bottom ash is relatively lower than that of fly ash. Leaching recoveries increased with elevations in the acid concentration. Relatively high leaching recoveries were obtained for REEs, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn using 1 M HCl or HNO3 as the lixiviant. Elevations in the reaction temperature noticeably increased the leachability of the valuable metals, whereas the leachability was barely influenced by oxidizing and reducing agents. Similar to fly ash, leaching valuable metals from bottom ash is a rapid process, with most of the leaching reaction completed within the first 5 minutes. e) Combusted iPhones: The original structure of iPhones was remained after treating at 400 ºC and 600 ºC, while after being treated at 800℃, the screen bent, and the back cover of iPhone melted. Increasing the combustion temperature to 1000℃, the screen scattered, and most of the components turned into ashes. Combustion enhanced the leachability of REEs, while the leachability of the other valuable metals, except for Zn, was barely affected. Most of the REEs present in the original iPhones occurred as oxidizable forms. With elevations in the combustion temperature up to 600 ºC, the oxidizable REEs were transformed to acid soluble forms. However, further elevations in temperature resulted in decreases in the acid soluble fraction and corresponding increases in the reducible and oxidizable forms. Additionally, combustion temperature also significantly altered the occurrence modes of other metals present in the iPhones. f) Synthetic MSWI Ash: It was found that in the absence of hydrogen peroxide, all the elements except for Si were leached to certain degrees. It is noteworthy that approximately 80% of Zn was leached with 1.2 M HCl. When hydrogen peroxide was added to the reaction system, noticeable increases in the leaching recovery of Fe, Mn, Co, Ni, and Cu were observed. The leaching recovery of Al and Si was barely affected by adding hydrogen peroxide. These results suggested that the majority of Zn in the synthetic MSWI ash existed as metal oxide, a portion of Fe, Mn, Co, Ni, and Cu existed as metal oxide, and Al and Si are associated with glasses which are difficult to leach. Additionally, the remaining Fe, Mn, Co, Ni, and Cu in the metallic form were efficiently oxidized in the presence of hydrogen peroxide. g) Pozzolanic Activity and Thermal Stability of MSWI Ash: MSWI fly ash has higher pozzolanic activity compared to the bottom ash sample, which indicates that the fly ash sample consumed more portlandite because of its smaller particle size as reactivity fundamentally relates to reaction surface area. However, after the recovery of valuable elements, the pozzolanic activity of both the valuable elements fraction and the less valuable elements-rich products decreased significantly, which means that the valuable elements recovery lowers the Ca(OH)2 consumption, thus leading to the low activity of SCM. h) Flowsheet Design for Metal Recovery from MSWI Ash: Based on the results of the comprehensive physical separation and acid leaching tests, circuits that enable the beneficiation of the valuable metals were developed. In these circuits, the valuable metals are recovered into nonferrous, ferrous, and other valuable metal concentrates, which are processed separately in the acid leaching step. The subsequent separation and purification steps are simplified due to the physical beneficiation step. In addition, the overall recovery cost is reduced since physical beneficiation is much cheaper compared with chemical processing. Using different technologies, such as selective precipitation and solvent extraction, a comprehensive hydrometallurgical circuit was designed, and compounds of Cu, Zn, Mn, Co, and Ni with a purity close to or even higher than 95% were successfully generated.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