Engineering PapersSearch

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “missing values”

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

Denoising Autoencoder for Reconstructing Sensor Observation Data and Predicting Evapotranspiration: Noisy and Missing Values Repair and Uncertainty Quantification

Abstract Machine learning (ML) methods applied in scientific research often deal with interrelated features in high‐dimensional data. Reducing data noise and redundancy is needed to increase prediction accuracy and efficiency especially when dealing with data from field sensors. We explored an unsupervised learning method, the denoising autoencoder (DAE), to extract the underlying data structure from noisy raw data in the context of predicting hydrologic quantities from multiple field sensors. These sensors have intrinsic instrumental noise and occasional malfunctions that cause missing values. Our DAE neural network reconstructed meteorological sensor data containing noise and missing values to predict evapotranspiration in a mountainous watershed. The DAE reconstructed the sensor variables with a mean coefficient of determination value of 0.77 across 15 dimensions representing individual sensors. It reduced variance and bias uncertainties compared to a classical autoencoder model. The reconstruction quality varied across dimensions depending on their cross‐correlation and alignment with the underlying data structure. Uncertainties arising from the model structure were overall higher than those resulting from data corruption. We attached the DAE structure to a downstream ET‐prediction neural network in three formats and achieved reasonably accurate ET predictions . The use of the DAE notably reduced variance uncertainty in ET prediction. However, excessive variance reduction may be accompanied by an increase in bias due to the intrinsic bias‐variance tradeoff. Our method of evaluating and reducing uncertainties in aggregated data from different sources can be used to improve predictive models, process understanding, and uncertainty quantification for better water resource management. Plain Language Summary We present a machine learning method, namely the denoising autoencoder, which reduces the effects of data noise and missing values typically present in scientific data sets collected through sensor measurements. This method selects the most relevant information from noisy raw data collected by the instruments and fills in missing values. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, we applied it to predict evapotranspiration, a hydrologic variable that represents the water moved from the land surface to the atmosphere through a combination of evaporation and plant water use (transpiration). We also used a random sampling technique (the Monte Carlo method) to compare the uncertainty in the predictions when using the raw and noisy data versus the reconstructed data. The denoising process produced more accurate predictions of evapotranspiration with less uncertainty. Improved predictions of evapotranspiration can lead to a better understanding and accounting of water budgets. This ML approach is broadly suitable for a wide variety of applications that involve noisy sensor data with missing values. Key Points We used a denoising autoencoder (DAE) neural network to reduce noise in meteorological and soil sensor observations by on average We used Monte Carlo sampling to estimate the bias and variance of all model outputs, including uncertainty sources from data and the model We attached the DAE component to a downstream neural network to predict ET with the variance reduced by , compared to that without the DAE

denoising autoencoder

Data and scripts from: “Denoising autoencoder for reconstructing sensor observation data and predicting evapotranspiration: noisy and missing values repair and uncertainty quantification”

This data package includes data and scripts from the manuscript “Denoising autoencoder for reconstructing sensor observation data and predicting evapotranspiration: noisy and missing values repair and uncertainty quantification”.The study addressed common challenges faced in environmental sensing and modeling, including uncertain input data, missing sensor observations, and high-dimensional datasets with interrelated but redundant variables. Point-scaled meteorological and soil sensor observations were perturbed with noises and missing values, and denoising autoencoder (DAE) neural networks were developed to reconstruct the perturbed data and further predict evapotranspiration. This study concluded that (1) the reconstruction quality of each variable depends on its cross-correlation and alignment to the underlying data structure, (2) uncertainties from the models were overall stronger than those from the data corruption, and (3) there was a tradeoff between reducing bias and reducing variance when evaluating the uncertainty of the machine learning models.This package includes:(1) Four ipython scripts (.ipynb): “DAE_train.ipynb” trains and evaluates DAE neural networks, “DAE_predict.ipynb” makes predictions from the trained DAE models, “ET_train.ipynb” trains and evaluates ET prediction neural networks, and “ET_predict.ipynb” makes predictions from trained ET models.(2) One python file (.py): “methods.py” includes all user-defined functions and python codes used in the ipython scripts.(3) A “sub_models” folder that includes five trained DAE neural networks (in pytorch format, .pt), which could be used to ingest input data before being fed to the downstream ET models in ‘ET_train.ipynb” or ‘ET_predict.ipynb’.(4) Two data files (.csv). Daily meteorological, vegetation, and soil data is in “df_data.csv”, where “df_meta.csv” contains the location and time information of “df_data.csv”. Each row (index) in “df_meta.csv” corresponds to each row in “df_data.csv”. These data files are formatted to follow the data structure requirements and be directly used in the ipython scripts, and they have been shuffled chronologically to train machine learning models. The meteorological and soil data was collected using point sensors between 2019-2023 at(4.a) Three shrub-dominated field sites in East River, Colorado (named “ph1”, “ph2” and “sg5” in “df_meta.csv”, where “ph1” and “ph2” were located at PumpHouse Hillslopes, and “sg5” was at Snodgrass Mountain meadow) and(4.b) One outdoor, mesoscale, and herbaceous-dominated experiment in Berkeley, California (named “tb” in “df_meta.csv”, short for Smartsoils Testbed at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab).- See "df_data_dd.csv" and "df_meta_dd.csv" for variable descriptions and the Methods section for additional data processing steps. See "flmd.csv" and "README.txt" for brief file descriptions.- All ipython scripts and python files are written in and require PYTHON language software.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

