Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “KS”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Crust Composition and the Shallow Heat Source in KS 1731–260

The presence of a strong shallow heat source of unknown origin in accreting neutron star crusts has been inferred by analyzing x-ray observations of their cooling in quiescence. Here, we model the cooling of KS 1731–260 using realistic crust compositions and nuclear heating and cooling sources from detailed nuclear reaction network calculations. We find that the required strength of the shallow heat source in KS 1731–260 is reduced by more than a factor of 3 compared to previous analysis, a 5⁢𝜎 difference that alleviates the need for exotic solutions. Our analysis also suggests the existence of an impure nuclear pasta layer in the inner crust of KS 1731–260, though future observations will provide more stringent constraints. In addition, we obtain constraints on the dominant surface burning modes of KS 1731–260 over its history.

neutron star cooling↗
DOE OSTI2023

Continuous cultivation of the lithoautotrophic nitrate‐reducing Fe( II )‐oxidizing culture KS in a chemostat bioreactor

Abstract Laboratory‐based studies on microbial Fe(II) oxidation are commonly performed for 5–10 days in small volumes with high substrate concentrations, resulting in geochemical gradients and volumetric effects caused by sampling. We used a chemostat to enable uninterrupted supply of medium and investigated autotrophic nitrate‐reducing Fe(II)‐oxidizing culture KS for 24 days. We analysed Fe‐ and N‐speciation, cell‐mineral associations, and the identity of minerals. Results were compared to batch systems (50 and 700 mL—static/shaken). The Fe(II) oxidation rate was highest in the chemostat with 7.57 mM Fe(II) d −1 , while the extent of oxidation was similar to the other experimental setups (average oxidation of 92% of all Fe(II)). Short‐range ordered Fe(III) phases, presumably ferrihydrite, precipitated and later goethite was detected in the chemostat. The 1 mM solid phase Fe(II) remained in the chemostat, up to 15 μM of reactive nitrite was measured, and 42% of visualized cells were partially or completely mineral‐encrusted, likely caused by abiotic oxidation of Fe(II) by nitrite. Despite (partial) encrustation, cells were still viable. Our results show that even with similar oxidation rates as in batch cultures, cultivating Fe(II)‐oxidizing microorganisms under continuous conditions reveals the importance of reactive nitrogen intermediates on Fe(II) oxidation, mineral formation and cell–mineral interactions.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Materials Data on KS by Materials Project

SK1 is alpha boron-derived structured and crystallizes in the hexagonal P-62m space group. The structure is three-dimensional. there are two inequivalent K1+ sites. In the first K1+ site, K1+ is bonded in a 6-coordinate geometry to six S1- atoms. There are two shorter (3.25 Å) and four longer (3.35 Å) K–S bond lengths. In the second K1+ site, K1+ is bonded in a 6-coordinate geometry to six S1- atoms. There are four shorter (3.17 Å) and two longer (3.25 Å) K–S bond lengths. There are two inequivalent S1- sites. In the first S1- site, S1- is bonded in a 7-coordinate geometry to six K1+ and one S1- atom. The S–S bond length is 2.13 Å. In the second S1- site, S1- is bonded in a 7-coordinate geometry to six K1+ and one S1- atom. The S–S bond length is 2.14 Å.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2020

Materials Data on KS by Materials Project

SK1 is Tetraauricupride structured and crystallizes in the cubic Pm-3m space group. The structure is three-dimensional. K1+ is bonded in a body-centered cubic geometry to eight equivalent S1- atoms. All K–S bond lengths are 3.32 Å. S1- is bonded in a body-centered cubic geometry to eight equivalent K1+ atoms.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2020

Materials Data on KS by Materials Project

SK1 is Halite, Rock Salt structured and crystallizes in the cubic Fm-3m space group. The structure is three-dimensional. K1+ is bonded to six equivalent S1- atoms to form a mixture of corner and edge-sharing KS6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedral tilt angles are 0°. All K–S bond lengths are 3.26 Å. S1- is bonded to six equivalent K1+ atoms to form a mixture of corner and edge-sharing SK6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedral tilt angles are 0°.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2020

Materials Data on KS by Materials Project

SK1 is Tetraauricupride structured and crystallizes in the tetragonal P4/mmm space group. The structure is three-dimensional. K1+ is bonded in a distorted body-centered cubic geometry to eight equivalent S1- atoms. All K–S bond lengths are 3.26 Å. S1- is bonded in a distorted body-centered cubic geometry to eight equivalent K1+ atoms.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2020

