Absence of water clusters in visible light interactions with the air–water interface
Not Available
Ahmed, Musahid (ORCID:000000031216673X)↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “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.
Water Works Presentation - Alternative Water Use at Fermilab 202508
Describe the ICW System and challenges/solutions to maintaining it.
Murray, Anne [Fermilab]↗
Assessment of Centralized Domestic Hot Water Systems as An Electrification Option for Multi-Family Water Heating in Cold Climates
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Li, Zhenning↗
Gas Transfer across Air‐Water Interfaces in Inland Waters: from Micro‐Eddies to Super‐Statistics
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Evaluating How Climate Adaptation Measures Affect the Interconnected Water‐Energy Resource Systems of the Western United States
Abstract The Western US faces increasing water stress from the impacts of climate change, making it difficult to meet water demands for the region's cities, agriculture, and hydropower generators. Existing literature suggests that climate adaptation measures such as water conservation, cropland retirement, wastewater recycling, and managed aquifer recharge can alleviate some of these challenges. Few analyses, however, compare the relative efficacy and system‐wide effects of these adaptations under different climate projections across the entire Western United States. Here we use a Western US‐wide water systems model to evaluate, by sector and sub‐region, how the widespread implementation of these adaptive measures impacts water demands, water deliveries, and electricity use related to the water system for three different climate projections. We find that wastewater recycling has greater potential to lower unmet indoor water demands than urban indoor water conservation measures. However, when implemented at scale, indoor water conservation reduces electricity use by an average of 683 Terawatt hours while wastewater recycling increases energy use by an average of 721 Terawatt hours, cumulatively from 2020 to 2070. Cropland retirement and aquifer recharge adaptations increase the ability to meet agricultural water demand, increase groundwater storage, and reduce summertime electricity use. While most of these findings are consistent across different climate projections, the benefits of aquifer recharge are sensitive to spatial variation of precipitation. Given the limitations and tradeoffs of each individually, the results suggest that a portfolio of adaptation measures will be needed for a climate‐resilient water and energy future in the Western US. Plain Language Summary The Western US faces increased water stress from the impacts of climate change, making it difficult to meet demands for cities, agriculture, and hydropower facilities. Adaptation measures like water conservation, retiring agricultural lands, recycling wastewater, and storing water underground can address these challenges. However, there is little modeling to understand the impact of these adaptations if they were implemented across the entire Western US while also considering climate change. We use a Western US‐wide water systems model to evaluate how implementing adaptation measures impacts groundwater levels, the ability to meet water demands, and electricity use related to water in three different possible climate futures. We find that recycling wastewater to drinking water standards does a better job of meeting urban water demands than water conservation measures. However, indoor water conservation reduces energy use for water while recycling wastewater increases energy use for water. Retiring agricultural lands and storing water underground both increase the ability to meet agricultural water demands, increase underground water storage, and reduce summertime energy use. No adaptation measures provides benefits across every metric we track. Therefore, multiple adaptation measures will likely be needed to achieve a climate‐resilient future for energy and water in the Western US. Key Points Water‐related climate change adaptations have different benefits and tradeoffs for interconnected water‐energy systems in the Western U.S. Wastewater recycling most increases urban water coverage, but has a significant tradeoff in the form of greater electricity use Cropland retirement and aquifer recharge benefit water and electricity systems most in the summer when those systems are most stressed
Singhal, A↗
Water Observations of Flow/No-Flow for the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado (June-July 2025 and 2026)