HDG-1 Experiment Irradiation Monitoring Data Qualification Final Report

SUMMARY The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Advanced Reactor Technologies (ART) Graphite Research and Development (GRD) Program is conducting a series of six experiments to quantify the effects of irradiation on nuclear-grade graphite. This report documents the qualification of irradiation monitoring data for the fifth experiment, High Dose Graphite-1 (HDG-1). Qualified monitoring data are required by the ART program to support the design and licensing of the first high-temperature reactor (HTR) nuclear plant. Data are classified as Qualified if they meet the usage requirements described in the experiment planning and quality assurance (QA) documents, Failed if they do not meet those requirements and provide no usable information, or Trend if they do not fully meet all requirements but still provide useful information subject to an assessment of how any deficiencies may affect a particular use of the data. HDG-1 irradiation began with Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) Cycle 168B on August 24, 2020, and concluded after Cycle 173C on January 27, 2025. The HDG-1 capsule was removed from the reactor core twice—during core internal change (CIC) Cycle 170A and powered axial locator mechanism (PALM) Cycle 172A—to prevent overheating of the graphite specimens during high-power PALM cycles. The capsule was therefore irradiated during a total of seven normal ATR cycles: 168B, 169A, 171A, 171B, 173A, 173B, and 173C. Irradiation monitoring data evaluated in this report include thermocouple (TC) temperature, gas flow rate, gas moisture, gas pressure, specimen load, and graphite stack displacement. Temperature. A total of 14,508,065 TC temperature records were captured. Of these, 13,901,785 (95.8%) are Qualified and 606,280 (4.2%) are Failed. The principal source of failed temperature data was the instrument failure of TC-9 (Zone 2) on June 24, 2024, and TC-10 (Zone 1) on July 5, 2024, near the end of Cycle 173A, which resulted in 595,554 Failed readings. An additional 379 missing values and 10,347 slightly negative values from TC-13 during ATR outages are also Failed. Neither TC-9 nor TC-10 was used as a temperature-control TC, and their failures did not compromise capsule condition monitoring. Correlation analysis of all 13 TCs found no evidence of virtual junction formation. Control chart analysis revealed clear downward drift of approximately 80°C for TC-6 (Zone 3) relative to other stable TCs, and possible downward drift of approximately 60°C for TC-13 relative to the Zone 5 control TC (TC-1), though TC-13 remained consistent with the Zone 2 control TC (TC-12). Gas flow. A total of 20,088,090 gas flow rate records were captured. Of these, 19,941,463 (99.3%) are Qualified and 146,627 (0.7%) are Failed due to missing values. All argon, helium, and total gas flow data were within expected ranges throughout the irradiation. Gas moisture. A total of 1,116,005 outlet gas moisture values were captured. Of these, 1,101,421 (98.7%) are Qualified and 14,584 (1.3%) are Failed, comprising 14,556 out-of-range values and 28 missing values. The out-of-range moisture values exceeded 22,000 ppmv for approximately 1 week at the beginning of Cycle 173A, when accumulated moisture evaporated after the capsule was retrieved from water storage during PALM Cycle 172A and reinserted into the east flux trap. Moisture levels returned to below 25 ppmv for the remaining three cycles, and the transient high-moisture event did not affect the integrity of specimen irradiation. Gas pressure. A total of 7,812,035 gas pressure values were captured. Of these, 6,642,048 (85.0%) are Qualified and 1,169,987 (15.0%) outlet pressure values are Failed, comprising 718,537 zero outlet pressure values due to sensor failure from Cycle 168B through Cycle 171B, 54,550 missing values, and 396,900 too-low outlet pressure values, ranging from 1.1 to 1.6 psia after sensor replacement during Cycle 173A. Load. A total of 6,696,030 load values were captured. Of these, 6,694,580 (99.98%) are Qualified and 1,450 (0.02%) are Failed due to missing values. Applied loads to the six specimen stacks were stable throughout the irradiation. Stack displacement. A total of 6,696,030 displacement values were captured. Of these, 5,713,297 (85.32%) are Qualified and 3,781 (0.06%) are Failed due to missing values. Stack displacement increased consistently throughout the irradiation, reaching approximately 3.08 in. for Channels 5 and 6 by the end of irradiation. 978,952 (14.62%) substantially elevated displacements observed for Channel 6 beginning in Cycle 171A and for Channel 5 beginning in Cycle 173A are assigned Trend status. Raising pressure. A total of 1,115,999 raising pressure values were captured. Of these, 1,115,430 (99.95%) are Qualified and 569 (0.05%) are Failed due to missing values. Ram pressure. A total of 6,696,030 ram pressure values were captured. Of these, 6,692,249 (99.95%) are Qualified and 3,484 (0.05%) are Failed due to missing values. Stack raising was perf

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS

Meteorological and Soil Data from Ecohydrology Sensor Towers at Pump House and Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado, 2019-2025