Materials Data on KS by Materials Project

SK1 crystallizes in the monoclinic C2/m space group. The structure is one-dimensional and consists of two SK1 ribbons oriented in the (0, 0, 1) direction. K1+ is bonded in a linear geometry to two equivalent S1- atoms. Both K–S bond lengths are 3.02 Å. S1- is bonded in a linear geometry to two equivalent K1+ atoms.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2020

KS-TmG.1.0

As part of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s (PNNL) Science Focus Area program we are investigating the impact of environmental change on microbial community function in grassland soils. To enable a comprehensive survey of the metabolic potential of complex soil microbiomes, we performed ultra-deep metagenome sequencing, collecting >1 terabase of sequence data from grassland soils representing different precipitation regimes. Intermediate precipitation regime soil (rain-fed and irrigated agriculture) was collected from Konza Prairie Biological Station (KPBS).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

KS-TmG.2.0

Soil samples were collected in triplicate in the Fall of 2017 across three grassland locations having differences in historical annual precipitation. For each of the three field site soil collections, one deeply sequenced composite metagenome (> 1 terabase) was obtained and individually sequenced in replicate to provide three additional terabase metagenomes for replicate statistical comparison in addition to screening for viral soil contigs for assessing the impact of historical annual precipitation. This data package provides new knowledge of viral types, abundances, diversity, and auxiliary metabolic genes (AMGs) in grassland soils for predicting viral response to changes in their environment.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Catalytic Strategy for Conversion of Triacetic Acid Lactone to Potassium Sorbate

Here this study shows a new route to produce potassium sorbate (KS) from triacetic acid lactone (TAL), which is a chemical platform that can be biologically synthesized from natural sources. Sorbic acid and its potassium salt (KS) are widely used as preservatives in foods and pharmaceuticals. Three steps are used to produce KS from TAL: 1) hydrogenation of TAL into 4-hydroxy- 6-methyltetrahydro-2-pyrone (HMP), 2) dehydration of HMP to parasorbic acid (PSA), and 3) ring-opening and hydrolysis of PSA to KS. TAL can be fully hydrogenated over Ni/SiO2 to give near quantitative yields of HMP. A three-step reaction kinetics model was developed for dehydration of HMP into PSA. This model was used to show that the highest PSA yield occurs at low temperatures. An experimental PSA yield of 84.2% with respect to TAL was obtained which agreed with the prediction of the reaction kinetics model. KOH was used as a coreactant for the ring-opening hydrolysis of PSA to produce >99.9% yield of KS from PSA. Tetrahydrofuran (THF) was used to purify the TAL derived-KS (TAL-KS). The TAL-KS had a KS purity of 95.5%. The overall yield of TAL-KS with respect to TAL was calculated to be 77.3%. TAL-KS produced in this study had similar antimicrobial activities as commercial KS.

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

Data for Catalytic Strategy for Conversion of Triacetic Acid Lactone to Potassium Sorbate

This study shows a new route to produce potassium sorbate (KS) from triacetic acid lactone (TAL), which is a chemical platform that can be biologically synthesized from natural sources. Sorbic acid and its potassium salt (KS) are widely used as preservatives in foods and pharmaceuticals. Three steps are used to produce KS from TAL: 1) hydrogenation of TAL into 4-hydroxy-6-methyltetrahydro-2-pyrone (HMP), 2) dehydration of HMP to parasorbic acid (PSA), and 3) ring-opening and hydrolysis of PSA to KS. TAL can be fully hydrogenated over Ni/SiO2 to give near quantitative yields of HMP. A three-step reaction kinetics model was developed for dehydration of HMP into PSA. This model was used to show that the highest PSA yield occurs at low temperatures. An experimental PSA yield of 84.2% with respect to TAL was obtained which agreed with the prediction of the reaction kinetics model. KOH was used as a coreactant for the ring-opening hydrolysis of PSA to produce >99.9% yield of KS from PSA. Tetrahydrofuran (THF) was used to purify the TAL derived-KS (TAL-KS). The TAL-KS had a KS purity of 95.5%. The overall yield of TAL-KS with respect to TAL was calculated to be 77.3%. TAL-KS produced in this study had similar antimicrobial activities as commercial KS.