This dataset provides multi-year, ground-truth visual observations of surface water flow/no-flow conditions within the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado, collected during June and July of 2025 and 2026. In June and July 2025, on-the-ground visual observations of flow/no-flow were collected as part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) and Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL) Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) campaign (further details are provided within the CHESS Project Description). We obtained 377 water observations of flow/no-flow within the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado. These ground-truth observations were collected to validate classification maps from remote sensing data and model results within the East-Taylor Watershed. In 2025, flow/no-flow measurements were collected using a field-based app for the CHESS Campaign (Zerion iForm). Within the field app, a water observation form was created to collect coordinates and metadata about the observation. Information collected for the water observation points included information about visually-assessed streamflow presence/absence (standard question obtained from Colorado State University’s StreamTracker project), flow estimate, stream or ponded area width, canopy cover, manganese films, iron seeps, and beaver activity. For 2025 water observations, this dataset contains: (1) a data file with the water observations and coordinates (2025_Water_Observations.csv); (2) a Keyhole Markup Language Zipped (KMZ) with the water observation locations and metadata (2025_Water_Observations_Locations.kmz); (3) photos (.jpg and .jpeg) of the water observation points, organized by location, contained within 2025_Water_Observations_FieldPhotographs.zip file; and (4) water observation protocols and figures (2025_Water_Observation_Protocols.pdf). In June and July 2026, on-the-ground visual observations of flow/no-flow were collected as part of the Watershed Function SFA project. We obtained 365 water observations of flow/no-flow within the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado. The 2026 observations focused on collecting repeat measurements at the 2025 flow/no-flow observation locations conducted as part of the CHESS campaign. These ground-truth observations were collected to understand differences in flow/no-flow in 2026, given the unprecedented 2026 drought in Colorado. In 2026, flow/no-flow measurements were collected using ArcGIS (Geographic Information System) Survey123. Within the field app, a water observation form was created to collect coordinates and metadata about the observation. Information collected for the water observation points included repeat information from the 2025 water observation effort, including visually-assessed streamflow presence/absence (standard question obtained from Colorado State University’s StreamTracker project), flow estimate, stream or ponded area width, canopy cover, manganese films, iron seeps, beaver activity, and a new metadata component of estimated stream depth (for select locations). For 2026 water observations, this dataset contains: (1) a data file with the water observations and coordinates (2026_Water_Observations.csv); (2) a Keyhole Markup Language Zipped (KMZ) with the water observation locations and metadata (2026_Water_Observations_Locations.kmz); (3) photos (.jpg) of the water observation points, organized by location, contained within 2026_Water_Observations_FieldPhotographs.zip file; and (4) water observation protocols and figures (2026_Water_Observation_Protocols.pdf). For 2025 and 2026 water observations, this dataset contains: (1) a location metadata file (locations.csv); (6) a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and (7) a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type. CHESS Project Description: The Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) comprised a multi-week airborne remote sensing and field observation campaign in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, conducted in June and July of 2025. Airborne remote sensing was conducted by the National Ecological Observatory Network Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP), concurrent with a field campaign run by the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA), and NASA-JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) program. Between June 10 and July 18, 2025, the NEON AOP flight team collected high-resolution aerial imaging spectroscopy and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data over three domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). In coordination with the flights, a field campaign acquired ground-truth observations, including observations of vegetation composition, foliar traits, forest demography, and subsurface properties in 18 core sampling areas within the domains. Additional surface water observations were taken at over 380 point locations. All CHESS campaign datasets can be found within the CHESS ESS-DIVE data portal: https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/chess. 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. 2026-09-02: This dataset was updated to include 2026 water observation measurements. The 2025 observation files were also updated to ensure a consistent file naming convention across water observation years.