This data package includes hourly meteorological and soil sensor data at eight ecohydrology monitoring sites in East River Watershed, Colorado as part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) research led by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL). Four field sites were located on the hillslope of East River (ER) near Pump House (PH) at Mount Crested Butte (ER-PHS1 to 4), and the other four are in the Snodgrass Mountain (SG) area (SG-EHS5 to 8). In terms of vegetation cover, three sites are in montane grasslands (ER-PHS1, ER-PHS2, and SG-EHS5), three are below evergreen conifer canopy (ER-PHS3, SG-EHS6, and SG-EHS7), and two are below deciduous aspen canopy (ER-PHS4 and SG-EHS8). The monitoring period began in October 2019 at the East River sites, in October 2020 at SG-EHS5 and SG-EHS6, and in October 2021 at SG-EHS7 and SG-EHS8. In September 2024, all four East River sites were fully retired. The four Snodgrass Mountain sites remain active. Each site is equipped with a comprehensive suite of meteorological sensors on a tripod and soil sensors that measure weather, energy fluxes, and soil variables. This data package includes measurements from ten different types of sensors and up to thirteen individual sensors per site, including (1) a weather station (measurement height ranges from 2.8~3.8 meters (m) above ground), (2) a quantum sensor for photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) (2.4~3.3m), (3) a net radiometer (1.7~2.1m), (4) an infrared radiometer (1.6~2.2m), (5) a sonic distance sensor (1.5~1.9m), (6) a soil carbon dioxide (CO2) flux chamber (0m), (7) a soil heat flux plate (-0.05m below ground), (8) a soil oxygen sensor (-0.3m), (9) a soil water potential sensor (-0.3m), and (10) soil water content sensors at 3~4 depths (-1.15 ~ -0.1m). A total of twenty-three variables is reported in this data package, including (1) atmospheric variables: air temperature (TA), atmospheric pressure (PA), vapor pressure (VP), and vapor pressure deficit (VPD), (2) precipitation variables: rain precipitation (P) and snow depth (D_SNOW), (3) energy fluxes variables: four-component net radiation (NETRAD) (shortwave/longwave incoming/outgoing radiation, SW_IN, SW_OUT, LW_IN, LW_OUT), photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD), and soil heat flux (G), (4) soil variables: soil water content (SWC), soil water potential (SWP), soil temperature (TS), soil bulk electrical conductivity (COND_SOIL), and soil gaseous oxygen concentration (O2_SOIL), (5) wind variables: two-dimensional wind speed (WS), gust speed (WS_MAX), and wind direction (WD), and (6) surface variables: surface infrared temperature (T_CANOPY) and soil CO2 flux (CO2_SOIL). Please see the Methods section for data processing and QA/QC steps taken to generate the hourly datasets. The following files are included in this data package (notes on version: v{x}-{y}, where x is the metadata version, and y is the data version, when applicable): (1) “metadata_site_v{x}-{y}.csv” - a site metadata file that summarizes location information of all sites, including site ID, description, coordinates, timeframe, elevation, and vegetation cover, (2) “metadata_instrument_v{x}-{y}.csv” - an instrument metadata file that summarizes sensor information of all sites, including sensor manufacturer and model, measurement height, and sampling and averaging interval of all variables, (3) "data_{SITE_ID}_v{x}-{y}.csv" - eight data files that contain hourly data of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, (4) “/figure/data_{SITE_ID}_v{x}-{y}.png" - eight figures that help visualize data of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, (5) “/photo/*” - photos of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, and (6) four file level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (*_dd.csv) files that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. Notes: (1) Measurement height: Each variable name is followed by conventional positional qualifiers “H_V_R”, where H indicates the relative horizontal positions of that specific variable, V the vertical positions, and R the replicates. In this data package, only the vertical qualifier V varies, and V increases from the highest vertical position (V=1) to the lowest. Variables with the same qualifier are not necessarily measured by the same sensor, and the same variable with the same qualifier across different sites are not necessarily measured at the same height. Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the sensor information and measurement heights, and whether a variable is measured below the canopy. (2) Variable availability: Snow depth is not available at ER-PHS3 and SG-EHS7. SWC, soil temperature, and soil bulk EC at the deepest depth (<-1m) are not available at SG-EHS6 and SG-EHS7. The missing value code for numeric variables is -9999, except for SWP. For SWP, the missing value code is +9999, because SWP values are negative. (3) Sampling frequency: Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the increase of sampling frequency of some variables from 30-min to 1-min at ER-PHS1 to 4 in July 2020. (4) Sensors: While the methods of each sensor are not detailed, all sensors are commercially available, and their methods can be found in their manuals. Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the sensor manufacturer and model information. 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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at 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

Cleaned 5-Minute Resolution Air Quality and Meteorological Data from Nine TCEQ CAMS Sites in Houston, Texas (Nov 2021 – Oct 2022)