Catalysis↗
DOE OSTI2025

Sustainable potassium sorbate production from triacetic acid lactone in food-grade solvents

This study advances the production of potassium sorbate (KS) from triacetic acid lactone (TAL) utilizing food-grade solvents, ethanol (EtOH) and isopropyl alcohol (IPA). Here, we have previously demonstrated the route to produce KS from TAL in tetrahydrofuran (THF) as the main solvent, but the use of THF is associated with environmental and health risks especially for food applications. The process employs a catalytic approach in food-grade solvents and includes three main steps: hydrogenation, etherification and hydrolysis, and ring-opening hydrolysis to produce KS from TAL. In the synthesis of KS from TAL, the use of IPA leads to higher yields and reduced reaction times compared to EtOH. As a result, the overall reaction time in IPA was reduced to 35.7 h, compared to 42.1 h in our previous study using THF and EtOH, while achieving a comparable KS yield of 84% from TAL. The synthesized KS exhibits a trans-2, trans-4 geometrical configuration, identical to that of commercially available KS. Through techno-economic analysis (TEA) and life cycle assessment (LCA), we estimated full-scale production of KS from sugarcane with the developed process in IPA could achieve a minimum product selling price (MPSP) of $\$8.27$ per kg with a range of $\$7.06$–10.16 per kg [5th–95th percentiles from 6000 Monte Carlo simulations] and a carbon intensity (CI) of 13.7 [9.6–18.6] kg CO 2 -eq per kg. This study highlights the synthesis of KS from TAL using food-grade solvents, demonstrating improved economic viability and environmental sustainability compared to our previous research (MPSP of $\$9.68$ per kg [$\$8.47$–11.45 per kg] and CI of 16.2 [12.0–21.2] kg CO 2 -eq per kg), as the total required reaction decreases while achieving the comparable overall yield of KS from TAL.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2025

Data for "Sustainable Potassium Sorbate Production from Triacetic Acid Lactone in Food-Grade Solvents"

This study advances the production of potassium sorbate (KS) from triacetic acid lactone (TAL) utilizing food-grade solvents, ethanol (EtOH) and isopropyl alcohol (IPA). We have previously demonstrated the route to produce KS from TAL in tetrahydrofuran (THF) as the main solvent, but the use of THF is associated with environmental and health risks especially for food applications. The process employs a catalytic approach in food-grade solvents and includes three main steps: hydrogenation, etherification and hydrolysis, and ring-opening hydrolysis to produce KS from TAL. In the synthesis of KS from TAL, the use of IPA leads to higher yields and reduced reaction times compared to EtOH. As a result, the overall reaction time in IPA was reduced to 35.7 h, compared to 42.1 h in our previous study using THF and EtOH, while achieving a comparable KS yield of 84% from TAL. The synthesized KS exhibits a trans-2, trans-4 geometrical configuration, identical to that of commercially available KS. Through techno-economic analysis (TEA) and life cycle assessment (LCA), we estimated full-scale production of KS from sugarcane with the developed process in IPA could achieve a minimum product selling price (MPSP) of $8.27 per kg with a range of $7.06–10.16 per kg [5th–95th percentiles from 6000 Monte Carlo simulations] and a carbon intensity (CI) of 13.7 [9.6–18.6] kg CO2-eq per kg. This study highlights the synthesis of KS from TAL using food-grade solvents, demonstrating improved economic viability and environmental sustainability compared to our previous research (MPSP of $9.68 per kg [$8.47–11.45 per kg] and CI of 16.2 [12.0–21.2] kg CO2-eq per kg), as the total required reaction decreases while achieving the comparable overall yield of KS from TAL.

bioproducts↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Revisiting Artifacts of Kohn–Sham Density Functionals for Biosimulation

We revisit the problem of unphysical charge density delocalization/fractionalization induced by the self-interaction error of common approximate Kohn–Sham (KS) density functional theory functionals on simulation of small to medium-sized proteins in a vacuum. Aside from producing unphysical electron densities and total energies, the vanishing of the HOMO–LUMO gap associated with the unphysical charge delocalization leads to an unphysical low-energy spectrum and catastrophic failure of most popular solvers for the KS self-consistent field (SCF) problem. We apply a robust quasi-Newton SCF solver to obtain solutions for some of these difficult cases. The anatomy of the charge delocalization is revealed by the natural deformation orbitals obtained from the density matrix difference between the Hartree–Fock and KS solutions; the charge delocalization not only can occur between charged fragments (such as in zwitterionic polypeptides) but also involves neutral fragments. The vanishing-gap phenomenon and troublesome SCF convergence are both attributed to the unphysical KS Fock operator eigenspectra of molecular fragments (e.g., amino acids or their side chains). Analysis of amino acid pairs suggests that the unphysical charge delocalization can be partially ameliorated by the use of some range-separated hybrid functionals but not by semilocal or standard hybrid functionals. Last, we demonstrate that solutions without the unphysical charge delocalization can be located even for semilocal KS functionals highly prone to such defects, but such solutions have non-Aufbau character and are unstable with respect to mixing of the non-overlapping “frontier” orbitals. Caution should be exercised when unexpectedly small (or vanishing) HOMO–LUMO gaps and atypical SCF convergence patterns (e.g., oscillatory) are observed in KS DFT simulations in any context (bio or otherwise).

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