2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
Conus-Wide Mapping of Water Availability and Cost
Background: New demands for water can be satisfied through a variety of source options. In some basins surface and/or groundwater may be available through permitting with the state water management agency (termed unappropriated water), alternatively water might be purchased and transferred out of its current use to another (termed appropriated water), or non-traditional water sources can be captured and treated (e.g., wastewater). The relative availability and cost of each source are key factors in the development decision. Unfortunately, these measures are location dependent with no consistent or comparable set of data available for evaluating competing water sources. With the help of water managers, water availability was mapped for over 2500 watersheds throughout CONUS. These values are unique in that they account for institutional factors (i.e., water rights, compacts, treaties, instream flows) that locally limit water use. Five water sources were individually examined, including unappropriated surface water, unappropriated groundwater, appropriated water, municipal wastewater and brackish groundwater. Associated costs to acquire, convey and treat the water, as necessary, for each of the five sources were estimated. These metrics were developed to support regional water planning and policy analysis with initial application to electric transmission planning in the western US. Problem: These data were originally developed in 20141 and updated in 20182. New datasets on which these data depend have been published. As such, there is need to update the water availability and cost data. There is also need to map this same data to a county resolution and to publish the data in a more accessible place. Organization of the dataset: Data are organized according to five primary water sources: • Unappropriated fresh surface water • Unappropriated fresh groundwater • Appropriated water • Recycled wastewater, and • Brackish water
Tidwell, Vincent [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
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 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↗
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↗
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↗
GCAM–GLORY v1.0: representing global reservoir water storage in a multi-sector human–Earth system model
Abstract. Reservoirs play a significant role in modifying the spatiotemporal availability of surface water to meet multi-sector human demands, despite representing a relatively small fraction of the global water budget. Yet the integrated modeling frameworks that explore the interactions among climate, land, energy, water, and socioeconomic systems at a global scale often contain limited representations of water storage dynamics that incorporate feedbacks from other systems. In this study, we implement a representation of water storage in the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM) to enable the exploration of the future role (e.g., expansion) of reservoir water storage globally in meeting demands for, and evolving in response to interactions with, the climate, land, and energy systems. GCAM represents 235 global water basins, operates at 5-year time steps, and uses supply curves to capture economic competition among renewable water (now including reservoirs), non-renewable groundwater, and desalination. Our approach consists of developing the GLObal Reservoir Yield (GLORY) model, which uses a linear programming (LP)-based optimization algorithm and dynamically linking GLORY with GCAM. The new coupled GCAM–GLORY approach improves the representation of reservoir water storage in GCAM in several ways. First, the GLORY model identifies the cost of supplying increasing levels of water supply from reservoir storage by considering regional physical and economic factors, such as evolving monthly reservoir inflows and demands, and the leveled cost of constructing additional reservoir storage capacity. Second, by passing those costs to GCAM, GLORY enables the exploration of future regional reservoir expansion pathways and their response to climate and socioeconomic drivers. To guide the model toward reasonable reservoir expansion pathways, GLORY applies a diverse array of feasibility constraints related to protected land, population, water sources, and cropland. Finally, the GLORY–GCAM feedback loop allows evolving water demands from GCAM to inform GLORY, resulting in an updated supply curve at each time step, thus enabling GCAM to establish a more meaningful economic value of water. This study improves our understanding of the sensitivity of reservoir water supply to multiple physical and economic dimensions, such as sub-annual variations in climate conditions and human water demands, especially for basins experiencing socioeconomic droughts.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Dominant Controls on Preferential Flow and Their Implications for Future Soil Water Fluxes
Abstract Soil water flow, particularly preferential flow (PF), is a critical control on hydrological and biogeochemical processes, including groundwater recharge, contaminant transport, and carbon cycling. However, it remains challenging to predict PF occurrence across large environmental gradients. Here, we developed a deep learning (DL) model to estimate event‐scale soil water flow velocity and the probability of PF occurrence using high‐frequency soil moisture and precipitation data from 33 sites across the National Ecological Observatory Network. The model demonstrated high skill in predicting the binary occurrence of PF (91% F1‐score; 85% accuracy) but the performance was limited in predicting soil water velocity ( R 2 = 0.31). We found that precipitation characteristics (duration, volume, and intensity) were the most important predictors for soil water velocity. Among the non‐precipitation event variables, sand content showed relatively high predictive skill, though differences among non‐event climate variables were generally modest. Lower sand