These data encompass 5-minute air monitoring and meteorological observations collected in the greater Houston, Texas metropolitan region, at nine (9) Continuous Ambient Monitoring Stations (CAMS) operated by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) between November 1, 2021 and October 31, 2022. The CAMS sites (CAMS 1, 8, 35, 45, 148, 403, 405, 410, and 1052) were chosen because their instrumentation includes measurements of PM2.5. These sites also provide continuous multi-parameter air-quality and meteorological measurements. Particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10) was sampled along with several trace gases, including ozone (O3), nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2, NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and carbon monoxide (CO). The data set also contains standard surface meteorological parameters (temperature, humidity, pressure, wind speed, and wind direction). Several sites also include AutoGC-based measurements of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Air monitoring instruments deployed at the selected sites comprise the following systems: BAM-1020 or TEOM (PM2.5), Thermo Scientific TEI 49i (O3), TEI 42i (NOx), and AutoGCs (VOCs). This data set is similar to the data included within the houairq5mX1.00 datastream, except for a few additional quality control steps. A systematic data cleaning and verification process was performed on the data set to ensure its quality and preparation for analysis. Removal of non-numeric status flags (e.g., [LIM], [QAS], [SPZ], [CAL], [PMA], [AQI], [SPN], [MAL]) was accomplished by employing rule-based string parsing to extract valid numerical values. Missing entries were set to -9999; however, invalid or anomalous values (e.g., 99999) were retained as originally reported by the TCEQ to preserve data provenance. The time sequence was verified for completeness, removal of duplicates, and uniformity at 5-minute intervals. Column labeling was standardized, and corresponding values were assessed for physical plausibility. All timestamps in the data set were reported in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) as provided by the TCEQ. Further, the latitude and longitude coordinates were added for each CAMS site. A subset of the data (June 1–September 30, 2022) has been used in the following publication: Subba et al. 2025. “Implications of sea breeze circulations on boundary layer aerosols in the southern coastal Texas region.” EGUsphere 2025: 1–49, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2659.

latitude

Predicting Large‐Scale Systematic Missing Pipe Attributes in Water Distribution Networks

Water distribution network (WDN) models are an essential tool used by water utilities for hydraulic analysis. Unfortunately, missing data and insufficient resources often make creating and maintaining these models unfeasible. Existing methods to address missing pipe properties, like sequential imputation for missing values and reconstruction using graph metrics, are designed to accommodate random patterns of missing information and require a significant percentage of the system's attributes to be known. However, these data completeness assumptions do not always align with real‐world scenarios where large sections of the WDN model have missing data. To address this challenge, this study proposes a data‐driven approach for estimating pipe diameter when considering different spatial patterns and degrees of data completeness (i.e., 0%–90%). Using data from 16 WDNs in Kentucky, this study compares the use of machine learning (ML) using topological and geospatial features against an existing deterministic approach. Results demonstrate that WDN models with pipe diameters predicted by the proposed ML method had comparable hydraulic performance to the ground truth models. Moreover, results showed that ML method performance varies between WDNs of differing topological classification. Insights from this study help advance the ability to leverage partial data to create and maintain WDN models amid uncertainty and inadequate resources.

Poff, Jason W. [Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR

Learning nuclear cross sections across the chart of nuclides with graph neural networks

We explore the use of deep learning techniques to learn how nuclear cross sections change as we add or remove protons and neutrons. As a proof of principle, we focus on the neutron-induced reactions in the fast energy regime. Our approach follows a two-stage learning framework. First, we apply representation learning to encode cross section data into a latent space using either variational autoencoders (VAEs) or implicit neural representations (INRs). Then, we train graph neural networks (GNNs) on the resulting embeddings to predict missing values across the nuclear chart by leveraging the topological structure of neighboring isotopes. We demonstrate accurate cross section predictions within a 9 × 9 block of missing nuclei. We also find that the optimal GNN training strategy depends on the type of latent representation used, with VAE embeddings performing best under end-to-end optimization in the original space, while INR embeddings achieve better results when the GNN is trained only in the latent space. Furthermore, using clustering algorithms, we map groups of latent vectors into regions of the nuclear chart and show that VAEs and INRs can discover some of the neutron magic numbers. These findings suggest that deep-learning models based on the representation encoding of cross sections combined with graph neural networks hold significant potential in augmenting nuclear theory models, e.g., by providing reliable estimates of covariances of cross sections, including cross-material covariances.

Machine learning

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) 26r Detailed Produced Water Compositions (version 1.0)

A database of geochemical compositions of aqueous species in produced water reported to the PA DEP. Samples were collected between mid-2012 to early-2020. Data from publicly-available PA DEP 26r reports were scraped from pdf files and cumulated into tabular spreadsheet format for >1000 produced water streams from Marcellus wells in Pennsylvania. In addition to providing the original values, the NETL NEWTS team has reformatted the dataset to allow sample streams to be easily copied into OLI Studio and Geochemist WorkBench (GWB) software for modeling the geochemistry and the recovery of critical minerals, such as lithium, from these produced water streams. In addition, a version of the dataset has been included with predictions for some missing values in the original dataset using machine learning techniques within CoDaRT software, a public ML software developed by the Nation Energy Technology Laboratory. We have made the Input into CoDaRT and one example output from CoDaRT available in this dataset.