content was associated with increased predicted soil water velocity, a finding that highlights the role of soil structure in producing more non‐uniform flow, which contrasts with traditional uniform flow models. Projecting a reduced DL model under both moderate and high‐emissions future climate scenarios (2060–2099 Representative Concentration Pathways 4.5 and 8.5), we found ∼7.3% increase under RCP4.5 and ∼15% under RCP8.5 of soil water velocities compared to the historical simulation, while modeled likelihood of PF changed little. These findings suggest climate change is not making PF more frequent, but it is making existing PF pathways more efficient with important consequences for associated nutrient and contaminant transport under climate change. Plain Language Summary Water movement in soil is critical for water quality. While often modeled as a uniform flow process, in reality water moves rapidly through cracks and burrows in what is called “preferential flow” (PF), which limits natural filtration and can transport pollutants. We developed a deep learning model, trained on data from 33 U.S. sites, to predict when and how fast this PF occurs based on precipitation, soil, and climate data. The model showed that precipitation characteristics (duration, intensity, volume) were the most important predictors of PF. Lower soil sand content/higher clay content was associated with faster water flow, likely due to clay soils forming aggregates and cracks that water moves through rather than infiltrating uniformly. Further analyses based on climate projections suggest that the speed at which PF occurs will become more rapid under future climate scenarios compared to historical simulation. This highlights the need to represent PF in soil water models when assessing future water quality. Key Points The effect of precipitation peak intensity on soil water velocities declined with increasing precipitation intensity Antecedent soil moisture failed to predict preferential flow (PF), contrasting the high predictive power of sand content Climate predictions suggest that soil water velocities through PF paths will increase ∼15% by 2099
Li, Bonan↗
Hidden features in the OH-stretching spectra of amino acid decorated air–water interfaces
Chemical reactivity at the air–water interface is governed by the interfacial solvation of reactive species. For instance, during aqueous amino acid-based CO 2 absorption, water reorganizes around the reactive sites and couples dynamically with reaction pathways, facilitating the reaction. In this context, surface-sensitive vibrational sum-frequency generation (vSFG) spectroscopy can probe the OH stretch vibrations of interfacial water and determine the solvation structures around reactants and products, thereby furthering our understanding of the role of interfacial solvation. However, vSFG spectra of the air–water interface in the presence of charged species can be remarkably complex; key species-bound local water structures with distinct orientations may be hidden beneath prominent vSFG peaks arising from water–water hydrogen bonds and remain difficult to resolve. Here, we measure and compute vSFG spectra of the water OH stretch at air–water interfaces decorated with amino acids in their zwitterionic and anionic forms, as well as equimolar mixtures of these forms with bicarbonate. The latter represents post-CO 2 -absorption conditions. We find that computing depth- and frequency-dependent spectral densities—decomposed into contributions from water molecules hydrogen-bonded exclusively to other water molecules, exclusively to amines, exclusively to carboxylates, or shared between these polar/charged groups—is indispensable for accurate interpretation of the vSFG spectra. Key findings include orientational flip-flop in water sub-layers, strong carboxylate-water H-bonding, and water orientational ordering extending into the bulk aqueous phase induced by anionic amino acids. Here, this study provides a computational spectroscopic platform for improved understanding of interfacial solvation relevant to interfacial reactivity.
Air-water interface↗
The Kinetic Consequences of Water on Catalytic Methane Pyrolysis
Hydrogen production from biomass and natural gas has emerged as a prominent research area in response to the growing demand for energy from alternative sources that minimize CO 2 emissions. In this study, we investigate the impact of water, which is present in and generated from biomass-derived streams, on carbon nanotube (CNT) growth and hydrogen production during methane decomposition using Ni–Mo/MgO as a catalyst. We reveal here that the role of water on CNT growth is highly complex; its effect depends on the stage of growth at which the water is incorporated. When water is introduced at the beginning of methane decomposition ( t = 0 h), methane conversion rates are negatively impacted. We hypothesize that water inhibits the significant phase changes the Ni–Mo/MgO catalyst undergoes during catalyst carburization. In contrast, the incorporation of a small percentage of water after a stabilization period ( t = 3 h) results in methane conversion rate enhancements that scale with the introduced water partial pressure as water selectively reacts with amorphous carbon deposits that lead to catalyst deactivation, thus prolonging the lifetime of some of the most active sites. Moreover, water incorporation after stabilization significantly reduces the apparent activation energy. Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations reveal that water preferentially interacts with carbon fragments on the catalyst surface to remove carbon deposits with a barrier lower than that required for methane activation, further supporting its role in cleaning active sites on the catalyst surface. Characterization of the resulting carbon nanotubes reveals the formation of more graphitic materials produced in the presence of water, highlighting the impact of water on nanotube properties. These results provide clarity toward the many ways in which water, or cofeeding of biomass-derived materials, may impact catalytic methane pyrolysis rates.