Aqueous Chemistry

Stable Water Isotope Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado (2014-2025)

The stable water isotope data for the East River Watershed, Colorado, consists of delta2H (hydrogen) and delta18O (oxygen) values from samples collected at multiple, long-term monitoring sites including streams, groundwater wells, springs, and a precipitation collector used to establish a local meteoric water line (LMWL) for the watershed. These locations represent important and/or unique end-member locations for which stable isotope values can be diagnostic of the connection between precipitation inputs as snow and rain and riverine export. Such locations include drainages underline entirely or largely by shale bedrock, land covered dominated by conifers, aspens, or meadows, and drainages impacted by historic mining activity and the presence of naturally mineralized rock. Developing a long-term record of water isotope values from a diversity of environments is a critical component of quantifying the impacts of both climate change and discrete climate perturbations, such as drought, forest mortality, and wildfire, on water export. Such data may be combined with stream gaging stations co-located at each surface water monitoring site to relate seasonal variations in water export to their stable isotopic signature. Data for liquid water delta2H and delta18O values are reported in units of parts per thousand (per-mil; ‰). This data package contains (1) a zip file (isotope_data_2014-2025.zip) containing a total of 95 files: 96 data files of isotope data from across the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) which is reported in .csv files per location and a locations.csv (1 file) with latitude and longitude for each location; (2) a file-level metadata (v6_20260901_flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and (3) a data dictionary (v6_20260901_dd.csv) file that contains terms/column_headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type. Missing values within the anion data files are noted as either "-9999" or "0.0" for not detectable (N.D.) data. There are a total of 43 locations containing isotope data. Update on 2022-06-10: versioned updates to this dataset was made along with these changes: (1) updated isotope data for all locations up to 2021-12-31 and (2) the addition of the file-level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) were added to comply with the File-Level Metadata Reporting Format. Update on 2022-09-09: Updates were made to reporting format specific files (file-level metadata and data dictionary) to correct swapped file names, add additional details on metadata descriptions on both files, add a header_row column to enable parsing, and add version number and date to file names (v2_20220909_flmd.csv and v2_20220909_dd.csv). Update on 2023-08-08: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-03-13. The file level metadata and data dictionary files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2024-03-11: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2024-02-19. Further, revisions to the data files were made to remove incorrect data points (from 1970 and 2001). The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2025-05-15: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available isotope data was added, up until the end of WY2024 (September 30, 2024). International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), when registered, were added to the data files. The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2026-09-01: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available isotope data was added, up until the end of WY2025 (September 30, 2025).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Dissolved Inorganic Carbon and Dissolved Organic Carbon Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado (2015-2025)

This data package contains mean values for dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) for water samples taken from the East River Watershed in Colorado. The East River is part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. DOC and DIC concentrations in water samples were determined using a TOC-VCPH analyzer (Shimadzu Corporation, Japan). DOC was analyzed as non-purgeable organic carbon (NPOC) by purging HCl-acidified samples with carbon-free air to remove DIC prior to measurement. After the acidified sample has been sparged, it is injected into a combustion tube filled with oxidation catalyst heated to 680 oC. The DOC in samples is combusted to CO2 and measured by a non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) detector. The peak area of the analog signal produced by the NDIR detector is proportional to the DOC concentration of the sample. DIC was determined by acidifying the samples with HCl first, and then purging with carbon-free air to release CO2 for analysis by NDIR detector. Total dissolved nitrogen (TDN) was analyzed using a Shimadzu Total Nitrogen Module (TNM-L) combined with the TOC-L analyzer (Shimadzu Corporation, Japan). TNM-L is a non-specific measurement of total nitrogen (TN). All nitrogen species in samples are combusted to nitrogen monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, then reacted with ozone to form an excited state of nitrogen dioxide. Upon returning to ground state, light energy is emitted. Then, TDN is measured using a chemiluminescence detector. All data reported are the mean values upon minimum of three replicate measurements, with a relative standard deviation < 3%. All samples were analyzed under a rigorous quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) process. This data package contains (1) a zip file (dic_npoc_data_2014-2025.zip) containing a total of 337 files: 336 data files of DIC and NPOC data from across the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) which is reported in .csv files per location and a locations.csv (1 file) with latitude and longitude for each location; (2) a file-level metadata (v6_20250901_flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; (3) a data dictionary (v6_20250901_dd.csv) file that contains terms/column_headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; and (4) PDF and docx files for the determiniation of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for DIC and NPOC data, which has been updated in 2026-08. Missing values within the anion data files are noted as either "-9999" or "0.0" for not detectable (N.D.) data. There are a total of 113 locations containing DIC/NPOC data. Update on 2020-10-07: Updated the data files to remove times from the timestamps, so that only dates remain. The data values have not changed. Update on 2021-04-11: Added Determination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for DIC, NPOC and TDN Analyses document, which can be accessed as a PDF or with Microsoft Word.Update on 6/10/2022: versioned updates to this dataset was made along with these changes: (1) updated dissolved inorganic carbon and dissolved organic carbon data for all locations up to 2021-12-31, (2) removal of units from column headers in datafiles, (3) added row underneath headers to contain units of variables, (4) restructure of units to comply with CSV reporting format requirements, (5) added -9999 for empty numerical cells, and (6) the addition of the file-level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) were added to comply with the File-Level Metadata Reporting Format. Update on 2022-09-09: Updates were made to reporting format specific files (file-level metadata and data dictionary) to correct swapped file names, add additional details on metadata descriptions on both files, add a header_row column to enable parsing, and add version number and date to file names (v2_20220909_flmd.csv and v2_20220909_dd.csv). Update on 2023-08-08: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-01-05. The file level metadata and data dictionary files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2024-03-11: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-11-21. Further, revisions to the data files were made to remove incorrect data points (from 1970 and 2001). The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Revised versions of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for DIC and NPOC were added to replace previous versions. Update on 2025-05-15: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available DIC and NPOC data was added, up until the end of WY2024 (September 30, 2024). International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), when registered, were added to the data files. The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2026-09-01: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available DIC and NPOC data was added, up until the end of WY2025 (September 30, 2025). Updated versions, as of 2026-08-10, of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for DIC and NPOC data were added to this dataset.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Total Dissolved Nitrogen and Ammonia Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado (2015-2025)

This data package contains mean values for total dissolved nitrogen (TDN) and ammonia concentrations for water samples taken from the East River Watershed in Colorado. The East River is part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. TDN was analyzed using a Shimadzu Total Nitrogen Module (TNM-1) combined with the TOC-VCSH analyzer (Shimadzu Corporation, Japan). TNM-1 is a non-specific measurement of total nitrogen (TN). All nitrogen species in samples are combusted to nitrogen monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, then reacted with ozone to form an excited state of nitrogen dioxide. Upon returning to ground state, light energy is emitted. Then, TDN is measured using a chemiluminescence detector. Ammonia was determined using a Lachat's QuikChem 8500 Series 2 Flow Injection Analysis System (LACHAT Instruments, QuckChem 8500 series 2, Automated Ion Analyzer, Loveland, Colorado). When ammonia in water samples is heated (60 degrees C) with salicylate and hypochlorite in an alkaline phosphate buffer, an emerald green color is produced which is proportional to the ammonia concentration. The color is intensified by the addition of nitroprusside. Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) is added to the buffer to prevent the interference of metal ions (Ca, Mg, and Fe etc.). Ammonia-N is then determined by LACHAT flow injection and a colorimetric assay at an absorbance wavelength 660 nm. (Reference: LACHAT Instruments: QuickChem Method 90-107-06-3-A, Determination of Ammonia by Flow Injection Analysis (High Throughput, Salicylate Method/DCIC) (Multi Matrix method). Written by Lynn Egan (Application group), February 08, 2011.) All files are labeled by location and variable, and data reported are the mean values upon replicate measurements. All samples were analyzed under a rigorous quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) process as detailed in the methods. This data package contains (1) a zip file (tdn_ammonia_data_2015-2025.zip) containing a total of 299 files: 298 data files of ammonia and TDN data from across the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) which is reported in .csv files per location and a locations.csv (1 file) with latitude and longitude for each location; (2) a file-level metadata (v7_20260901_flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; (3) a data dictionary (v7_20260901_dd.csv) file that contains terms/column_headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; (4) PDF and docx files for the determination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for TDN data, which has been updated in 2026-08; and (5) PDF and docx files for the detemination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for Ammonia and the Interferences by LACHAT Flow Injection Analysis. Missing values within the anion data files are noted as either "-9999" or "0.0" for not detectable (N.D.) data. There are a total of 105 locations containing TDN and Ammonia-N data. Update 2020-10-07: Updated the data files to remove times from the timestamps, so that only dates remain. The data values have not changed. Update 2021-04-11: Added Determination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for DIC, NPOC and TDN Analyses and Determination of Method Detection Limit for Ammonia and the Interferences by LACHAT Flow Injection Analysis documents, which can be accessed as PDFs or with Microsoft Word.Update on 6/10/2022: versioned updates to this dataset was made along with these changes: (1) updated total dissolved nitrogen and ammonia data for all locations up to 2021-12-31, (2) removal of units from column headers in datafiles, (3) added row underneath headers to contain units of variables, (4) restructure of units to comply with CSV reporting format requirements, (5) added -9999 for empty numerical cells, and (6) the addition of the file-level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) were added to comply with the File-Level Metadata Reporting Format. Update on 2022-09-09: Updates were made to reporting format specific files (file-level metadata and data dictionary) to correct swapped file names, add additional details on metadata descriptions on both files, add a header_row column to enable parsing, and add version number and date to file names (v2_20220909_flmd.csv and v2_20220909_dd.csv). Update on 2022-12-20: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. Units were listed incorrectly, but have been fixed to reflect correct units (ug/L). File level metadata (flmd) and data dictionary (dd) files were updated to reflect the updated versions of these files. Available data was added up until 2022-06-01. Update on 2023-08-08: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-01-05. The file level metadata and data dictionary files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2024-03-11: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-10-27. Further, revisions to the data files were made to remove incorrect data points (from 1970 and 2001). The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Revised versions of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for TDN were added to replace previous versions. Update on 2025-05-15: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available TDN and Ammonia-N data was added, up until the end of WY2024 (September 30, 2024). International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), when registered, were added to the data files. The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2026-09-01: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available TDN and Ammonia-N data was added, up until the end of WY2025 (September 30, 2025). Updated versions, as of 2026-08-10, of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for TDN data were added to this dataset.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Cation Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado (2014-2025)