carbon nanotubes↗
Beyond Leakage: Non-Revenue Water Loss and Economic Sustainability
Water loss in urban supply systems poses significant challenges for water utility companies worldwide, affecting both sustainable access to clean water and the financial viability of utility operations. This study analyzes the evolution of water losses in high-level supply systems from 2017 to 2021 in Portugal, focusing on its implications for the profitability of water utility companies across NUTs II regions. Drawing on data from various sources, including the National Information System for Water Resources, PORDATA, ERSAR, and ORBIS, this analysis identifies trends, patterns, and potential factors influencing water loss dynamics. Key components of the analysis include calculating average annual losses, examining unbilled water percentages, and conducting regression analysis to quantify the impact of water loss on profit margins. The findings contribute to the literature on water loss management and financial performance in the water utility sector, offering insights for policymakers, water utility managers, and stakeholders to enhance financial sustainability and reduce water losses.
Santos, Eleonora (ORCID:0000000346930804)↗
Understanding Operando Water Management in Hydroxide‐Exchange‐Membrane Fuel Cells
The water balance in hydroxide-exchange-membrane fuel cells (HEMFCs) is a key challenge for improved performance and durability, intimately linked with the various interfaces and coupled phenomena. For every 4 electrons produced, 4 water molecules are generated in the anode and 2 consumed in the cathode, while electroosmosis transports water across the HEM from the cathode to the anode. Consequently, a concentration gradient drives water back, from anode to cathode. Ineffective water management could lead to cathode dry-out, limiting reaction rate and causing ionomer degradation, or to anode flooding. To address these concerns, it is critical to measure the water transport operando . Herein, a home-built water-flux station is used to measure total water flux during cell operation with different inlet relative humidities and back pressures. Increasing the HEM thickness fourfold decreases the water flux at high current density, and utilizing microporous layers on both the anode and cathode decreases the water flux from the anode to the cathode. However, the most significant variable in changing the water flux was found by increasing the anode back pressure. Furthermore, humidity cycling significantly changed electrochemical performance without affecting the overall water fluxes. These findings can be translated to other devices utilizing an HEM.
AEMFC↗
Evaluating the Chemical Reactivity of DFT-Simulated Liquid Water with Hydrated Electrons via the Dual Descriptor
Modeling the various properties of liquid water, particularly its reactivity, has been a longstanding challenge for simulation methods. Recently, ab initio simulations based on density functional theory (DFT) have come to the fore as tenable methods for calculating the properties and reactivity of water, with varying degrees of success for different exchange-correlation functionals. In particular, hybrid-GGA and meta-GGA functionals have been shown to reproduce many of the structural, dynamical, and energetic properties of water to a high degree of accuracy relative to their computational cost. Here, we show that the dual descriptor (DD) measure of nucleophilicity and electrophilicity, which is sometimes used to elucidate organic chemistry reaction mechanisms, can also be used to characterize the reactivity of DFTsimulated liquid water. The DD is especially apt for understanding the reactivity of excess electrons with water as its calculation explicitly involves adding and removing an excess electron from a reference system. We use the DD to explore the reactivity of water simulated using three different DFT functionals: the LDA functional (LDA), a hybrid-GGA functional (PBE0), and a hybrid meta- GGA functional (SCAN0). Using the DD, we show that the SCAN0 functional with the standard 25% Hartree–Fock exchange produces simulated liquid water with many regions that are far more reactive than either PBE0 or LDA. To understand the implications of these highly reactive regions, we then add a strong nucleophile in the form of an excess electron and find that although PBE0 and LDA predict stable hydrated electrons, the excess electron reacts nearly instantaneously with SCAN0 water via proton abstraction to form a hydrogen atom and hydroxide ion. We show that the DD provides the ability to not only predict whether or not liquid water will react with a hydrated electron but also which particular waters will be involved solely from analyzing pure water configurations generated with each functional. We rationalize this result in terms of the known trap-seeking behavior of injected hydrated electrons, which are able to find the most electronegative region in bulk water. These results highlight the utility of the dual descriptor as a fast and interpretable method for investigating condensed-phase reactivity with excess electrons.
37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