This data package contains mean values for cation concentration for water samples taken from the East River Watershed in Colorado. Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) has been used to measure the concentrations of elements of interest simultaneously for the East River Watershed, Colorado groundwater and surface water samples to inform insights on the biogeochemistry processes within the watershed. The East River is part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. For samples collected prior to 06-16-2021, the instrumentation, Elan DRC II, PerkinElmer SCIEX, automatically switches among the three models necessary to analyze all 37 elements. These 37 elements include: (1) Lithium (Li), Beryllium (Be), Boron (B), Sodium (Na), Magnesium (Mg), Aluminium (Al), Silicon (Si), Phosphorus (P), Titanium (Ti), Cobalt (Co), Nickel (Ni), Copper (Cu), Zinc (Zn), Germanium (Ge), Arsenic (As), Rubidium (Rb), Strontium (Sr), Zirconium (Zr), Molybdenum (Mo), Silver (Ag), Cadmium (Cd), Tin (Sn), Antimony (Sb), Caesium (Cs), Barium (Ba), Europium (Eu), Lead (Pb), Thorium (Th), Uranium (U) using standard model, argon Ar as reaction gas, (2) Potassium (K), Calcium (Ca), Vanadium (V), Chromium (Cr), Manganese (Mn), Iron (Fe) using dynamic reaction cell (DRC) model, ammonia NH3 as reaction gas, and (3) Phosphorus (P) and Selenium (Se) using DRC model, oxygen O2 as reaction gas. Note for the samples with higher concentrations of chloride (Cl-), asenic (As) concentrations were analysed with DRC model (oxygen O2 as reaction gas) to avoid the interference of chloride. For samples collected on and after 06-16-2021, an advanced Agilent 8900 triple quadrupole inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry system (Agilent 8900 QQQ ICP-MS, Agilent Technologies) has been used to measure the concentrations of interested 36 elements simultaneously for environmental samples, including (1) Lithium (Li), Beryllium (Be) and Boron (B) using standard no gas mode, (2) Sodium (Na), Magnesium (Mg), Aluminium (Al) Phosphorus (P), Potassium (K), Chromium (Cr), Manganese (Mn), Iron (Fe), Cobalt (Co), Nickel (Ni), Copper (Cu), Zinc (Zn), Germanium (Ge), Arsenic (As), Rubidium (Rb), Strontium (Sr), Zirconium (Zr), Molybdenum (Mo), Silver (Ag), Cadmium (Cd), Tin (Sn), Antimony (Sb), Cesium (Cs), Barium (Ba), Europium (Eu), Lead (Pb), Thorium (Th) and Uranium (U) using standard helium (He) collision mode, (3) Titanium (Ti) and Vanadium (V) using high Energy (HEHe) helium (He) collision mode, and (4) Silicon (Si), Calcium (Ca) and Selenium (Se) using standard H2 reaction mode. All samples were prepared/diluted with 2% (v/v) ultrapure nitric acid in Milli-Q water (18.2 mega ohm-cm), and analyzed under a rigorous quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) process. This data package contains (1) a zip file (cation_data_2014_2025.zip) containing a total of 5,849 files: 5.848 data files of cation data from across the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) which is reported in .csv files per location and a locations.csv (1 file) with latitude and longitude for each location; (2) a file-level metadata (v6_20260901_flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; (3) a data dictionary (v6_20260901_dd.csv) file that contains terms/column_headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; (4) PDF and docx files for the detemination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for ICP-MS PerkinElmer DRC II instrumentation (Detemination_of_Method_Detection_Limits__MDLs__for_ICP_MS__PerkinElmer_Elan_DRC_II__LBL_Bldg74_Lab214D) for samples before November 2021; (5) PDF and docx files for the determination of MDLs for ICP-MS Agilent 8900 QQQ instrumentation (ICP_MS_Analysis_detection_limits_and_QA_QC_WenmingDong_updated_2026-08-06) for samples November 2021 and onward. Missing values within the anion data files are noted as either "-9999" or "0.0" for not detectable (N.D.) data. There are a total of 113 locations containing cation data. Update on 2021-04-11: Added Detemination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for ICP-MS document, which can be accessed as a PDF or with Microsoft Word. Update on 2022-06-10: versioned updates to this dataset was made along with these changes: (1) updated cation data for all locations up to 2021-12-31, (2) removal of units from column headers in datafiles, (3) added row underneath headers to contain units of variables, (4) removed suffix and prefix on two variables (“aqberylliumion_asberyllium” and “aqlithiumion_aslithium”), (5) added -9999 for empty numerical cells, and (6) the addition of the file-level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) were added to comply with the File-Level Metadata Reporting Format. Update on 2022-09-09: Updates were made to reporting format specific files (file-level metadata and data dictionary) to correct swapped file names, add additional details on metadata descriptions on both files, add a header_row column to enable parsing, and add version number and date to file names (v2_20220909_flmd.csv and v2_20220909_dd.csv). Update on 2023-08-08: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-01-05. The file level metadata and data dictionary files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2024-03-11: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-10-16. Further, revisions to the data files were made to remove incorrect data points (from 1970 and 2001). The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Updated versions of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for ICP-MS data were added to this dataset for samples starting in November 2021. Update on 2025-05-15: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available cation data was added, up until the end of WY2024 (September 30, 2024). International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), when registered, were added to the data files. The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2026-09-01: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available cation data was added, up until the end of WY2025 (September 30, 2025). Updated versions, as of 2026-08-06, of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for ICP-MS data were added to this dataset for samples starting in November 2021.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Predictive analytics of selections of russet potatoes

We explore the application of machine learning algorithms specifically to enhance the selection process of Russet potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) clones in breeding trials by predicting their suitability for advancement. This study addresses the challenge of efficiently identifying high-yield, disease-resistant, and climate-resilient potato varieties that meet processing industry standards. Leveraging manually collected data from trials in the state of Oregon, we investigate the potential of a wide variety of state-of-the-art binary classification models. The dataset includes 1086 clones, with data on 38 attributes recorded for each clone, focusing on yield, size, appearance, and frying characteristics, with several control varieties planted consistently across four Oregon regions from 2013 to 2021. We conduct a comprehensive analysis of the dataset that includes preprocessing, feature engineering, and imputation to address missing values. We focus on several key metrics such as accuracy, F1-score, and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) for model evaluation. The top-performing models, namely a feedforward neural network classifier (Neural Net), a histogram-based gradient boosting classifier (HGBC), and a support vector machine classifier (SVM), demonstrate consistent and significant results. To further validate our findings, we conducted a simulation study using the aims, data-generating mechanisms, estimands, methods, and performance measures (ADEMP) framework, simulating different data-generating scenarios to assess model robustness and performance through true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative distributions, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) and MCC. The simulation results highlight that non-linear models like SVM and HGBC consistently show higher AUC-ROC and MCC than logistic regression, thus outperforming the traditional linear model across various distributions, and emphasizing the importance of model selection and tuning in agricultural trials. Variable selection further enhances model performance and identifies influential features in predicting trial outcomes. The findings emphasize the potential of machine learning in streamlining the selection process for potato varieties, offering benefits such as increased efficiency, substantial cost savings, and judicious resource utilization. Our study contributes insights into precision agriculture and showcases the relevance of advanced technologies for informed decision-making in breeding programs.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES

Anion Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado (2014-2025)

The anion data for the East River Watershed, Colorado, consist of fluoride, chloride, sulfate, nitrate, and phosphate concentrations collected at multiple, long-term monitoring sites that include stream, groundwater, and spring sampling locations. These locations represent important and/or unique end-member locations for which solute concentrations can be diagnostic of the connection between terrestrial and aquatic systems. Such locations include drainages underlined entirely or largely by shale bedrock, land covered dominated by conifers, aspens, or meadows, and drainages impacted by historic mining activity and the presence of naturally mineralized rock. Developing a long-term record of solute concentrations from a diversity of environments is a critical component of quantifying the impacts of both climate change and discrete climate perturbations, such as drought, forest mortality, and wildfire, on the riverine export of multiple anionic species. Such data may be combined with stream gauging stations co-located at each monitoring site to directly quantify the seasonal and annual mass flux of these anionic species out of the watershed. This data package contains (1) a zip file (anion_data_2014_2025.zip) containing a total of 386 files: 387 data files of anion data from across the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) which is reported in .csv files per location and a locations.csv (1 file) with latitude and longitude for each location; (2) a file-level metadata (v7_20260901_flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; (3) a data dictionary (v7_20260901_dd.csv) file that contains terms/column_headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; and (4) a anion MDL fact sheet (anion_MDLs_202608 in PDF and docx formats). Missing values within the anion data files are noted as either "-9999" or "0.0" for not detectable (N.D.) data. There are a total of 47 locations containing anion data. Update on 2022-06-10: versioned updates to this dataset was made along with these changes: (1) updated anion data for all locations up to 2021-12-31, (2) removal of units from column headers in datafiles, (3) added row underneath headers to contain units of variables, (4) restructure of units to comply with CSV reporting format requirements, and (5) the addition of the file-level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) were added to comply with the File-Level Metadata Reporting Format. Update on 2022-09-09: Updates were made to reporting format specific files (file-level metadata and data dictionary) to correct swapped file names, add additional details on metadata descriptions on both files, add a header_row column to enable parsing, and add version number and date to file names (v2_20220909_flmd.csv and v2_20220909_dd.csv). Update on 2022-12-20: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. Conversion issues affecting ER-PLM locations for anion data was resolved for the data files. Additionally, the flmd and dd files were updated to reflect the updated versions of these files. Available data was added up until 2022-03-14. Update on 2023-08-08: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-05-19. The file level metadata and data dictionary files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2024-03-11: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-09-11. Further, revisions to the data files were made to remove incorrect data points (from 1970 and 2001). The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2025-05-15: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until the end of WY2024 (September 30, 2024). International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), when registered, were added to the data files. The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2026-09-01: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until the end of WY2025 (September 30, 2025). An anion MDL document was included in this update.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Gap-filled methane and carbon dioxide fluxes across two ecosystem states at the US-OWC AmeriFlux site (2015−2016, 2020−2022)

This dataset contains gap-filled measurements of methane flux (FCH4), net ecosystem CO2 exchange (NEE) partitioned into gross primary productivity (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (RE), as well as latent heat flux (LE) from a Great Lakes coastal freshwater wetland at the US-OWC AmeriFlux site. The dataset covers the peak growing seasons (June−September) of 2015−2016, dominated by Typha spp., and 2020−2022, characterized by floating-leaved species (lotus and water lily). These data were generated to investigate how rising water levels and vegetation shifts influence CH4 and CO2 fluxes across two distinct ecosystem states in this wetland. The dataset, provided in CSV format, includes half-hourly gap-filled flux data from June to September for 2015, 2016, 2020, 2021, and 2022. The gap-filled data refers to measurements where missing values due to instrument issues or quality control were filled using artificial neural networks (ANNs).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES