WHP Cruise Summary Information

WOCE section designation
P17E/P19S

Expedition designation (EXPOCODE)
316N138_10 (a.k.a. JUNO Leg 2)

Chief Scientist(s) and their affiliation
Jim Swift, SIO

Dates
1992.12.04 - 1993.01.22

Ship
KNORR

Ports of call
Papeete, Tahiti, F.P., to Punta Arenas, Chile

Number of stations
106

Geographic boundaries of the stations
	51°06.91''S
134°59.89''W	087°53.46''W
	69°15.72''S

Floats and drifters deployed
see below

Moorings deployed or recovered
none

Contributing Authors
(in order of appearance)
B.J. Nisly
M.C. Johnson
F.M. Delahoyde
R.T. Williams
R.M. Key
A. Mantyla
B. Millard


WHP Ref. No.: P17E/P19S
Last updated: 3 March 1993

CRUISE REPORT

A.	CRUISE NARRATIVE
A.1	HIGHLIGHTS
A.1.a	WOCE designation	P17E and P19S 
A.1.b	EXPOCODE		316N138_10 
A.1.c	Chief Scientist		James H. Swift
				Scripps Institution of Oceanography
				La Jolla, CA 92093-0230
A.1.d	Ship			R/V Knorr 
A.1.e	Ports of call		Papeete, Tahiti, F.P., to Punta Arenas, Chile 
A.1.f	Cruise dates		4 December 1992 - 22 January 1993 

A.2	CRUISE SUMMARY INFORMATION
A.2.a	Geographic boundaries

The cruise track included WHP stations beginning at 52°30'S, 135°W on 13 
December, 1992, continuing east along ca. 52°30'S (P17E) at 30 nautical mile 
intervals.  At 126°W the track turned south, and south of 61°S, station spacing 
was increased to 40 nautical miles.  The planned southern terminus of the P17E 
line at 67°S was covered by sea ice.  The farthest south station occupied on 
this line was located at ca. 66 20°S, 126°W on 25 December.  Sampling resumed on 
the P17E line at 52°S on 29 December, and stations were occupied at 30 and 40 
nautical mile intervals roughly eastward to 54°S, 88°W (10 January, 1993), 
except that the western end of the line ran northeast from 52°30'S 126°W to ca. 
51°S 125°W before turning 'east' in order to cross the axis of the East Pacific 
Rise at closer to a right angle and away from known fracture zones.  From 54°S, 
88°W, WOCE sampling along line P19S continued south to ca. 69°16'S (18 January) 
at 30 nautical mile spacing to 61°S and 40 nautical mile spacing south of there, 
except for the final two stations, which were at ca. 32 and 23 mile spacing.  
(Cruise track shown in Figure 1*.)

A.2.b	Stations occupied

There were 106 CTD/rosette stations, each close to the bottom. 79 stations are 
along P17E and 27 are along P19S. Seven included one deep and one intermediate 
depth large volume cast.  There were several casts carried out for tests and 
other non-WOCE purposes.  No reportable data were collected at test stations and 
they are not tabulated in the WOCE .SUM file.

A.2.c	Floats and drifters deployed

ALACE floats were deployed at 6 locations between 51°S and 61°30'S along 126°W 
(P17E) and 6 locations between 54°S and 62°30'S along 88°W (P19S).

A.2.d	Moorings deployed or recovered

None 

A.3	List of Principal Investigators

Name			Measurement responsibility		Institution
R. Davis		ALACE floats				SIO
E. Firing & P. Hacker	ADCP					Univ. of Hawaii
L. Gordon 		nutrients (tech support)		OSU
W. Jenkins		helium (van support)			WHOI
C. Keeling		CO2 (shore)				SIO
R. Key			LVS 14-C, AMS 14-C,			Princeton
			surface 226-Ra/228-Ra, alkalinity,
			underway surface T & pCO2 
J. Lupton		helium					PMEL/Newport
G. Rau			13-C, 15-N (surface)			NASA/AMES
J. Reid & J. Swift	CTD/O2/nutrients			SIO
P. Schlosser		helium/tritium				LDGO
W. Smethie		CFCs, CCl4				LDGO
S. Smith		bathymetry				SIO
T.Takahashi & D.Chipman	CO2 (shipboard), surface pCO2		LDGO
			(underway)	
R. Weiss		CFCs, surface CFC/T/pCO2		SIO
			(underway)	
B. Walden		IMET meteorology 			WHOI
			Thermosalinograph	

A.4	Scientific Programme and Methods

R/V Knorr expedition 138/10 (also known as JUNO, Leg 2) took place from Papeete, 
Tahiti, French Polynesia, to Punta Arenas, Chile, 4 December 1992 - 22 January 
1993.  Chief Scientist was James Swift (SIO).  Scientific work for the P17 
portion of Leg 2 was proposed by Joseph Reid (SIO) and Swift, and the P19 
portion by Swift at an earlier time.  (The work for the two proposals was 
partially merged in response to the rescheduling of the US WHP Pacific Basin 
study engendered by the delays in the refit of R/V Knorr.)  The overall purpose 
was to contribute to a multi-cruise examination of the meridional circulation 
and water mass transitions in the Pacific Ocean for the WOCE Hydrographic 
Program, in this case emphasizing the subpolar regimes of the Southeast Pacific.

R/V Knorr departed Papeete, Tahiti, on 4 December, 1992, and headed toward the 
first WOCE station.  On the afternoons of 5, 6, and 7 December the vessel 
stopped for station tests and training.  No reportable data were collected. WHP 
stations began at 52°30'S, 135°W on 13 December (local date) and continued on 
the planned track until the Antarctic ice edge was reached at 6°20'S, 126°W on 
25 December.  After a three day run north to 5°2'S, 12°38'W, P17E stations 
resumed on 29 December on a track slightly south of the originally planned line, 
ending at 54°S 88°W on 9 January.  At this point the track turned south to 
follow the originally planned P19S line south to ca. 6°16'S, 8°W, when station 
work was terminated short of the ice edge due to the need to begin the run into 
port, exceeding, however, the planned minimum southward goal of 67°S, which was 
the latitude of the Ioffe crossing of the S4 line.  The vessel arrived in port 
on schedule 22 January 1993.  The total number of station was slightly less than 
planned, but a preliminary examination of the isopleths suggests no serious data 
loss was generated by the use of 40 mile spacing over three 'deep basin' 
portions of the expedition.

The principal sampling program consisted of full-depth CTDO profiles with a 
maximum of 36 small-volume water samples per cast.  Water samples were collected 
for salinity, dissolved oxygen, silicate, phosphate, nitrate, and nitrite from 
all sampled levels at all stations, and for CFC- 11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CCl4, 3He, 
tritium, AMS 14-C, and CO2 system parameters (pCO2, TCO2, alkalinity) at selected 
levels and stations.  Large volume sampling for 14-C was carried out at seven 
stations with 270-liter Gerard barrels, with up to 18 samples per station in two 
casts.  Check samples for salinity and silicate were analyzed from the Gerard 
barrels and their piggyback Niskin bottles.  Separate surface water samples were 
taken approximately one each day for analyses of 226-Ra and 228-Ra.  Separate 
surface samples were filtered at each station for shore analyses of 13-C and 15-N.

Rosette water samples were collected by the Scripps Oceanographic Data Facility 
(ODF) from ODF-constructed 10-liter sample bottles mounted on an ODF-constructed 
36-bottle rosette sampler which used General Oceanics 24- and 12-place pylons.  
The rosette was equipped with an ODF-modified NBIS Mark IIIb CTD for in-situ 
measurement of conductivity, temperature, pressure, and dissolved oxygen.  A 
transmissometer belonging to Dr. Wilf Gardner, TAMU, was installed on the 
rosette and used at every station.  A short-range (ca. 100 meter) altimeter was 
mounted on the rosette frame and its data fed into the CTD data stream.  A 
pinger on the rosette frame gave height above bottom (via a PDR in the CTD 
console area) throughout the water column.  In every case the bottles were 
closed at selected depths during the up cast, after the winch had stopped at 
that depth.  There were 106 CTD/rosette stations, each close to the bottom.  
Seven included one deep and one intermediate depth cast with Gerard barrels.

While on station and underway a shipboard ADCP system was operated.  Underway 
surface measurements were also obtained - temperature, pCO2, and atmospheric 
CFCs.  Sonic depth and position were recorded at five minute intervals between 
most stations and along selected portions of the long runs.  Routine weather 
observations were collected at four hour intervals by the ship's officers, and 
an IMET system was operated by the Knorr's resident technician.  The sea work 
was occasionally affected by sea and swell generated by low pressure cells in 
the region.

NOTES ON THE CONTENTS OF THE ".DOC" AND ".SUM" FILES

Note regarding position accuracy: Positions for ROS and LVS casts are reported 
here to the WHPO specification of the nearest hundredth of a minute (ca. 20 
meters).  However, elementary consideration shows that the position of the 
underwater equipment is difficult enough to know to tenths of a minute.  One 
should also note that the net RMS system accuracy of the GPS at its current 
degradation was ±100 meters of absolute planetary position.  Hence the reported 
ROS and LVS positions are not reliable to the precision required by the WHPO.

The ".SUM" file follows the format of the reference document except as follows:

"Uncorrected Bottom Depths" are in almost every case actual raw readings in 
meters read manually from the trace on the ship's PDR, copied from the ODF 
"Console Operation Log" sheets.  These are uncorrected for the depth of the 
transducer below waterline, which was about 4 - 5 meters (depending on fuel 
remaining) for this cruise.  Note that ODF "Station/Cast Description" files for 
this cruise contain bottom depths corrected from raw readings via Carter Tables.  
(This methodology matches that used to obtain the depths recorded every five 
minutes by the underway bathymetry group, and hence make for easier 'fits' for 
scientists preparing sections with realistic bathymetry between stations.)  
Hence future ODF data releases may show different bottom depths than the ".SUM" 
file from the Chief Scientist.

"Height Above Bottom" was determined for most ROS casts both from an altimeter 
on the rosette which returned altitude above bottom through the CTD data stream, 
and also from a pinger on the rosette frame used with the ship's PDR.  In the 
".SUM" file, priority in reported height above bottom was usually given to 
altimeter data when available.  In the ODF "Station/Cast Description" file, the 
height above bottom is usually, but not always, the PDR reading.  In any event, 
the two numbers were usually within 1-2 meters of each other.  ODF also kept a 
record of PDR height above bottom at the time the mercury thermometers on the 
second bottle were reversed, in order to provide comparison with data from the 
unprotected thermometer.  These data are available from ODF.

The "Meter Wheel" readings are the actual maximum wire out as recorded on the 
winch operator's display (and the repeater on the CTD computer).  Cast-start 
winch readings are nominally adjusted at the surface by the winch operators; 
however this was not verified on a cast by cast basis by the scientists on 
watch.

"Maximum Pressure" is for ROS casts the preliminary corrected CTD pressure at 
the time of tripping the first (deepest) rosette bottle and for LVS casts the 
pressure calculated for the deepest LVS sampler from the thermometers on its 
piggyback Niskin bottle.  The data acquisition system used for the CTD data on 
this cruise records and reports preliminary corrected pressures in real time, 
hence it was decided after consultation with the WHPO not to report in the 
".SUM" file raw CTD pressures which do not correspond to expedition records 
distributed to participants.

The "Number of Bottles" is the maximum number attempted each cast, not the 
number returned to deck with sample-able water inside.  This distinction was not 
discussed in the WHPO reference manual, which calls for the "number of bottles 
used" during a cast, and so we made our own decision, which bears comment:  If a 
rosette bottle came up open or otherwise unsample-able, or if it came up full, 
but was later - on examination of the chemical data - found to be faulty, it did 
count in the tally shown.  This does not necessarily make sense from the 
standpoint of the chemistry groups, because their tallies keep track of the 
number of bottles sampled for the parameters of interest, and rosette bottles 
known absolutely to be faulty (for example top cap open or bottle empty) are not 
sampled.  Another problem is that the CTD data acquisition system prepared a 
file (containing CTD pressure, temperature, conductivity, oxygen, and other 
parameters) for each attempt to close a rosette bottle (including some bogus 
"double-trips" which had nothing to do with pylon tripping).  Because of all 
these factors, some versions of the CTD rosette trip files from this expedition 
may show different numbers of bottles than in this column.

Should CTD data be reported from attempted bottle trips which produced no bottle 
data?  The reason to do this is that it helps fill out the vertical profiles for 
T, S, and O2 for those who primarily use bottle data.  (Generally speaking, the 
CTD console operators attempt to close rosette bottles at key or interesting 
places in the water column.)  A gap will make representation of that layer 
impossible from only the bottle data file.  The reason not to do this is that 
there are no bottle data at those depths.  This difference between the number of 
bottles attempted and the number sampled should perhaps be addressed by the WHPO 
in a future version of the reference document.

During cruise 138/10, pCO2 and total CO2 measurements were made from water taken 
from the shallowest rosette bottle at every station, and pCO2 and total CO2 
profiles from a full rosette cast were collected and analyzed approximately once 
each day.  The WHPO Requirements for Data Reporting manual lists sample codes 
for fugacity of CO2 and total carbonate.  A chemist consulted on this matter 
stated that fugacity of CO2 was different from the partial pressure of CO2 and 
that total carbonate was different than total CO2.  Hence new parameter codes 
were created for the carbon system parameters actually measured on Knorr 138/10.  
There were four other parameters routinely measured on 138/10 that did not have 
listed WHPO parameter codes:  13-C, 15-N, CFC-113, and CCl4.  These were 
assigned new numbers also, as per the instructions in the data reporting manual.

A.5	Major Problems and Goals not Achieved

The Knorr left Tahiti one day late due to a problem with the ship's radar not 
discovered until the originally-intended sailing day.  The ODF electronics 
technician repaired the radar before scheduled departure time, but because the 
crew had been released, it was not possible to depart until the following 
morning.  Eighteen hours were lost due to this.  The CTD cable was occasionally 
damaged near the rosette due to the combined action of wave and ship motion.  New 
end terminations were carried out on 15 (twice) and 21 December, and 4 and 8 
January, with a total time loss of about 14 hours.  Cable reterminations usually 
coincided with weather delays.  Additional delays of about 36 hours were 
generated waiting out  seas and weather too severe for rosette operations.  At 
times when sea state was marginal for rosette casts, twelve of the rosette 
bottles were removed to reduce drag.  These 24-level profiles are bracketed by 
36-level profiles, and kept CTD operations active in somewhat rougher conditions 
than recommended for the 36-place configuration.

The expedition plan required three long steams (ca. 2180, 880, and 1200 miles).  
Pre-cruise information from the vessel operator for planning had been that in 
good weather the vessel would do 12-13 knots underway on long steams.  Therefore 
the cruise was planned at 10 knots, with no weather allowance, but in effect 
with a multi-day allowance generated by the expected higher speed on long 
steams.  (We also knew that in good weather we could carry out CTD casts in 
about 80% of the time used in the planning document.)  However, cruising speed 
on the critical long first run proved to be only 10 knots (due to fuel 
consumption considerations).  This meant the loss of about two days time.  
Steaming speed at night was reduced to 4 knots during most of the run south 
along 126°W; it was not until the farthest south portion of the line that sea 
surface temperatures dropped below zero or any growlers were sighted not 
immediately associated with icebergs.  With this experience in hand, the run 
south along 88°W incurred fewer night-time steaming delays. Additional time was 
lost when the Chileans refused to supply a pilot for the most direct route to 
Punta Arenas (via the Cockburn Channel), forcing a detour northward to use the 
Straits of Magellan.  (This was known approximately 2-3 weeks ahead of time.)

The sum of the various delays and lost time, plus the extension of the 126°W 
line to 66°40'S to better meet the Ioffe S4 line, made it necessary to expand 
station spacing over some deep basin portions of the track to 40 nautical miles.  
The Chief Scientist must seek adequate time (and funds) for an expedition, and 
so the responsibility for widening the spacing lies there, not with the vessel 
operator or any other factor.  (As a result of this experience the vessel 
operator instituted new guidelines for cruise and fuel planning.)

A.6	Other Incidents of Note

The CTD and rosette bottles worked especially well during the expedition.  There 
were the fewest problems with bottle leaks in the Chief Scientist's experience.  
Despite continual expert maintenance, the General Oceanics 24-place rosette 
pylons were troublesome.  The most common problem was 'trip throughs', where the 
rotor advances, but fails to release the lanyard at one level, and then releases 
two lanyards at the next level.  Fortunately, over much of the water column 
vertical gradients were high enough to sort these out.  At two stations where 
over 5000 meters of CTD wire was played out, two of the deep rosette trips 
failed to release the lanyards (those bottles came up open).  This was tracked 
and investigated by the electronics technician, and after several adjustments, 
the problem did not reoccur.

There are property differences between JUNO Leg 2 stations and IOFFE S4 stations 
reoccupied during JUNO.  There were also property differences between JUNO Leg 1 
Station 80 and its JUNO Leg 2 reoccupation (Station 128).  For example, the JUNO 
1/2 deep temperatures suggested that Leg 2 measurements at the same levels were 
0.02°C colder than during Leg 1.  Secondary PRT and mercury thermometer 
differences over Leg 1 and Leg 2 show no visible trends over time, and certainly 
no 0.02° shift.  These and other property differences will be documented in the 
final cruise report.

We carried out tests of three new rosette bottle designs, all with external 
springs:  a stock General Oceanics 'Lever Action' Niskin Bottle, a 'lever 
action' bottle modified by General Oceanics to include a 'floater' type top cap, 
and a similar bottle constructed by ODF.  (The floater caps hold a buoyant disk 
slightly smaller than the bottle barrel.  The disk is held in place by the air 
vent, which is relocated to the top lid.  When the air vent is opened, it 
releases the floating disk, which, at least in theory, reduces gas exchange 
between the sample and the air in the headspace.)  The ODF version leaked 
heavily on its first try, then broke at a weakly supported glue joint on its 
cocking for its second station.  It was obvious it would just break again, so it 
was retired to shore for modifications.  The General Oceanics floater bottle 
leaked badly (top cap was not sealing well enough, though bottom cap was doing 
O.K.), and had a cable on it that was wearing out very quickly.  However, if the 
top cap was manually seated when the rosette came out of the water, it would 
retain its seal.  An oxygen draw down test - with an ODF standard 10-liter 
bottle as the 'control' - showed no significant contamination reduction with the 
floater.  However, this test was not definitive, and further development and 
tests must proceed before a conclusion is drawn.  The stock General Oceanics 
external spring model without floater work well enough.  On its own, however, it 
does not solve the head space gas exchange problem.

On 9 January, R.Streib found a deep water pelagic snail in the oxygen sample 
flask from 1000 meters at station 205.  It was preserved in alcohol for return 
to shore, though deteriorated when it was placed in alcohol.

A.7	List of Cruise Participants

Name			Responsibility on cruise	Institution or affiliation
Baker, Linda		CO2					LDGO
Boennisch, Gerhard	helium/tritium				LDGO
Bos, David		chief nutrient analyst			SIO/ODF
Delahoyde, Frank	CTD data, computer systems		SIO/ODF
Guffy, Dennis		nutrients				TAMU
Handley, William	resident technician; ALACE		WHOI
Harrison, Kathleen	CM operations, science assistant	SIO/PORD
Key, Robert		14-C, LVS operations, surface sampling,	Princeton
			underway systems, co-chief scientist	
Klas, Millie		CO2					LDGO
Lyons, John		dock, salinity				SIO/ODF
Lyons, Michelle		ADCP, CTD operations, science assistant	SIO/PORD
Mathieu, Guy		CFCs, CCl4				LDGO
Mattson, Carl		electronics				SIO/ODF
Muus, David		chief marine technician,		SIO/ODF
			deck, data analyst
Patrick, Ron		deck (2nd watch leader), O2		SIO/ODF
Pillard, Gent		dock, salinity				SIO/ODF
Rubin, Stephany		chief CO2 analyst			WOO
Salameh, Peter		CFCs, underway systems			SIO/GRD
Streib, Rebecca		deck, O2				SIO/ODF
Swift, Jim		chief scientist				SIO/PORD/ODF
Tedesco, Kathy		helium/tritium, science assistance	UCSB

B.	Underway Measurements
B.1	Navigation and bathymetry
B.2	Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)
B.3	Thermosalinograph and underway dissolved oxygen, etc
B.4	XBT and XCTD
B.5	Meteorological observations
B.6	Atmospheric chemistry

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WOCE P17E/P19S

(EXPOCODE 316N138/10)

Calibrated Pressure-Series CTD Data 
Processing Summary and Comments

April 10. 1996

Barry J. Nisly
Mary C. Johnson
ODF CTD Group
Oceanographic Data Facility
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
UC San Diego, Mail Code 0214
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA 92093-0214

phone:(619)534-1906
fax:(619)534-7383
e-mail:barry@odf.ucsd.edu

1.	Introduction

This document describes the CTD and dissolved oxygen data acquisition, 
processing, corrections, and laboratory calibrations used for WOCE P17E/P19S, 
also known as Knorr 138/10 and JUNO2. This cruise was on the R/V Knorr from 
December 4, 1992 - January 22, 1993.

2.	CTD Setup and Processing Summary

106 CTD casts were done during JUNO2.  The rosette used was a 36-bottle system 
that was designed at ODF.  The system consisted of a 12-bottle ring nested 
inside a 24-bottle ring. Two General Oceanic pylons were mounted inside the 
smaller ring: one 12-place and one 24-place.  Ten liter ODF and Niskin bottles 
were used.  The CTD, altimeter, pinger, and transmissometer were mounted to the 
bottom of the rosette frame.  A modified Neil Brown Instrument Systems Mark IIIB 
CTD (ODF #1) was used the entire leg.  At the outset, the CTD was equipped with 
these four sensors: a Rosemount primary platinum resistance thermometer, a 
Falmouth Scientific secondary PRT, a Rosemount pressure sensor, and a 
Sensormedics oxygen sensor.  Later, a Falmouth Scientific pressure sensor was 
deployed in the place of the secondary PRT. One winch and one transmissometer 
were used the entire leg. Table 1 shows the configurations of the rosette as it 
was deployed.  Deep sea reversing thermometers were deployed on 96 casts.  
Additionally, factory-calibrated digital DSRTs were deployed on approximately 
half of the casts.

The CTD data stream consisted of pressure, temperature, conductivity, dissolved 
oxygen, secondary temperature, four CTD voltages, trip confirmation, 
transmissometer, altimeter, and elapsed time.  The raw FSK CTD signal was DC 
decoupled, demodulated, and converted to an RS-232 signal by a deck unit that 
was designed and fabricated at ODF.  The decoupled FSK CTD signal was recorded 
on VHS videotape.  The RS-232 signal was sent to a Sun SPARCstation 2 which 
acquired and displayed the data in real time using software developed at ODF.  
The data were recorded on hard disk as were the bottle trip levels.  A 3- to 4-
second average of the CTD data was stored for each detected bottle trip.  These 
data were then used to verify the CTD temperature calibration and to derive CTD 
conductivity and oxygen corrections.

CTD data processing steps are as follows:

-  Data are acquired from the deck unit and assembled into consecutive 0.04-
   second frames containing all data channels.  The data are converted to 
   scientific units.
-  The raw pressure, temperature and conductivity data are passed through 
   broad absolute value and gradient filters to eliminate noise (see Table 2).  
   The entire frame of raw data is omitted if any one of the filters is 
   exceeded.  The filters may be adjusted as needed for each cast.
-  Pressure and conductivity are phase-adjusted to match temperature.  This 
   is necessary because the temperature sensor response time lags the response 
   times of the pressure and conductivity sensors.  Conductivity data are 
   corrected for ceramic compressibility in accordance with the NBIS Mark IIIB 
   Reference Manual.
-  The data are averaged into 0.5-second blocks.  For each channel, data 
   falling outside four standard deviations from the mean are rejected and the 
   average is recalculated.  Then data falling outside two standard deviations 
   from the new mean are rejected, and the average is again recalculated. The 
   resulting averages, minus secondary temperature and CTD voltages, are 
   reported as the 0.5-second time-series data. Secondary temperature data are 
   used to verify the stability of the primary temperature channel calibration.  
   Secondary temperature data are only reported if the primary thermometer 
   malfunctions.
-  Corrections are applied to the data.  The pressure data are corrected 
   using laboratory calibration data with the procedure described in Appendix A, 
   "Improving the Measurement of Pressure in the NBIS Mark III CTD," by F. 
   Delahoyde and R. Williams.  Temperature corrections are based on laboratory 
   calibrations and are typically quadratic functions of temperature.  
   Conductivity and oxygen corrections are calculated from water sample data. 
   Conductivity corrections are typically linear functions of conductivity.  
   Oxygen data are corrected on an individual cast basis by correcting pressure-
   series CTD oxygen data to match the up-cast discrete oxygen values at common 
   isopycnals.  This technique is described in Appendix B, "CTD Dissolved Oxygen 
   Data Processing," by F. Delahoyde.
-  A down-cast pressure-series data set is created from the time-series data 
   by applying a ship-roll filter to the down- cast time-series data, then 
   averaging the data within 2-decibar pressure intervals centered on the 
   reported pressure.  The ship-roll filter disallows pressure reversals.  The 
   first few seconds of data for each cast are excluded from the averages to 
   allow the sensors to adjust. Pressure intervals without time-series data are 
   filled by double-parabolic interpolation.  When the down-cast CTD data have 
   excessive noise, gaps, or offsets, the up-cast data are used instead.  Down- 
   and up-cast data are not reported together because they do not represent 
   identical water columns due to ship movement, internal waves, and wire angle.

The CTD time-series data is the definitive record for the pressure, conductivity 
and temperature channels.  The final CTD and dissolved oxygen pressure-series 
data are reported to the principal investigator and to the WOCE Hydrographic 
Programme Office.  Uncorrected time-series transmissometer data are forwarded to 
Texas A&M University for final processing and reporting.

Table 1:  JUNO2 CTD Sensor Configuration

Stations	Pressure	Temperature	Conductivity	Oxygen
			    PRT-1	PRT-2		
128-183					FSI-T1320		2-6-9
184-205		131910	    14304		  5902-F117	2-6-10
206-233					FSI-Pressure*		
*NOTE: An FSI pressure sensor was deployed instead of the secondary 
temperature sensor.

Table 2:  JUNO2 Raw Data Filters

Raw Data	Minimum	Maximum	Frame-to-Frame
Channel				   Gradient
Pressure	-40	6400	2 decibars
Temperature	 -8	32.7	0.2°C
Conductivity	  0	64.355	0.3 mmho
Oxygen		(no filter was used)

3.	CTD Laboratory Calibrations
3.1	Pressure Sensor Calibration

The CTD #1 pressure transducer was calibrated in a temperature-controlled bath 
with a Ruska Instrument Corporation Model 2400 dead weight gage.  The mechanical 
hysteresis loading and unloading curves were measured both pre- and post-cruise 
at cold temperature (-2.0 to -1.4°C bath) to a maximum of 8830 psi. The warm 
temperature (29.1 to 30.0°C bath) hysteresis curves were measured to a pre-
cruise maximum of 2030 psi and a post-cruise maximum of 4030 psi.  The post-
cruise calibration included an additional measurement to 4030 psi in a 10.3°C 
bath.

The transient thermal response of the pressure sensor was also quantified with 
thermal shock tests.  The CTD was subjected to a step change in temperature from 
warm air to cold water at stable pressure in the laboratory, while the pressure 
and temperature were measured over a period of 1 hour.  The cold-to- warm 
thermal shock response was also measured; that response was roughly the mirror 
image of the warm-to-cold response.

Thermal shock tests for CTD #1 were done from warm air to cold water, and later 
from cold water to warm air, during the post-cruise calibration.  Further 
testing was done in October '93 to get a proper cold-to-warm response 
measurement by going from cold water to warm water.

CTD #1 pre- and post-cruise pressure calibrations are summarized in Figures 1a*, 
1b*, 1c*, 2a*, and 2b*.

3.2	Temperature Sensor Calibration

Both primary and secondary PRT were calibrated in a temperature-controlled bath 
with a Rosemount Model 162CE standard PRT as measured by a NBIS Automatic 
Temperature Bridge Model 1250 resistance bridge.  Eight calibration 
temperatures, spaced across the range of 0 to 31.3C, were measured both pre- and 
post-cruise. The standard PRT was monitored for drift with a water triple- point 
cell and a gallium cell.

CTD #1 pre- and post-cruise temperature calibrations, referenced to the ITS-90 
standard, are summarized in Figures 3a* and 3b*.  Temperature calibration 
coefficients were converted to the IPTS-68 standard.  CTD temperature data were 
corrected to the IPTS-68 standard because calculated parameters, including 
salinity and density, are currently defined in terms of that standard only.  
After final corrections were applied, IPTS-68 data were converted back to the 
ITS-90 standard.

4.	CTD Data Processing
4.1	CTD Pressure Corrections*1
(*1- Refer to Appendix A, "Improving the Measurement of Pressure in the NBIS 
Mark III CTD" for details on the ODF pressure model and its application.)

CTD #1 pre- and post-cruise pressure calibrations were compared (Figures 1a* and 
1b*).  The warm/shallow and cold/deep calibration curves both shifted at the 
surface by about 2.5 to 3 decibars from pre- to post-cruise.  The cold/deep 
pressure calibration curves had similar slopes in the top 2400 decibars, then 
diverged an additional 2 decibars between 2400 and 6100 decibars.  The post-
cruise cold/up-cast curve was 1 decibar closer to the downcast than pre-cruise.  
The warm/shallow slope was less steep post-cruise, and the surface points were 
0.5 decibar further from the cold curve than they were during the pre-cruise 
calibration.  The post-cruise down-cast pressure calibrations had similar slopes 
at all 3 temperatures, whereas the pre-cruise warm calibration curve was steeper 
than the cold calibration curve.

Because of the pre- and post-cruise slope inconsistencies, laboratory 
calibrations from December '91, May '92, and October '93 were also examined for 
trends over time.  The cold/deep correction curve slopes have gone more negative 
and the warm/cold surface offsets have drifted apart with time.  Only the August 
'92 pre-cruise calibration contradicts these trends; the May '93 post-cruise 
pressure calibrations are much more consistent with the history of the 
instrument.  The post-cruise pressure calibrations were used to correct the CTD 
#1 station data, with an additional offset applied to account for the shift in 
the calibration curves over time.  No slope change was applied to the May '93 
data, since there was less than a 1 decibar in 6000 decibars slope change 
between May '92 and May '93 laboratory calibrations.

The additional offset to the pressure calibration was determined by examining 
raw CTD pressure versus temperature data from the laboratory temperature 
calibrations and comparable shipboard data.  Raw CTD pressure versus temperature 
data from just before the CTD entered the water on each cast were tabulated.  
The CTD readings were fairly stable, with atmospheric pressures and stable 
ambient temperatures around the CTD for 30 or more minutes prior to each cast.  
These conditions were similar to conditions during the laboratory calibrations.  
The May '93 post-cruise pressure calibration curves were shifted by the +2.0-
decibar average difference between the laboratory and cast data; the resulting 
data were used to correct JUNO2 CTD #1 pressure data (Figure 1c*).

Post-cruise warm-to-cold thermal shock data (Figure 2a*) were fit to determine 
the time constants and temperature coefficients which model the pressure 
response to rapid temperature change.  May 91 and May '93 post-cruise data were 
compared and the results were similar in magnitude and response time.  A thermal 
shock test from cold-to-warm water was done in October '93 (Figure 2b*). The 
results were similar in magnitude but mirror-image to the warm-to-cold shock 
tests from May '93.  The May '93 time constants and temperature coefficients 
were used to correct the JUNO2 CTD #1 pressure data (Table 3).  The pressure 
correction applied to up-cast data for the thermal response used a modification 
of the down-cast correction to achieve the mirror- image effect seen in the 
laboratory.

DSRTs were used on 96 casts to measure thermometric pressure at depth.  
Additional data were collected at 1-3 intermediate-to- deep levels using 
factory-calibrated digital DSRTs.  The only shift observed in thermometric and 
CTD pressure differences, between stations 188 and 189, could be attributed to a 
change in the DSRT used to measure the thermometric values.

The shifted May '93 post-cruise calibration curve (Figure 1c*) was used in 
conjunction with the May '93 thermal shock results (Figure 2a*) to correct the 
pressure for all JUNO2 CTD #1 casts.  Any residual offset was compensated for 
automatically at each station: as the CTD entered the water, the corrected 
pressure was adjusted to 0 decibar.

Table 3:  Thermal Response Coefficients for CTD #1 Pressure *

Short Time	Temp. Coeff.	Long Time	Temp. Coeff.
Constant (secs)	for Tau1	Constant (secs)	for Tau2
Tau1		k1		Tau2		k2
82.1826		+0.306253	384.176		-0.26423
*See Appendix A, Section 2.

4.2.	CTD Temperature Corrections

CTD #1 was equipped with two PRT sensors: the primary thermometer (PRT-1) and 
the secondary thermometer (PRT-2).  PRT-1 was calibrated pre- and post-cruise.  
Different secondary thermometers were connected to CTD #1 during the pre- and 
post- cruise calibrations.

PRT-2 was used to monitor any PRT-1 drift during the cruise.  PRT-1 versus PRT-2 
data showed consistent differences throughout JUNO2.  Temperatures were measured 
with the DSRTs during 96 casts; they also indicated no PRT-1 shift occurred 
during the leg.

A comparison of the pre- and post-cruise laboratory CTD #1 PRT-1 temperature 
sensor calibrations (Figures 3a* and 3b*) showed two curves with nearly identical 
slopes and a +.001°C shift in the temperature correction over the range of 0 to 
32°C.  An average of the pre- and post-cruise temperature corrections was used 
for the final temperature corrections.  The corrections were converted to the 
IPTS-68 standard and then applied to the CTD temperature data.

4.3.	CTD Conductivity Corrections

In order to calibrate CTD conductivity, check-sample conductivities were 
calculated from the bottle salinities using CTD pressures and temperatures.  For 
each cast, the differences between sample and CTD conductivities at all 
pressures were fit to CTD conductivity using a linear least-squares fit.  Values 
greater than two standard deviations from the fits were rejected. On JUNO2, CTD 
conductivity slopes were steady, except for some scatter in high-latitude 
stations with small conductivity ranges. An average of the conductivity slopes 
was applied to all JUNO2 casts.  Conductivity slope as a function of 
conductivity was plotted to ensure that no residual slope remained.

After applying the conductivity slope corrections, conductivity differences were 
calculated for each cast.  Residual conductivity offsets were computed for each 
cast.  Smoothed offsets were determined by groups based on common temperature 
and conductivity sensor combinations and applied to the data.

Offsets smoothed with a first-order fit were applied to CTD conductivities for 
stations 128-133 for a total shift of 0.002 mmho over 6 casts.  This is typical 
at the start of a leg where the CTD has not been used for several days.  An 
average offset was applied to stations 134-205, with a smooth transition between 
stations 133 and 134 offsets.  The average offset for stations 206-218 shifted 
0.0015 mmho lower than the previous group after a salinity offset during station 
206 down cast.  There were numerous mid-cast conductivity offsets, presumably 
caused by biological matter, during stations 206-218.  Then a more permanent 
shift of +.0035 mmho occurred during station 219. Offsets smoothed with a first-
order fit were applied to stations 219-233 shifting a total of -.003 mmho over 
the 15 casts.  Some offsets were manually re-adjusted to account for 
discontinuous shifts in the conductivity transducer response, or to insure a 
consistent deep theta-salinity relationship from station to station.

Figures 4a* and 4b* show plots of the final JUNO2 conductivity slopes and offsets.  
The JUNO2 calibrated bottle-minus-CTD conductivity statistics include salinity 
values with quality 3 or 4.  There is approximately a one-to-one correspondence 
between conductivity and salinity residual differences.  Figure 5a* is a plot of 
the differences at all pressures and Figure 5b* is a plot of those differences 
below 1500 decibars.  Table 4 shows the statistical results of the final bottle 
data set and the corrected up-cast CTD data.

Table 4:  JUNO2 Final Bottle-CTD Conductivity Statistics

Pressure Range			Mean Conductivity	Standard	Sample
				Difference		Deviation	Size
(decibars)			(mmho)			(mmho)	
all pressures			-0.000240**		0.00214		3652
all pressures (filtered)*	-0.000154		0.00098		3419
pressures < 1500		-0.000318		0.00269		2164
pressures < 1500 (filtered)*	-0.000227		0.00126		2020
pressures > 1500		-0.000126**		0.00084		1488
pressures > 1500 (filtered)*	-0.000067		0.00063		1398
*These data were passed through a 4/2 rejection filter.
**Figures 5a* and 5b* are plots of these differences.

4.4.	CTD Dissolved Oxygen Corrections*2
(*2- Refer to Apendix B, "CTD Dissolved Oxygen Data Processing" for details on 
ODF CTD oxygen processing.)

Dissolved oxygen data were acquired using two Sensormedics dissolved oxygen 
sensors.  The second sensor was used after station 183.

CTD oxygen data were corrected after pressure, temperature and conductivity 
corrections were determined.  CTD raw oxygen data were extracted from the down-
cast pressure-series data at isopycnals corresponding to the up-cast check 
samples.  Down-cast oxygen data are typically smoother than up-cast data because 
of the flow-dependence problems occurring at up-cast bottle stops. These 
problems also occur when the winch is slowed, as often happens during bottom 
approaches.

The CTD oxygen correction coefficients were determined by applying a modified 
Levenberg-Marquardt nonlinear least-squares fitting procedure to residual 
differences between CTD and bottle oxygen values.  These bottle oxygen values 
included data with quality codes of 3 or 4.  Bottle oxygen values were weighted 
as required to optimize the fitting of CTD oxygen to discrete bottle samples.  
Some bottle levels were omitted from a fit because of large pressure differences 
between down- and up-cast CTD data at isopycnals.  Deep levels were often 
weighted more heavily than shallow levels due to the higher density of shallow 
samples on a typical 36-bottle sampling scheme.  Residual oxygen differences 
from these fits are shown in Table 5.

4.5.	Additional Processing

A software filter was used on 26 casts to remove conductivity or temperature 
spiking problems.  Pressure did not require filtering.  Oxygen spikes were 
filtered out of 8 casts.

Table 5:  JUNO2 Final Bottle-CTD Oxygen Statistics

Pressure Range			Mean Oxygen	Standard	Sample
				Difference	Deviation	Size
(decibars)			(ml/l)		(ml/l)	
all pressures			-0.0325**	0.776		3544
all pressures (filtered)*	-0.0012		0.088		3386
pressure < 1500			-0.0574		1.004		2114
pressure < 1500 (filtered)*	-0.0163		0.143		2016
pressure > 1500			 0.0042**	0.028		1430
pressure > 1500 (filtered)*	 0.0039		0.021		1338
*These data were passed through a 4/2 rejection filter.
**Figures 6a* and 6b* are plots of these differences.

The remaining density inversions in high-gradient regions cannot be accounted for 
by a mis-match of pressure, temperature and conductivity sensor response.  
Detailed examination of the raw data shows significant mixing occurring in these 
areas because of ship roll.  The ship-roll filter resulted in a reduction in the 
amount and size of density inversions.

5.	General Comments and Problems

There is one pressure-sequenced CTD data set, to near the ocean floor, for each 
of 106 casts at 106 station locations. There were two additional equipment test 
casts which were neither processed nor reported.  Most of the data were reported 
from down casts.  The data from the following casts were reported from up casts: 
194/01, 206/02, 211/01, 217/01, 219/01, and 229/02.

The CTD oxygen sensor requires several seconds in the water to acclimate before 
responding properly; this is manifested as erratic CTD oxygen values at the 
start of some casts.  The nature of the oxygen sensor is such that it consumes 
oxygen at the seawater interface and therefore is highly sensitive to flow rate.  
Flow-dependence problems occur when the CTD is slowed or stopped.  Usually this 
happens during bottom approaches, at the cast bottom, or at bottle stops.  The 
CTD oxygen sensor took longer than usual to acclimate in the freezing conditions 
that were encountered.  Because of this, all casts have the upper 100 decibars 
of CTD oxygen data labeled as questionable.  Table 6 shows casts that had more 
levels labeled as questionable.  Cast 182/01 had sensor stability problems from 
0-908 decibars.  Cast 196/01 had sensor drift problems from 4000-4662 decibars.  
Casts 184/01, 185/01, 186/01, and 187/02 have no CTD oxygen data reported 
because the data were either not salvageable or non- existent.

Table 6:  Questionable CTD Oxygen Levels Below 100 Decibars

Casts				Levels (decibars)
141/01, 142/01, 146/02, 157/02	0-150
155/01, 202/01			0-200
182/01				0-908
196/01				4000-4662

The 0-4 decibar levels of some casts were extrapolated using a quadratic fit 
through the next three deeper levels.  Recorded surface values were rejected 
only when it appeared that the drift was caused by sensors adjusting to the 
air/water transition. Otherwise, the original data were reported.  Extrapolated 
surface levels are identified by a count of "1" in the  NUMBER OBS field 
reported with each data record.  The pressures for extrapolated data frames as 
well as other cast-by-cast shipboard or processing comments are listed in Table 
6 in Appendix D.  Significant delays during the casts are documented in Table 7 
in Appendix D.  Appendix D contains other tables related to processing also.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) P17E/P19A
Knorr 138 Leg 10
Expocode: 316N138/10
4 Dec 1992 - 22 Jan 1993
Papeete, Tahiti to Punta Arenas, Chile


CHIEF SCIENTIST
Dr. James H. Swift
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
La Jolla, CA 92093-0230


DATA SUBMITTED BY:
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
12 Dec 1994

Oceanographic Data Facility

UC San Diego, Mail Code 0214
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA 92093-0214


phone: (619) 534-1903
fax: (619) 534-7383
e-mail: odf@odf.ucsd.edu

C.	DESCRIPTION OF MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND CALIBRATIONS

ODF CTD/rosette casts were carried out with a 36 bottle rosette sampler of ODF 
manufacture using General Oceanics pylons.  An ODF-modified NBIS Mark 3 CTD, a 
Benthos altimeter, a SensorMedics oxygen sensor and a SeaTech transmissometer 
provided by Texas A&M University (TAMU) were mounted on the rosette frame.  A 
FSI temperature sensor was used on most stations as a check on CTD temperature.  
Seawater samples were collected in 10-liter PVC Niskin and ODF bottles mounted 
on the rosette frame.  A Benthos pinger was mounted separately on the rosette 
frame; its signal was displayed on the precision depth recorder (PDR) in the 
ship's laboratory.  The rosette/CTD was suspended from a three-conductor EM 
cable which provided power to the CTD and relayed the CTD signal to the 
laboratory.

Each CTD cast extended to within approximately 10 meters of the bottom unless 
the bottom returns from both the pinger and the altimeter were extremely poor.  
The bottles were numbered 1 through 36.  When one of these 36 bottles needed 
servicing and repairs could not be accomplished by the next cast, the 
replacement bottle was given a new number.  Subsets of CTD data taken at the 
time of water sample collection were transmitted to the bottle data files 
immediately after each cast to provide pressure and temperature at the sampling 
depth, and to facilitate the examination and quality control of the bottle data 
as the laboratory analyses were completed.  The CTD data and documentation are 
submitted separately.

After each rosette cast was brought on board, water samples were drawn in the 
following order: Freon (CFC-11 and CFC-12), Helium-3, Oxygen, Total CO2, 
Alkalinity, and AMS 14C.  Tritium, Nutrients (silicate, phosphate, nitrate and 
nitrite), and Salinity are drawn next and could be sampled in arbitrary order.  
The identifiers of the sample containers and the numbers of the ODF or Niskin 
samplers from which the samples were drawn were recorded on the Sample Log 
sheet.  Normal ODF sampling practice is to open the drain valve before opening 
the air vent to see if water escapes, indicating the presence of a small air 
leak in the sampler.  This observation ("air leak"), and other comments 
("lanyard caught in lid", "valve left open", etc.) which may indicate some doubt 
about the integrity of the water samples were also noted on the Sample Log 
sheets.  These comments are included in this documentation with investigative 
comments and results.

Tripping problems were experienced at the beginning of the leg until all the 
lanyards were fine-tuned.  There were also numerous tripping problems occurring 
with 24-place pylons.  Most were "double trips", with one bottle not closing at 
the intended level but then closing at the next level up, along with the bottle 
intended to trip at that level.  Some of these actually sometimes tripped up 1 
further level, ending up with 3 bottles tripping at the same depth.  Attempts 
were repeatedly made to find a solution to the problems by swapping out the 2 
24-place pylons.  At one point some bent release pins were straightened but most 
of the effort was in seeking the exactly correct alignment position for each 
pin.

Large Volume Sampling (LVS) was also performed on this expedition.  These 
commonly referred to as Gerard casts were carried out with ~270 liter stainless 
steel Gerard barrels on which were mounted 2-liter Niskin bottles with reversing 
thermometers.  Samples for salinity, silicate and 14-C were obtained from the 
Gerard barrels; samples for salinity and silicate were drawn from the piggyback 
Niskin bottles.  The Gerard barrels were numbered 81 through 93 and the 
piggyback bottles were numbered 41 through 49.  The salinity and silicate 
samples from the piggyback bottle were used for comparison with the Gerard 
barrel salinities and silicates to verify the integrity of the Gerard sample.

LVS casts experienced an annoying number of pre-trips.  Lowering the casts at 30 
meters/min gave significantly fewer tripping problems than the former method of 
lowering at 50 meters/min.

The discrete hydrographic data were entered into the shipboard data system and 
processed as the analyses were completed.  The bottle data were brought to a 
usable, though not final, state at sea.  ODF data checking procedures included 
verification that the sample was assigned to the correct depth. This was 
accomplished by checking the raw data sheets, which included the raw data value 
and the water sample bottle, versus the sample log sheets. The oxygen and 
nutrient data were compared by ODF with those from adjacent stations.  Any 
comments regarding the water samples were investigated.  The raw data computer 
files were also checked for entry errors that could have been made on the 
station number, bottle number and/or flask number (as would be the case for 
oxygens).  The salinity and oxygen values were transmitted from PC's attached to 
either the salinometer or oxygen titration system.  Nutrients were manually 
entered into the computer; therefore these values were double checked for data 
entry errors.

Investigation of data included comparison of bottle salinity and oxygen with CTD 
data, and review of data plots of the station profile alone and compared to 
nearby stations.  If a data value did not either agree satisfactorily with the 
CTD or with other nearby data, then analysis and sampling notes, plots, and 
nearby data were reviewed.  If any problem was indicated, the data value was 
flagged.  Section E, the Quality Comments, includes comments regarding missing 
samples and investigative remarks for comments made on the Sample Log sheets, as 
well as all flagged (WOCE coded) data values.

The WOCE codes were assigned to the water data using the criteria:

code 1 =  Sample for this measurement was drawn from water bottle, but results 
	  of analysis not received.
code 2 =  Acceptable measurement.
code 3 =  Questionable measurement.  Does not fit station profile or adjoining 
	  station comparisons. No notes from analyst indicating a problem.  Datum 
	  could be real, but the decision as to whether it is acceptable will be 
	  made by a scientist rather than ODF's technicians.
code 4 =  Bad measurement.  Does not fit station profile and/or adjoining 
	  station comparisons.  There are analytical notes indicating a problem, 
	  but data values are reported.  ODF recommends deletion of these data 
	  values.  Analytical notes for salinity and/or oxygen may include large 
	  differences between the water sample and CTD profiles.  Sampling errors 
	  are also coded 4.
code 9 =  Sample for this measurement not drawn.
code P =  This code is only used on the LVS pressure. If the Gerard and/or 
	  piggyback bottle pre or post-tripped, and a determination was made as to 
	  at what pressure the bottles actually tripped within ~50m a P will be 
	  assigned to the pressure.

Quality flags assigned to parameter BTLNBR (bottle number) as defined in the 
WOCE Operations manual are further clarified as follows:

code 4 =  If the bottle tripped at a different level than planned, ODF 
	  assigned it a code 4.  If there is a 4 code on the bottle, and 2 codes 
	  on the salinity, oxygen and nutrients then the pressure assignment was 
	  probably correct.
code 3 =  An air leak large enough to produce an observable effect on a sample 
	  is identified by a 3 code on the bottle and 4 code on the oxygen.  
	  (Small air leaks may have no observable effect, or may only affect gas 
	  samples).

The following table shows the number of ODF samples drawn and the number of
times each WOCE sample code was assigned.

Rosette Samples 
		Rosette Samples Stations 128-233
		Reported	WHP	Quality	Codes			
		levels		1	2	3	4	5	9
Bottle		3753		0	3608	7	125	0	13
CTD Salt	3753		0	3752	0	1	0	0
CTD Oxy		3609		0	3189	419	1	144	0
Salinity	3739		0	3651	68	20	1	13
Oxygen		3733		0	3614	106	13	5	15
Silicate	3739		0	3717	11	11	1	13
Nitrate		3739		0	3526	146	67	1	13
Nitrite		3739		0	3725	4	10	1	13
Phosphate	3737		0	3689	36	12	3	13

Large Volume Samples
Stations 146-229
		Reported	Bottle 	Codes				Water Sample Codes
		levels	2	3	4	9	1	2	3	4	5	9	P
		246	239	1	1	5							
Salinity	240					0	228	12	0	0	6	
Silicate	240					0	224	16	0	0	6	
Temperature	228					0	236	0	1	0	9	
Pressure	246					0	246	0	0	0	0	0

C.1.	Pressure and Temperature

All pressures and temperatures for the bottle data tabulations on the rosette 
casts were obtained by averaging CTD data for a brief interval at the time the 
bottle was closed on the rosette.

LVS pressures and temperatures were calculated from deep-sea reversing 
thermometer (DSRT) readings.  Each DSRT rack normally held 2 protected 
(temperature) thermometers and 1 unprotected (pressure) thermometer. 
Thermometers were read by two people, each attempting to read a precision equal 
to one tenth of the thermometer etching interval.  Thus, a thermometer etched at 
0.05 degree intervals would be read to the nearest 0.005 degrees.

All reported CTD data are calibrated and processed with the methodology 
described in the documentation accompanying the CTD data submission.

Each temperature value reported on the LVS casts is calculated from the average 
of four readings provided both protected thermometers function normally.  The 
pressure is verified by comparison with the calculation of pressure determined 
by wireout.  The pressure from the thermometer is fitted by a polynomial 
equation which incorporates the wireout and wire angle.

Documentation of CTD calibration is included with the CTD data.

Calibration of the thermometers are performed in ODF's calibration facility 
depending on the age of the thermometer and not more than two years of the 
expedition.

The temperatures are based on the International Temperature Scale of 1990.

C.2.	Salinity

A single ODF-modified Guildline Autosal Model 8400A salinometer (Serial Number 
57-396), located in a temperature-controlled laboratory, was used to measure 
salinities.  Analyses and data acquisition were controlled by a small computer 
through an interface board designed by ODF.  The salinometer cell was flushed 
until successive readings met software criteria, then two successive 
measurements were made and averaged for a final result.

Salinity samples were analyzed for the rosette casts and the Large Volume casts 
from both the piggyback bottle and the Gerard barrel.  Salinity samples were 
drawn into 200 ml Kimax high alumina borosilicate bottles, after 3 rinses, and 
were sealed with custom-made plastic insert thimbles and Nalgene screw caps.  
This assembly provides very low container dissolution and sample evaporation.  
If loose inserts were found, they were replaced to ensure an airtight seal.  
Salinity was determined after sample equilibration to laboratory temperature, 
usually within 8-36 hours of collection.  Salinity was calculated according to 
the equations of the Practical Salinity Scale of 1978 (UNESCO, 1981).

Salinity samples were compared with CTD data and significant differences were 
investigated.

The salinometer was standardized for each cast with IAPSO Standard Seawater 
(SSW) Batch P-120, using at least one fresh vial per cast.

There were some problems with lab temperature control throughout cruise; the 
Autosal bath temperature was adjusted accordingly.  Salinities were generally 
considered good for the expedition despite the lab temperature problem.

The estimated accuracy of bottle salinities run at sea is usually better than 
0.002 psu relative to the particular Standard Seawater batch used.  Although 
laboratory precision of the Autosal can be as small as 0.0002 psu when running 
replicate samples under ideal conditions, at sea the expected precision is about 
0.001 psu under normal conditions, with a stable lab temperature.

C.3.	Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen analyses were performed with an SIO-designed automated oxygen 
titrator using photometric end-point detection based on the absorption of 365 nm 
wavelength ultra-violet light.  Thiosulfate was dispensed by a Dosimat 665 buret 
driver fitted with a 1.0 ml buret.  ODF uses a whole-bottle Winkler titration 
following the technique of Carpenter (1965) with modifications by Culberson et 
al.  (1991), but with higher concentrations of potassium iodate standard 
(approximately 0.012N) and thiosulfate solution (50 gm/l).  Standard solutions 
prepared from pre- weighed potassium iodate crystals were run at the beginning 
of each session of analyses, which typically included from 1 to 3 stations.  
Several standards were made up during the cruise and compared to assure that the 
results were reproducible, and to preclude the possibility of a weighing error.  
Reagent/distilled water blanks were determined to account for oxidizing or 
reducing materials in the reagents.  The auto-titrator generally performed very 
well.  A decrease in voltage output led to changing the UV source lamp during 
the cruise.

Samples were collected for dissolved oxygen analyses soon after the rosette 
sampler was brought on board and after CFC and helium were drawn.  Nominal 125 
ml volume-calibrated iodine flasks were rinsed twice with minimal agitation, 
then filled via a drawing tube, and allowed to overflow for at least 3 flask 
volumes.  The sample temperature was measured with a small platinum resistance 
thermometer embedded in the drawing tube.  Reagents were added to fix the oxygen 
before stoppering.  The flasks were shaken twice; immediately after drawing, and 
then again after 20 minutes, to assure thorough dispersion of the MnO(OH)2 
precipitate.  The samples were analyzed within 4-36 hours of collection.

Draw temperatures were very useful in detecting possible bad trips even as 
samples were being drawn.  The data were logged by the PC control software and 
then transferred to the Sun (the main computer) and calculated.

Blanks, and thiosulfate normalities corrected to 20°C, calculated from each 
standardization, were plotted versus time, and were reviewed for possible 
problems.  New thiosulfate normalities were recalculated after the blanks had 
been smoothed.  These normalities were then smoothed, and the oxygen data was 
recalculated.

Oxygens were converted from milliliters per liter to micromoles per kilogram 
using the in-situ temperature.  Ideally, for whole-bottle titrations, the 
conversion temperature should be the temperature of the water issuing from the 
Niskin bottle spigot.  The sample temperatures were measured at the time the 
samples were drawn from the bottle, but were not used in the conversion from 
milliliters per liter to micromoles per kilogram because the software is not 
available.  Aberrant temperatures provided an additional flag indicating that a 
bottle may not have tripped properly.  Measured sample temperatures from mid-
deep water samples were about 4-7°C warmer than in-situ temperature.  Had the 
conversion with the measured sample temperature been made, converted oxygen 
values, would be about 0.08% higher for a 6°C warming (or about 0.2µmol/kg for a 
250µmol/kg sample).

Oxygen flasks were calibrated gravimetrically with degassed deionized water 
(DIW) to determine flask volumes at ODF's chemistry laboratory.  This is done 
once before using flasks for the first time and periodically thereafter when a 
suspect bottle volume is detected.  All volumetric glassware used in preparing 
standards is calibrated as well as the 10ml Dosimat buret used to dispense 
standard Iodate solution.

Even though laboratory and sample temperatures were recorded, these temperatures 
were not used in the calculation of oxygen.  Therefore, these temperatures are 
not reported in the data submission to ensure that the data user does not use 
these temperatures.

Iodate standards are pre-weighed in ODF's chemistry laboratory to a nominal 
weight of 0.44xx grams and exact normality calculated at sea.

Potassium Iodate (KIO3) is obtained from Johnson Matthey Chemical Co. and is 
reported by the suppliers to be > 99.4% pure.  All other reagents are "reagent 
grade" and are tested for high levels of oxidizing and reducing impurities prior 
to use.

C.4.	Nutrients

Nutrient analyses (phosphate, silicate, nitrate and nitrite) were performed on 
an ODF-modified AutoAnalyzer II, generally within a few hours of the cast, 
although some samples may have been refrigerated at 2 to 6°C for a maximum of 12 
hours.  The procedures used are described in Gordon et al. (1992).

Silicate is analyzed using the basic method of Armstrong et al. (1967).  
Ammonium molybdate is added to a seawater sample to produce silicomolybdic acid 
which is then reduced to silicomolybdous acid (a blue compound) following the 
addition of stannous chloride.  The sample is passed through a 15mm flowcell and 
measured at 820nm.  This response is known to be non-linear at high silicate 
concentrations; this non-linearity is included in ODF's software.

A modification of the Armstrong et al. (1967) procedure is used for the analysis 
of nitrate and nitrite.  For nitrate analysis, a seawater sample is passed 
through a cadmium column where the nitrate is reduced to nitrite.  This nitrite 
is then diazotized with sulfanilamide and coupled with N-(1-naphthyl)-
ethylenediamine to form an azo dye.  The sample is then passed through a 15mm 
flowcell and measured at 540nm. A 50mm flowcell is required for nitrite (NO2).  
The procedure is the same for the nitrite analysis less the cadmium column.

Phosphate is analyzed using a modification of the Bernhardt and Wilhelms (1967) 
method.  Ammonium molybdate is added to a seawater sample to produce 
phosphomolybdic acid, which is then reduced to phosphomolybdous acid (a blue 
compound) following the addition of dihydrazine sulfate.  The sample is passed 
through a 50mm flowcell and measured at 820nm.

Besides running rosette cast samples, LVS cast samples for both Gerard barrels 
and piggyback Niskins were analyzed for silicate as an added check (with 
salinity) on barrel sample integrity.

Nutrient samples were drawn into 45 ml high density polypropylene, narrow mouth, 
screw-capped centrifuge tubes which were rinsed three times before filling.  
Standardizations were performed at the beginning and end of each group of 
analyses (one cast, usually 36 samples) with a set of an intermediate 
concentration standard prepared for each run from secondary standards.  These 
secondary standards were in turn prepared aboard ship by dilution from dry, pre-
weighed standards.  Sets of 4-6 different concentrations of shipboard standards 
were analyzed periodically to determine the deviation from linearity as a 
function of concentration for each nutrient.  All peaks were logged manually, 
and all the runs were re-read to check for possible reading errors.

Temperature regulation problems in the analytical lab did not appear to 
significantly affect the results, which were generally very good.  ODF first 
attempted to control the temperature in the lab during the previous leg by 
rigging up a ceramic heater and fan, under the control of a thermistor and in 
conjunction with the ship's cooling.  This worked well on this leg, providing 
about plus or minus 0.5°C stability, except when outside temperatures were too 
warm in the tropics, or when it became too cold and the ship's heating system 
was erratically controlled.  Depending on the ship's heading, the wind would 
sometimes blow directly into either the lab's ventilation shaft or the vent for 
the hood.  In these extreme cold conditions, the vent covers (up on the exterior 
02 level) were closed by the analysts after first checking with the ship's 
engineering staff.

Nutrients, reported in micromoles per kilogram, were converted from micromoles 
per liter by dividing by sample density calculated at zero pressure, in-situ 
salinity, and an assumed laboratory temperature of 25°C.

Silicate standard is obtained from Fischer Scientific and is reported by the 
supplier to be >98% pure.  Nitrate, nitrite and phosphate standards are obtained 
from Johnson Matthey Chemical Co. and the supplier reports a purity of 99.999%, 
97%, and 99.999%, respectively.

D.	REFERENCES AND UNCITED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Armstrong, F. A. J., C. R. Stearns, and J. D. H. Strickland, 1967.  The 
  measurement of upwelling and subsequent biological processes by means of the 
  Technicon Autoanalyzer and associated equipment, Deep-Sea Research, 1144, 381-389.
Atlas, E. L., S. W. Hager, L. I. Gordon and P. K. Park, 1971. A Practical Manual 
  for Use of the Technicon(R) AutoAnalyzer(R) in Seawater Nutrient Analyses; 
  Revised. Technical Report 215, Reference 71-22. Oregon State University, 
  Department of Oceanography. 49 pp.
Bernhardt, H. and A. Wilhelms, 1967.  The continuous determination of low level 
  iron, soluble phosphate and total phosphate with the AutoAnalyzer, Technicon 
  Symposia, Volume I, 385-389.
Brewer, P. G. and G. T. F. Wong, 1974. The determination and distribution of 
  iodate in South Atlantic waters.  Journal of Marine Research, 3322,1:25-36.
Bryden, H. L., 1973. New Polynomials for Thermal Expansion, Adiabatic 
  Temperature Gradient, Deep-Sea Research, 2200, 401-408.
Carpenter, J. H., 1965. The Chesapeake Bay Institute technique for the Winkler 
  dissolved oxygen method, Limnology and Oceanography, 1100, 141-143.
Carter, D. J. T., 1980 (Third Edition).  Echo-Sounding Correction Tables, 
  Hydrographic Department, Ministry of Defence, Taunton Somerset.
Chen, C.-T. and F. J. Millero, 1977. Speed of sound in seawater at high 
  pressures.  Journal Acoustical Society of America, 6622, No. 5, 1129-1135.
Culberson, C. H., Williams, R. T., et al, August, 1991. A comparison of methods 
  for the determination of dissolved oxygen in seawater, WHP Office Report WHPO 
  91-2.
Fofonoff, N. P., 1977. Computation of Potential Temperature of Seawater for an 
  Arbitrary Reference Pressure.  Deep-Sea Research, 2244, 489-491.
Fofonoff, N. P. and R. C. Millard, 1983. Algorithms for Computation of 
  Fundamental Properties of Seawater. UNESCO Report No. 44, 15-24.
Gordon, L. I., Jennings, Joe C. Jr, Ross, Andrew A., Krest, James M., 1992. A 
  suggested Protocol for Continuous Flow Automated Analysis of Seawater Nutrients 
  in the WOCE Hydrographic Program and the Joint Global Ocean Fluxes Study. OSU 
  College of Oceanography Descr. Chem Oc. Grp. Tech Rpt 92-1.
Hager, S. W., E. L. Atlas, L. D. Gordon, A. W. Mantyla, and P. K. Park, 1972.  A 
  comparison at sea of manual and autoanalyzer analyses of phosphate, nitrate, and 
  silicate.  Limnology and Oceanography, 1177, 931-937.
Lewis, E. L., 1980. The Practical Salinity Scale 1978 and Its Antecedents. IEEE 
  Journal of Oceanographic Engineering, OE-5, 3-8.
Mantyla, A. W., 1982-1983. Private correspondence.
Millero, F. J., C.-T. Chen, A. Bradshaw and K. Schleicher, 1980.  A New High 
  Pressure Equation of State for Seawater.  Deep-Sea Research, 2277AA, 255-264.
Saunders, P. M., 1981. Practical Conversion of Pressure to Depth.  Journal of 
  Physical Oceanography, 1111, 573-574.
Sverdrup, H. U., M. W. Johnson, and R. H. Fleming, 1942.  The Oceans, Their 
  Physics, Chemistry and General Biology, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliff, 
  N.J.
UNESCO, 1981. Background papers and supporting data on the Practical Salinity 
  Scale, 1978.  UNESCO Technical Papers in Marine Science, No. 37, 144 p.

E.	Quality Comments

Remarks for deleted samples, missing samples, and WOCE codes other than 2 from 
JUNO-2 - WOCE P17E/P19A.  Investigation of data may include comparison of bottle 
salinity and oxygen data with CTD data, review of data plots of the station 
profile and adjoining stations, and rereading of charts (i.e., nutrients). 
Comments from the Sample Logs and the results of ODF's investigations are 
included in this report.  Units stated in these comments are milliliters per 
liter for oxygen and micromoles per liter for Silicate, Nitrate, and Phosphate, 
unless otherwise noted.  The first number before the comment is the cast number 
(CASTNO) times 100 plus the bottle number (BTLNBR).

Station 128

136	Sample Log: "air bubble for oxygen." Oxygen appears about.01 high Not sure 
	what happened here, why wasn't oxygen redrawn. Silicate appears ~.1 high, 
	other samples appear to be okay. Footnote oxygen bad, silicate 
	questionable.
124	Delta-s .005 high at 2118db. Calc ok. High CTD T grad, small CTD S bump. 
	No notes. Footnote salinity questionable.
117	Sample Log: "valve stem sucks." O2 and salinity agree with CTD and 
	adjoining stations. Other samples appear reasonable.
114	Salinity appears high compared with CTD, oxygen appears low. Nutrients 
	appear high compared with adjoining stations. Footnote bottle leaking and 
	samples questionable.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."
101	Sample Log: "didn't close top." Samples appear to be okay.

Station 129

101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 130

136	PO4 appears .1 high at 4478db (10m above bottom). Calc ok. Poor peak. 
	Footnote po4 bad. ODF recommends deletion.
131-136	NO3 appears high vs. adjoining stations. See NO3 101-115 comment. 
	Footnote NO3 bad.
131	PO4 appears .04 high at 3528db. Calc & peak ok. No notes. Other water 
	samples ok. Footnote po4 questionable.
127	PO4 appears .04 high at 2703db. Calc & peak ok. No notes. Other water 
	samples ok. Footnote po4 questionable.
120	Delta-S .004 low at 1296db. Calc ok. No notes. Smooth CTD T & S gradients. 
	Footnote salinity questionable.
101-115	NO3 appears low, plotted vs. ptotemp. Remaining profile (except 131-
	136) agrees with adjacent stations (128-131); slightly high compared with 
	station 132, but acceptable. Footnote NO3 bad.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 131

134	PO4 appears .02 high at 4279db. Calc & peak ok. Footnote po4 questionable.
132	PO4 appears .05 high at 3768db. Calc & peak ok. Footnote po4 questionable.
131	PO4 appears .03 high at 3560db. Calc & peak ok. Footnote po4 questionable.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 132

134	Delta-S .003 high at 3918db. Calc ok. Smooth CTD S gradient. No notes. 
	Footnote salinity questionable.
131	Delta-S .004 high at 3347db. Calc ok. Smooth CTD S gradient. Possible dupe 
	draw from NB30. Footnote salinity bad.
122-136	See 121 NO3 comment. Footnote NO3 questionable.
121	NO3 appears low compared to adjacent stations. Calc ok. First station 
	after odd F1s on Stations 130 & 131. See Station 130 comments. Footnote 
	no3 questionable.
105	Water samples indicate bottom end cap probably closed about 550db vs 125db 
	as intended. Footnote bottle leaking, did not trip as scheduled, footnote 
	samples bad, ODF recommends deletion of all water samples.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 133

Cast 1	Sample Log: "Approximately 3 of the inner rosette [bottles]were 
	opened during rosette separation, bottle numbers unknown." Samples appear 
	to be okay, except as noted, bottle 10 could be suspect, but will leave as 
	okay.
111	Sample Log: "dripping from bottom." Samples appear to be okay.
105	Water samples indicate NB5 closed early. Lanyard too long. Shortened after 
	this station. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled, footnote all 
	samples bad. ODF recommends deletion of all water samples.
101-103	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 134

131	NB31, intended to trip at 3228db, water samples same as NB30 at 3011db. 
	Delta-S .005 high Used NB30 CTD trip data for NB31. Footnote bottle did 
	not trip as scheduled. Samples appear to be okay as reassigned pressure.
126	NB26, intended to trip at 2187db, water samples same as NB25 at 2000db. 
	Delta-S .032 high Used NB25 CTD trip data for NB26. Footnote bottle did 
	not trip as scheduled. Samples appear to be okay at reassigned pressure.
121	Sample Log: "leaks at the valve stem when opened." Samples appear to be 
	okay.
117	Sample Log: "leaks at the valve when opened." Samples appear to be okay.
111	Sample Log: "Slow drip from valve stem when open." Samples appear to be 
	okay.
110	Sample Log: "has no water." Footnote no samples from NB10.
106	Delta-S .017 high at 170db. Took 6 Autosal tries to get agreement; 
	probably salt crystal fell in sample when cap opened. Smooth CTD S 
	gradient.  Calc ok. Footnote salinity bad, ODF recommends deletion.
105	Sample Log: "Possible valve stem leak." Samples appear to be okay.
101-103	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 135

135	Flask broke during titration. No hydro o2. Footnote oxygen lost.
131	NB31, intended to trip at 3020db, water samples same as NB30 at 2821db. 
	Delta-S .004 high. Used NB30 CTD trip data for NB31. Footnote bottle did 
	not trip as scheduled. Samples appear to be okay at reassigned pressure.
110	No water samples, bottom end cap hung up on pinger. Footnote bottle no 
	samples taken.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 136

131	Intended to trip at 2855db, water sample same as NB30 at 2648db. Delta-S 
	.000 but no CTD S gradient. Hydro o2 & silicate have gradient this level 
	but have same value as NB30. Used NB30 CTD trip data for NB31. Footnote 
	bottle did not trip as scheduled.
128	Delta-S .018 high at 2238db. Calc ok. Same value as 129 salinity. Other 
	water samples ok. Probably dupe draw from NB29. Smooth CTD trace. Footnote 
	salinity bad, ODF recommends deletion.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 137

132	Sample Log: "drips from valve stem after vented." Samples appear to be 
	okay.
131	Intended to trip at 2908db, water samples same as NB30 at 2704db. Delta-S 
	.003 high. Used NB30 CTD trip data for NB31. Footnote bottle did not trip 
	as scheduled. Samples appear to be okay at reassigned pressure.
125	Sample Log: "drips from valve stem when opened and vented. "Samples appear 
	to be okay.
121	Sample Log: "leaks from valve stem when opened and vented. "Samples appear 
	to be okay.
117	Sample Log: "valve stem leaks and slips when opened and vented." Samples 
	appear to be okay.
111	Sample Log: "leaks at valve stem when opened and vented. "Samples appear 
	to be okay.
105	Sample Log: "Valve stem leaks when opened and vented. "Samples appear to 
	be okay.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 138

134	Sample Log: "top cap was a little loose." Samples appear to be okay.
114	Sample Log: "Spigot was in." Samples appear to be okay.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 139

131	Intended to trip at 2911d, water samples same as NB30 at 2704db. Delta-S 
	.000 but no CTD S gradient. Hydro o2 &silicate have gradient but same 
	values as NB30. Used NB30CTD trip data for NB31. Footnote bottle did not 
	trip as scheduled. Samples appear to be okay at reassigned pressure.
111	Sample log: "air leak - vent not closed tight enough. "Samples appear to 
	be okay.
106	Sample log: "Vent not closed." Delta-S .000 at 165db. Other water samples 
	also look ok.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 140

131	All water samples except silicate indicate NB31 closed at level above with 
	NB30. Silicate has poor peak which could be interpreted as same as NB30 
	silicate value. Salinity, NO3 & PO4 have no gradient, but o2 does. Assume 
	tripped at NB30 based on o2 and results for NB31 on adjacent stations. 
	Used NB30 CTD trip data for NB31. Footnote bottle did not trip as 
	scheduled. Silicate value appears high for both intended NB31 level and 
	NB30 as indicated by other water samples. Footnote silicate bad.
127	Sample Log: "dripping from bottom cap." Samples appear to be okay.
126	Sample Log: "possible leak from bottom cap." Samples appear to be okay.
124	Salinity: "Unable to get agreement after 3 attempts. Possible salt crystal 
	contamination." Footnote salinity lost.
101-103	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 141

133	PO4 appears .08 high at 3286db. Other water samples ok. Poor peak but 
	definitely high. Footnote po4 bad.
131	Intended to trip at 2867db, water samples same as NB30 at 2661db. Delta-S 
	.000 but no CTD S gradient. Hydro o2 and silicate have gradient but values 
	same as NB30. Used NB30 CTD trip data for NB31. Footnote bottle did not 
	trip as scheduled.
116	Hydro o2 appears high. Calc ok. CTDO has corresponding bump this level. 
	Other water samples ok. Oxygen acceptable.
102-136	See NO3 comment. Footnote NO3 questionable.
102	Sample Log: "leaks before vented." Salinity and oxygen appear to be okay.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 150 db."
101	All NO3 values a little high (.4). Calc ok. No apparent problems with AA 
	run. Footnote no3 questionable.

Station 142

121	Oxygen appears .15 high. Calc ok. Smooth CTDO gradient. Same value as NB20 
	above. Possible dupe draw. Footnote oxygen bad.
101-106	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 150 db."

Station 143

135	Intended to trip at 3537db, water samples & DSRTs same as NB34 at 3406db. 
	Used NB34 CTD trip data for NB35. Footnote bottle did not trip as 
	scheduled, samples acceptable.
130	Sample Log: "vent open." Salinity appears to be okay.
129-136	See 128 O2 comment. Footnote oxygen questionable.
128	Sample Log: "oxygen sample bottles NB36 through NB28, possibly off, 
	immediately after watch switch realized we were off by 1 bottle, re-
	sampled bottles NB26 and NB27." O2 values not in close agreement with 
	adjacent stations. OXY values questionable.
124	Sample Log: "vent pushed in." Salinity and oxygen appear to be okay.
123	Sample Log: "vent not closed tight enough." Salinity and oxygen appear to 
	be okay.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 144

135	Intended to trip at 3573db, water samples & DSRTs same as NB34 values. 
	Used NB34 CTD trip data for NB35. Footnote bottle did not trip as 
	scheduled, footnote samples as acceptable. NO3 agreement is slightly off, 
	but OK.
112	Sample Log: "Bottle leaking, vent not closed tight enough. "Salinity 
	agrees with CTD, oxygen appears a little high, but agrees with adjoining 
	stations, there does appear to be an oxygen feature in CTDO.
105	O2 value 3ml/L low. "error" noted on data sheet. Footnote oxygen bad, ODF 
	recommends deletion.
101-103	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 145

129	Oxygen: "Power went out, lost sample." Footnote oxygen lost.
124	Delta-S .003 low at 1413db. Calc ok. Smooth CTD S gradient. Footnote 
	salinity questionable.
123	O2 appears .07 high at 1261db. Calc ok. no notes. Smooth CTDO gradient. 
	Footnote oxygen questionable.
108	Sample Log: "Lanyard Clip Broken on NB8." Salinity .004high, oxygen agrees 
	with Station 144 profile. Other samples appear to be okay.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 146

235	Intended to trip at 4239db, water samples & DSRT values same as NB34 at 
	3958db. Used NB34 CTD trip data for NB35. Footnote bottle did not trip as 
	scheduled.
231	Bottom didn't close. No water samples.
212	Sample Log: "vent not closed tightly." All water samples appear to be 
	consistent with adjoining stations and CTD data.
208	Sample Log: "has an air leak, draining w/o opening air vent." All water 
	samples appear to be consistent with adjoining stations and CTD data.
201-205	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 150 db."

Station 147

101-103	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 148

133	Intended to trip at 3635db, water samples same as NB32 at 3427db. Used 
	NB32 CTD trip data for NB33. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
130	Sample log: "Did not close". No water samples.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 149

124	Sample Log: "Valve stem on All samples appear to be consistent with 
	adjoining stations and CTD values.
114	Sample Log: "appears to be dripping from the bottom." All samples appear 
	to be consistent with adjoining stations and CTD values.
101-103	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 150

131	Intended to trip at 3963db, water samples same as NB30 at 3759db. Used 
	NB30 CTD trip data for NB31. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
125	Intended to trip at 2734db, water samples same as NB24 at 2531db. Used 
	NB24 CTD trip data for NB25. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
101-103	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 151

132	Delta-S .003 high at 4121db. Calc & Autosal runs ok. Smooth CTD traces 
	this level. Same value as level above, NB35 & test level-arm Niskins. 
	Possible dupe draw. Footnote salinity bad.
131	Intended to trip at 3656db, water samples same as NB30 at 3451db. Used 
	NB30 CTD trip data for NB31. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
127	Delta-S .019 high at 2834db. Calc ok. No notes. First 2 Autosal runs 
	agreed. Other water samples ok. Footnote salinity bad. ODF recommends 
	deletion of salinity.
101-103	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 152

135	Unprotected DSRT wrong break.
131	Intended to trip at 4021db, water samples same as NB30 at 3764db. Used 
	NB30 CTD trip data for NB31. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
125	Intended to trip at 2633db, water samples same as NB24 at 2430db. Used 
	NB24 CTD trip data for NB25. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
114	Sample Log: "leaks - occasional swoosh." all samples appear to be 
	consistent with adjoining stations and ctd values.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."
101	Sample Log: "vent was open." all samples appear to be consistent with 
	adjoining stations and ctd values.

Station 153

135	Intended to trip at 4661db, water samples & DSRT values same as NB34 at 
	4371db. Oxygen appears ok but had note on data sheet re poor UV end point. 
	Used NB34 CTD trip data for NB34. Footnote bottle did not trip as 
	scheduled. Titrator noted UV end point problem. Voltage was 1.10 vs 1.06 
	for other samples. See 133 comment.
133	Intended to trip at 4070db, water samples same as NB32 at 3810db. Used 
	NB32 CTD trip data for NB33. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
113-114	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 154

131	oxygen appears ~.01 high, but it could be that 32-46 are low. Footnote OXY 
	questionable.
114-136	See 113 PO4 comment. Footnote PO4 questionable.
113-114	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."
113	All values appear high compared to adjacent stations and P-N plot. Calc & 
	peaks ok. Standard values normal. Footnote po4 questionable.

Station 155

135	Intended to trip at 4595db, water samples & DSRT values same as NB34 at 
	4445db. Used NB34 CTD trip data for NB35. Footnote bottle did not trip as 
	scheduled.
134	Delta-S .005 high at 4445db. 7 Autosal fills to get agreement. Possible 
	salt crystal contamination. First fill gives better value. Footnote 
	salinity questionable. O2appears .01 to .02 low. Note on Sample log: "too 
	much MnCl2 on 1227 on bottle 34" Footnote salinity and oxygen 
	questionable.
125	Delta-S .002 high at 2305db. 6 Autosal fills to get agreement. Possible 
	salt crystal contamination. First fill gives better value. Footnote 
	salinity questionable.
119	Note on nutrient data sheet: "Sample spilled" Footnote nutrients lost.
114	Sample Log: "is leaking from bottom cap. - needs new gasket?" all samples 
	are consistent with adjoining stations and CTD values.
113	Delta-S .006 high at 457db. 8 Autosal fills to get agreement. Possible 
	salt crystal contamination. First fill gives better value. Footnote 
	salinity questionable.
112	Delta-S .007 high at 367db. 7 Autosal fills to get agreement. Possible 
	salt crystal contamination. First fill gives better value. Footnote 
	salinity questionable.
110	Sample Log: "leaked at spigot prior to venting." All samples are 
	consistent with adjoining stations and CTD values.
106	Delta-S .000 high at 166db. 11 Autosal fills to get agreement. Possible 
	salt crystal contamination. First fill gives worse Delta-S (-.012) but in 
	area of high T&S gradient and T inversion. Use first fill to be consistent 
	with other samples this station with same problem. Footnote salinity 
	questionable.
104	Sample Log: "Valve is pushed in." All samples appear to be consistent with 
	adjoining stations and CTD values.
101-107	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 200 db."
101	Delta-S .006 high at 3db. 6 Autosal fills to get agreement. Possible salt 
	crystal contamination. First fill gives better value. Footnote salinity 
	questionable.

Station 156

132	Intended to trip at 4048db, water samples same as NB31 at 3790db. Used 
	NB31 CTD trip data for NB32. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
124	PO4 appears .06 high. Peak fair, calc ok. Other water samples ok. Footnote 
	po4 questionable.
123	O2 appears .07 high. Calc ok. No notes. Smooth CTDO trace. Other water 
	samples ok. Footnote oxygen questionable.
114	Intended to trip at 547db, water samples same as NB13 at 450db. Delta-S 
	.054 low. Used NB13 CTD trip data for NB14. Footnote bottle did not trip 
	as scheduled.
110	Sample Log: "Bottle dripping from the spigot." Samples appear to be 
	consistent with adjoining stations and CTD values.
102-136	See 101 NO3 comments. Footnote NO3 questionable.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."
101	All NO3 appear high compared to adjacent station and P-N plot. Calc ok, 
	end standard factor (F1B) high compared to adjacent station but no obvious 
	cause. Footnote NO3 questionable.

Station 157

232	Delta-S .008 high at 4326db. Smooth CTD S trace. 8 Autosal tries to get 
	agreement. First Autosal run gives better Delta-S (.002) for both 4326db & 
	4069db (See note below). Intended to trip at 4326, water samples except 
	salinity (see above) same as NB31. Used NB31 CTD trip data for NB32. 
	Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
225	Intended to trip at 2536db, water samples same as NB24. Used NB24 CTD trip 
	data for NB25. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
214	Sample Log: "Salt Bottle had a loose plastic insert-replaced." Salinity 
	value consistent with CTD and adjoining stations.
212	Delta-S .007 high at 482db. Smooth CTD S trace. 4 Autosal tries to get 
	agreement. First Autosal run gives better Delta-S (.001). Footnote 
	salinity questionable.
201-205	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 150 db."

Station 158

132	Intended to trip at 4580db, water samples same as NB31 at 4322db. Used 
	NB31 CTD trip data for NB32. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
128	Intended to trip at 3809db, water samples same as NB27 at 3556db. Used 
	NB27 CTD trip data for NB28. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
126	Intended to trip at 3041db, water samples same as NB25 at 2785db. Delta-S 
	.004 high. Used NB25 CTD trip data for NB26. Footnote bottle did not trip 
	as scheduled.
113	May be slightly high, no problems noted. Footnote oxygen questionable.
110	Sample Log: "spigot dripping." Oxygen may be slightly high. Could be an 
	air leak. If gas investigators indicate a problem, then would recommend 
	footnoting bottle as having an air leak, if there were such a footnote. 
	Footnote oxygen questionable.
105	Sample Log: "spigot accidentally popped open during rosette separation." 
	Samples appear to be consistent with adjoining stations and CTD values.
101-103	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 159

132	Intended to trip at 4440db, water samples same as NB31 at 4183db. Used 
	NB31 CTD trip data for NB32. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
130	Appears .06 low at 3924db. Calc ok. Other water samples ok. Possible dupe 
	draw from NB29. Footnote oxygen bad.
129	Appears .002 low at 3670db. Calc ok. First 2 Autosal runs agreed. No 
	notes. Other water samples ok. Footnote salinity questionable.
125	Intended to trip at 2621db, water samples same as NB25 at 2379db. Delta-S 
	.005 high. Used NB24 trip data for NB25. Footnote bottle did not trip as 
	scheduled.
101-103	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 160

130	Intended to trip at 4042db, water samples same as NB29 at 3784db. Used 
	NB29 CTD trip data for NB30. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."
101	Sample Log: "Surface Radium collected"

Station 161

114	Sample Log: "bottom cap leaks." Parameter values are consistent with the 
	rest of the cast and adjacent stations.
113-115	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."
110	Sample Log: "dripping." Parameter values are consistent with the rest of 
	the cast and adjacent stations.
105	Sample Log: "loose vent." Parameter values are consistent with the rest of 
	the cast and adjacent stations.
102-136	See 101 bottle tripping comment.
101	Tripped inner bottles (12-1) first and outer bottles (36-13) last, to 
	check bottle tripping problems in higher gradient and to check freon 
	values of NBs 1-12 in deep water. All bottles and both DSRT racks tripped 
	as intended. Sample Log: "lanyard broke - not sure if bottle tripped 
	correctly. "Parameter values are consistent with the rest of the cast and 
	adjacent stations.

Station 162

133	Intended to trip at 4592db, water samples and DSRT values same as NB32 at 
	4331db. Loose bungee on NB33 therm rack mount was replace with SS gerard 
	barrel spring prior this station. Used NB32 CTD trip data for NB33. 
	Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
130	Intended to trip at 3797db, water samples same as NB29 at 3559db. Used 
	NB29 CTD trip data for NB30. Footnote bottle did trip as scheduled.
123	Bottle didn't close. Pylon pin bent and didn't release lanyard. No water 
	samples.
114	Sample Log: "dripping at bottom." Sample parameters appear to be ok.
101-103	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 163

133	Intended to trip at 4274db, water samples & DSRT values same as NB32 at 
	4020db. Used NB32 CTD trip data for NB33. Footnote bottle did not trip as 
	scheduled.
127	Intended to trip at 2743db, water samples same as NB26 values at 2488db. 
	Used NB26 CTD trip data for NB27. Footnote bottle did not trip as 
	scheduled.
114	Sample Log: "Bottom Cap is still leaking." Sample parameters appear to be 
	ok.
101-105	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 164

133	Intended to trip at 4066db, water samples & DSRT values same as NB32 
	values at 3810db. Used NB32 CTD trip data for NB33. Footnote bottle did 
	not trip as scheduled.
131	Intended to trip at 3554db, water samples same as NB30 at 3299db. Used 
	NB30 CTD trip data for NB31. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
127	Intended to trip at 2534db, water samples same as NB26 at 2279db. Delta-S 
	.005 high. Used NB26 CTD trip data for NB27. Footnote bottle did trip as 
	scheduled.
101-105	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."
101	Found cap off salt sample bottle when ready for Autosal run. Reason 
	unknown. Delta-S .022 high in thin mixed layer. Footnote salinity bad. ODF 
	recommends deletion of salinity.

Station 165

121	Sample Log: "leaks from spigot." Oxygen appears to be okay, plotted vs. 
	potemp as well as pressure and CTDO. Other samples also okay.
114	Sample Log: "leaks from bottom." Oxygen appears to be okay, plotted vs. 
	potemp as well as pressure and CTDO. Other samples also okay.
113	NO2 .25 high, no analytical problem noted. Rechecked peak, appears to be 
	okay (clean peak). NO3 peak is a little low. Footnote no2 questionable, no 
	analytical problem, but value appears unlikely.
106	Delta-S .018 high at 159db. Calc ok. 6 Autosal runs to get agreement 
	Smooth CTD S trace. First Autosal run gives Delta-S .008 high. Used first 
	Autosal run for now. Footnote salinity bad.
101-103	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 166

115	Delta-S .026 high at 831db. Calc ok. Bumpy CTD T & S this level but high 
	compared to up CTD S trace. Same value as NB16. Assume dupe draw. Footnote 
	salinity bad. ODF recommends deletion of salinity.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 167

101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."
101	Sample Log: "leaks out of bottom after venting." All samples appear to be 
	consistent with adjoining stations.

Station 168

135	Intended to trip at 3600db, water samples & DSRT values same as NB34 at 
	3367db. Used NB34 trip values for NB25.Footnote bottle did not trip as 
	scheduled.
108	Sample log: "Lanyard in top end cap. Air leak." Footnote bottle leaking. 
	Delta-S .001 high at 205db. Other water samples also look ok.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."
101	Sample log: "leaking from bottom." Samples are consistent with adjoining 
	stations and CTD values.

Station 169

127	Intended to trip at 2024db, water samples same as NB26 at 1822db. Used 
	NB26 CTD trip data for NB27. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 170

123	Sample log: "leaking from bottom after air vent opened. "Samples are 
	consistent with adjoining stations and CTD values.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 171

127	Intended to trip at 1869db, water samples same as NB26 at 1717db. Used 
	NB26 CTD trip data for NB27. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 172

127	Intended to trip at 1816db, water samples same as NB26 at 1714db. Used 
	NB26 CTD trip data for NB27. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
102	Sample log: "leaks before venting." Sample values are consistent with CTD 
	and adjoining stations.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 173

127	Intended to trip at 1512db, water samples same as NB26 at 1310db. Used 
	NB26 CTD trip data for NB27. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
121	Sample log: "leaking e spigot." Sample values are consistent with CTD and 
	adjoining stations.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 174

111	Delta-S .018 high at 325db. Calc ok. Smooth CTD gradient down & up. Sigma 
	theta higher sample below. Same value as NB10 at level above. Hydro o2 
	agrees well with CTDO gradient (inversion). NO3, PO4 & SIL same as NB10 
	but may be feature associated with o2 inversion. NO2 has normal gradient. 
	Assume salt is dupe draw. Footnote salinity bad. ODF recommends deletion 
	of salt value.
101-105	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 175

114	Sample log: "leaks a little bit through bottom after venting." Sample 
	values look ok.
108	Sample log: "Air vent open" Delta-S .001 low at 230db. Other water samples 
	also ok.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 176

134	Sample log: "Air leak, top not seated". Delta-S .000 at 2593db. Other 
	water samples also ok.
129	Delta-S .004 high at 1948db. Calc & Autosal run ok. Smooth CTD T & S 
	gradients. Other water samples ok. Footnote salinity questionable.
120	Sample log: "bad set up -no water- lanyard hook on 1 strand only." 
	Footnote no samples drawn.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."
101	Sample log: "Air vent open" Delta-S .000 at 2db. Other water samples also 
	look ok.

Station 177

101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 178

132	Sample log: "Thermometer lanyard caught in top, leaking. "Sample values 
	agree with CTD and adjoining stations.
121	Sample log: "dripping from spigot." Sample values agree with CTD and 
	adjoining stations.
117	Sample log: "dripping slightly from O ring around spigot."O2 and salt 
	values track feature displayed by CTDO and CTD plot. Nutrient values also 
	ok.
111	Sample log: "vent not closed, (flowed before venting), also leaks from 
	spigot." Sample values agree with CTD and adjoining stations.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 179

129	Sample log: "leaking from base of spigot when spigot is open." Sample 
	values are consistent with CTD and adjoining stations.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 180

134	Sample log: "has major venting leak - top cap leaking -coming out spigot." 
	Sample values are consistent with CTD data and values from adjoining 
	stations.
130	Sample log: "no water... bottom cap hung up on pinger. "Footnote no 
	samples drawn.
129	Sample log: "leaks from spigot area after being vented heavily." Sample 
	values are consistent with CTD data and values from adjoining stations.
127	Delta-S .002 high at 2113db. Used 2nd & 3rd Autosal run. First Autosal run 
	gives Delta-S .000. Dupe level with NB26. Footnote salinity questionable.
124	Delta-S .005 low at 1816db. Calc & Autosal run ok. High gradient. Other 
	water samples ok. Footnote salinity questionable.
123	Delta-S .005 low at 1713db. Calc & Autosal run ok. Small CTD S bump. High 
	gradient. Other water samples ok. Footnote salinity questionable.
102-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."
101	(No Pressure) Surface bottle tripped without stopping because of ship's 
	roll. Tripped in air. No samples drawn.

Station 181

101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 182

127	Sample log: "dripping from spigot after vented." NB27 and NB26 tripped at 
	same level in area of a steep gradient, yet values look acceptably 
	similar.
121	Sample log: "Leaking a lot from spigot" Doesn't say if before or after air 
	vent opened. Footnote bottle leaking. Delta-S .001 high at 880db. Sample 
	values are consistent with CTD and adjacent station.
111	Sample log: "leaking from spigot." Data plots look suspicious, however 
	adjacent station 181 has very similar structure between 175db & 400db. 
	Sample values ok.
109	Sample log: "slight drip from spigot." Data plots look suspicious, however 
	adjacent station 181 has very similar structure between 175db & 400db. 
	Sample values ok.
101-121	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 908 db."

Station 183

134	Sample log: "leaked from spigot before being vented." Plot of oxy vs. deg 
	theta very similar to station 184 at this depth. Other sample values also 
	consistent.
130	Delta-S .016 high at 2589db. Calc & Autosal run ok. Other water samples 
	ok. No notes. Footnote salinity bad. ODF recommends deletion of salinity 
	value.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 184

Cast 1	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 not reported for this station -various O2 
	sensor problems."
102-136	See 101 O2 comment. Footnote O2 questionable.
102	Sample log: "leaks before being vented--top cap not seated. "Except for 
	oxy, Sample values are consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
101	Analyst indicates problems with titrator which may have affected all of 
	station 184 & 185. Plots are not consistent with adjacent stations. 
	Footnote O2 questionable.

Station 185

Cast 1	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 not reported for this station -various O2 
	sensor problems."
134	Intended to trip at 3478db, water samples same as NB33 at 3325db. Delta-S 
	.000 and CTDO o2 values very similar at both levels. Probably would not be 
	questioned if obvious trip problems these bottles had not occurred on 
	subsequent stations. Used NB33 CTD trip data for NB34. Footnote bottle did 
	not trip as scheduled.
124	Sample log: "needs O ring on bottom." Sample values consistent with CTD 
	and Adjacent stations.
102-136	See 101 O2 comment. Footnote O2 questionable.

Station 186

Cast 1	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 not reported for this station - various O2 
	sensor problems."
134	Sample log: "leaks after venting from spigot," water samples same as NB33 
	as 3644db. Delta-S .004 high, other samples also have gradient that show 
	mistrip clearly. Used NB33 CTD trip data for NB34. Footnote bottle did not 
	trip as scheduled.
125	Sample log: "dripping from spigot after venting." Sample values consistent 
	with CTD and adjacent stations.
121	Sample log: "leaking from spigot after venting." Sample values consistent 
	with CTD and adjacent stations.
117	Sample log: "dripping from spigot after venting." Sample values consistent 
	with CTD and adjacent stations.
112	Sample log: "Vent not closed" Delta-S .000 at 423db. Other water samples 
	also ok.
111	Sample log: "dripping from spigot after venting." Sample values consistent 
	with CTD and adjacent stations.
109	Sample log: "slight drip from spigot after venting." Sample values 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
104	Spigot broken during sampling. No gases drawn.
101	Sample log: "spigot in open position." Sample values consistent with CTD 
	and adjacent stations.

Station 187

Cast 2	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 not reported for this station - various O2 
	sensor problems."
234	Intended to trip at 3834db, water samples same as NB33 at 3692db. Delta-S 
	.003 high. Therm rack lanyard from NB35 in top cap NB34 and o2 .03 lower 
	than NB33 o2. Salinity & nutrients same as NB33. Used NB33 CTD trip data 
	for NB34. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled. Sample log: "NB34 top 
	cap is jammed open by NB35 therm rack" Sample log: "lanyard--both therms a 
	tangled mess." ODF recommends deletion of all bottle values for NB34. All 
	bottle sample parameters bad.

Station 188

128	Delta-S .004 high at 2837db. Calc ok but took 4 Autosal runs to get 
	agreement. No note re original 2 CR. CTD S & O2 have bump this level. 
	Hydro o2 matches CTDO up trace well. Nutrient & salinity values similar to 
	NB30 values, but hydro & CTDO o2 show good gradient. Footnote salinity 
	questionable.
114	Sample log: "Lanyard caught in bottom end cap, leaking vigorously-leaked 
	dry." No samples drawn.
111	Sample log: "drips from spigot after venting." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 189

135	Both original and rerun peaks were bad (off scale &erratic). Other 
	nutrients ok. Footnote po4 lost.
113-114	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 190

133	Sample log: "Drip from btm cap after air vent open." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
122	Did not trip. Pylon pin not released as ramp shaft passed through. No 
	water samples. Removed and inspected pylon (Nr.2803) and could find no 
	problem. OK next stations.
121	Sample log: "Small leak when air vent opened." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
113-114	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 191

134	Sample log: "leaked before venting." O2 and Salt values are consistent 
	with CTD and adjacent stations.
111	Sample log: "drips from spigot after venting." O2 and salt values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
110	Bottom end cap hung up on pinger. No water samples.
101-103	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 192

117	Sample log: "dripping from bottom cap." O2 and Salinity values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
110	Bottom end cap hung up on pinger. No water samples.
108	Sample log: "Leaked before venting, appears that I.D. tag was caught in 
	upper lid." Delta-S .005 low at 207db. CTD up trace shows T & S inversions 
	not seen on down trace. This sample in very high salinity & temp gradient. 
	Bottle data looks good.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 193

116	Sample log: "leaks a little bit after venting." Sample values consistent 
	with CTD and adjacent stations.
106	Delta-S .022 low at 145db. Calc ok but had computer problem on this 
	Autosal run and had to record 2 CR reading by hand and they disagreed by 
	.002 PSU. Sample log: "Very erratic putting out water" Assume flow problem 
	thru spigot. Could find nothing wrong with spigot after sampling and no 
	problems adjacent stations. Very high T & S gradients on CTD down & up 
	traces this level. Other water samples look ok.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 194

127	Sample log: "has little drip from spigot after venting. "Salinity and o2 
	plots are consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
121	Delta-S .002 low at 1599db. Calc & Autosal run ok. High gradient Sample 
	log: "has little drip from spigot after venting." Salinity and o2 plots 
	are consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
111	Sample log: "leaks after venting." Salinity and o2 plots are consistent 
	with CTD and adjacent stations.
110	Sample log note: "Leaks before venting." Doesn't say from where but 
	probably from open spigot-air leak. Delta-S .001high high at 366db. Other 
	water samples also ok.
109	Sample log: "leaks after venting little bit." Salinity and o2 plots are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
101-103	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 195

101-103	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 196

134-136	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 4000 - 4662 db."
110	Sample log: "leaks before venting." Salinity and o2 plots are consistent 
	with CTD and adjacent stations.
108	Sample log: "is a slow drip before venting." Salinity and o2 plots are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
106	Sample log: "is a very slow drip before venting." Salinity and o2 plots 
	are consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 197

102-136	See 101 NO3 comment. Footnote NO3 bad.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."
101	Shallow samples low, deep samples higher than adjacent stations. New 
	cadmium column not stable during original run. Remainder of samples were 
	rerun after system appeared stable but still had large change between 
	beginning and end standards. Footnote no3 bad. Re-read original data 
	sheets and re-did calculations without finding any large mistakes. ODF 
	recommends deletion of no3 values.

Station 198

136	Flask broken before analysis. Footnote oxygen lost.
127	Sample log: "dripping from spigot after venting." Sample values look ok 
	compared to CTD and adjacent stations.
125	Sample log: "dripping from spigot after venting." Sample values look ok 
	compared to CTD and adjacent stations.
124	Hydro o2 appears .1 high at 1878db (o2 min) compared to adjacent stations. 
	Calc ok. Same value as NB25 below. Possibly drawn from NB25 in error. 
	Footnote oxygen questionable.
123	Pylon pin did not release. Bottle didn't close. Footnote no samples drawn.
121	Sample log: "dripping from spigot after venting." Sample values look ok 
	compared to CTD and adjacent stations.
117	Sample log: "dripping from spigot after venting." Sample values look ok 
	compared to CTD and adjacent stations.
114	Sample log: "dripping from bottom cap after venting." Sample values look 
	ok compared to CTD and adjacent stations.
111	Sample log: "dripping from spigot after venting." Sample values look ok 
	compared to CTD and adjacent stations.
105	Sample log: "dripping from spigot after venting." Sample values look ok 
	compared to CTD and adjacent stations.
102	See 101 salinity comment. Footnote salinity bad.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."
101	End Wormley standard indicates .003 PSU drift. Second vial not run to 
	confirm. Initial standard dial reading same as previous and subsequent 
	stations, so assume end Wormley is bad. Delta-Ss confirm. Footnote 
	salinity bad.

Station 199

123	See 122 salinity comment. Footnote salinity questionable.
122	Calc & Autosal runs ok. Smooth CTD gradient although fairly high for deep 
	water (1818-2017db). Other water samples look ok. Footnote salinity 
	questionable.
118	Nutrients same value as NB19. Salinity & o2 have normal gradient. Assume 
	mistakenly drawn from NB119. Footnote no3 & no2 bad, ODF recommends 
	deletion. Footnote po4 bad, ODF recommends deletion. Footnote sil bad, ODF 
	recommends deletion.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 200

136	Sample log: "air bubble in sample 36 o2." O2 value consistent with CTDO & 
	station 201 value. Sample log: "wrong Flask 36 >> 1122." O2 flask number 
	originally entered incorrectly on Sample Log as 1126. Corrected to1122 at 
	a later time.
110	Sample log: "is a drip before venting." Sample values look good compared 
	to CTD and adjacent stations.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 201

136	One good confirmation on trip box, 7 computer confirmations in B-file. Raw 
	data file indicates no trip at deepest level (5763db). Water samples same 
	as adjacent levels. Used CTD trip data at next level up (5639db) for NB36 
	but could have tripped at NB35 level as well. Footnote bottle did not trip 
	as scheduled.
135	DSRTs indicate NB35 tripped one level higher than intended, 5427db vs 
	5639db. Water samples same as adjacent levels. Used intended NB34 CTD trip 
	data for NB35. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
134	Uncertain whether NB34 closed one or two levels higher than intended (see 
	133 & 135 notes.) Raw CTD data indicates confirmations at both 5164 & 
	4905dbs, but Therm racks indicate NB35 tripped at 5427db (level below) and 
	NB33 tripped at 4653db (level above). Water sample values too similar at 
	these levels to distinguish which of the two levels is correct. 
	Arbitrarily chose 5164db CTD trip data for NB34. Footnote bottle did not 
	trip as scheduled.
133	SIS digital thermometers and pressure sensor indicate NB33 tripped 2 
	levels higher than intended, 4653db vs 5427db. Water samples same as 
	adjacent levels. Used intended NB29 CTD trip data for NB31. Footnote 
	bottle did not trip as scheduled.
132	Hydro o2 & sil indicate bottles tripped two levels higher than intended. 
	Other water samples same as adjacent levels. Used CTD trip data for two 
	levels higher. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
131	SIS digital thermometers and pressure sensor, together with all water 
	samples indicate NB31 tripped 2 levels higher than intended. 4125db vs 
	4653db. Used intended NB29 CTD trip data for NB31. Footnote bottle did not 
	trip as scheduled.
115-130	Sample log: "pylon stopped at bottle 15." Water samples indicate 
	bottles tripped two levels higher than intended. Used CTD trip data for 
	two levels higher. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
113-114	(No Pressure) Neither NB13 nor NB14 closed. Ramp shaft stopped at 15 
	although 24 confirmations indicated on trip box. See 136 note. Footnote no 
	samples drawn.
103	Delta-S .014 high at 56db. Other water samples also indicate NB3 closed 
	deeper than intended. ODF recommends deletion of all water samples, 
	footnote bottle leaking, samples bad.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 202

121	Sample log: "is leaking from spigot a lot." Oxy and Salinity values are 
	good when plotted against CTD and adjacent stations. Other values also 
	good.
110	Sample log: "still dripping." Oxy value may be .1 ml/L too high when 
	plotted against CTDO and adjacent stations. Other values look ok. Footnote 
	oxygen questionable.
102	Sample log: "is leaking before venting through spigot." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
101-107	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 200 db."

Station 203

122	Delta-S .004 low at 1717db. Calc & Autosal run ok. Smooth CTD trace but 
	high gradient. Other water samples ok.
120	Delta-S .004 low at 1365db. Calc & Autosal run ok. Smooth CTD trace but 
	high gradient. Other water samples ok.
103	Sample log: "O2 number 3 is 1017."
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 204

101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 205

127	Sample log: "found NUT tubes empty and upright--took NUT samples from 
	salts bottle." Samples not affected; ODF data acceptable.
118	Sample log: "animal taken from 18" Sample values are consistent with CTD 
	and adjacent stations.
113	Sample log: "found NUT tubes empty and upright--took NUT samples from 
	salts bottle." Samples not affected; ODF data acceptable.
112	Sample log: "found NUT tubes empty and upright--took NUT samples from 
	salts bottle." Nutrient values are consistent with adjacent stations.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 206

236	One good confirmation on trip box, 7 computer confirmation sin B-file. Raw 
	data file indicates no trip at deepest level (5143db). Water samples same 
	as adjacent levels. Used CTD trip data at next level up (4991db) for NB36 
	but could have tripped at NB35 level as well. Footnote bottle did not trip
	as scheduled.
235	DSRTs indicate NB35 tripped one level higher than intended, 4787db vs 
	4991db. Water samples same as adjacent levels. Used intended NB34 CTD trip 
	data for NB35. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
234	Uncertain whether NB34 closed one or two levels higher than intended (see 
	133 & 135 notes.) Raw CTD data indicates confirmations at both 4538 & 
	4284dbs, but Therm racks indicate NB35 tripped at 4787db (level below) and 
	NB33 tripped at 4030db (level above). Water sample values too similar at 
	these levels to distinguish which of the two levels is correct. 
	Arbitrarily chose 4538db CTD trip data for NB34. Footnote bottle did not 
	trip as scheduled.
233	SIS digital thermometers and pressure sensor indicate NB33 tripped 2 
	levels higher than intended, 4030db vs 4538db. Water samples same as 
	adjacent levels. Used intended NB29 CTD trip data for NB31. Footnote 
	bottle did not trip as scheduled.
232	Hydro o2 & sil indicate bottles tripped two levels higher than intended. 
	Other water samples same as adjacent levels. Used CTD trip data for two 
	levels higher. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
231	SIS digital thermometers and pressure sensor, together with all water 
	samples indicate NB31 tripped 2 levels higher than intended. 3526db vs 
	4030db. Used intended NB29 CTD trip data for NB31. Footnote bottle did not 
	trip as scheduled.
227	Sample log: "drips slightly from spigot after venting. "Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
221	Sample log: "drips slightly from spigot after venting. "Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
217	Sample log: "drips slightly from spigot after venting. "Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
215-230	Water samples indicate bottles tripped two levels higher than 
	intended. Used CTD trip data for two levels higher. Footnote bottle did 
	not trip as scheduled.
213-214	(No Pressure) Neither NB13 nor NB14 closed. Ramp shaft stopped at 15 
	although 24 confirmations indicated on trip box. See 136 note. No samples 
	drawn.
211	Sample log: "drips slightly from spigot after venting. "Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
201-204	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 207

136	Sample log: "bottle is in sunlight." Sample values are consistent with Ctd 
	and adjacent stations.
134	Sample log: "NB34 O2 is 1096." Titration problem on this sample. No OXY 
	value to report.
114	Sample log: "Bottom of lid leaks after venting." Sample values are 
	consistent with Ctd and adjacent stations.
113	Sample log: "bottles are in sunlight." Sample values are consistent with 
	CTD and adjacent stations.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 208

136	Delta-S .004 high at 4890db. Took 7 Autosal runs to get 2 consecutive runs 
	to agree. First run after rinses gives Delta-S .000 high. Assume salt 
	crystal contamination. Footnote salinity questionable.
124	Delta-S .004 high at 1920db. Took 8 Autosal runs to get 2 consecutive runs 
	to agree. First run after rinses gives Delta-S .000 high. Assume salt 
	crystal contamination. Footnote salinity questionable.
121	Sample log: "vent was open." Sample values are consistent with CTD and 
	adjacent stations.
119	Delta-S .006 high at 1065db. Took 5 Autosal runs to get 2 consecutive runs 
	to agree. First run after rinses gives Delta-S .002 high. Assume salt 
	crystal contamination. Footnote salinity questionable. Sample log: "Slow 
	drip before venting from spigot." Sample values are consistent with CTD & 
	adjacent stations.
118	Delta-S .006 high at 914db. Took 5 Autosal runs to get 2 consecutive runs 
	to agree. First run after rinses gives Delta-S .001 high. Assume salt 
	crystal contamination. Footnote salinity questionable.
117	Sample log: "leaks before venting through spigot" Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
115	Delta-S .006 high at 691db. Took 6 Autosal runs to get 2 consecutive runs 
	to agree. First run after rinses gives Delta-S .000 high. Assume salt 
	crystal contamination. Footnote salinity questionable.
114-136	Thermometers & water samples indicate all bottle trippe done level 
	higher than intended. Confirmations on trip box and computer ok at deepest 
	level but capacitor did not charge as much as usual. (5077db, intended 
	NB36 level). Used CTD trip data one level higher than intended with no 
	water samples at 5077db. Samples acceptable after correction.
114	Sample log: "leaking through bottom cap." Plots of nutrient values & OXY 
	are consistent with CTD & adjacent stations. Delta-S .005 high at 629db. 
	Took 4 Autosal runs to get 2 consecutive runs to agree. First run after 
	rinses gives Delta-S .001 high. Assume salt crystal contamination. 
	Footnote salinity questionable.
113	(No Pressure) Sample log: "did not close." NB13 not tripped. Ramp shaft 
	stopped at NB14.
110	Sample log: "leaks before venting." Sample values are consistent with CTD 
	and adjacent stations.
108	Sample log: "slow drip before venting." Sample values are consistent with 
	CTD and adjacent stations.
105	Delta-S .004 high at 129db. Took 5 Autosal runs to get 2 consecutive runs 
	to agree. First run after rinses gives Delta-S .000 high. Assume salt 
	crystal contamination. Footnote salinity questionable.
104	Sample log: "leaks before venting." Sample values are consistent with CTD 
	and adjacent stations.
102	Sample log: "leaks before venting." Sample values are consistent with CTD 
	and adjacent stations.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."
101	Delta-S .004 high at 3db. Took 5 Autosal runs to get 2 consecutive runs to 
	agree. First run after rinses gives Delta-S .001 high. Assume salt crystal 
	contamination. Footnote salinity questionable. Sample log: "vent didn't 
	close." Other than salinity, sample values are consistent with CTD and 
	adjacent stations.

Station 209

135	Intended to trip at 5113db, water samples and DSRTs same as NB34 water 
	samples and CTD T & P at 4910db. Used NB34 CTD trip data for NB35. 
	Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
128	Intended to trip at 3382db, water samples same as NB27 at 3129db. Delta-S 
	.002 high. o2 & silicate have good gradients and show trip problem 
	clearly. Used NB27 trip data for NB28 also. Footnote bottle did not trip 
	as scheduled. NB28 and NB27 tripped at same level and have close agreement 
	for all sample values.
127	Sample log: "slight drip from spigot after venting." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
125	Sample log: "slight drip from spigot after venting." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
121	Sample log: "slight drip from spigot after venting." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
119-136	See 118 NO3 comment. Footnote NO3 questionable.
118	Deep no3 1 uM/L low. Calc & peaks ok. Only note is: "new imidazole". 
	Footnote NO3 questionable.
117	Sample log: "slight drip from spigot after venting." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
112	Sample log: "vent open." Sample values are consistent with CTD and 
	adjacent stations.
111	Sample log: "slight drip from spigot after venting." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
109	Air vent open. Delta-S .003 low at 355db. Other water samples do not 
	indicate leak. Sample log: "slight drip from spigot after venting." Sample 
	values are consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
105	Sample log: "slight drip from spigot after venting." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 210

134	Sample log: "thermometer lanyard caught in top cap, leaked before 
	venting." Air leak. Therm rack lanyard caught in top end cap. Delta-S .000 
	at 4447db. Other water samples also look ok. Check final CTDO, if no 
	problem, then this bottle did not leak. O2 plot very close to plots of 
	previous station & CTDO. Bottle did not leak.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 211

136	Hydro o2 appears .05 high at 5585db. Calc & titration ok. No notes. 1 
	freon, 1 CCl4 & 2 helium samples drawn before o2. Similar problem on other 
	samples this station and Stations 221 & 225 when many samples taken before 
	o2. Footnote OXY questionable.
135	Hydro o2 appears .06 high at 5455db. Calc & titration ok. No notes. 1 
	freon, 1 CCl4 & 1 helium sample drawn before o2. Similar problem on other 
	samples this station and Stations 221 & 225 when many samples taken before 
	o2. Footnote OXY questionable.
133	Hydro o2 appears .2 high at 4990db. Calc & titration ok. No notes. 1 
	freon, 1 CCl4 & 2 helium samples drawn before o2. Similar problem on other 
	samples this station and Stations 221 & 225 when many samples taken before 
	o2. Footnote OXY questionable.
131	Hydro o2 appears .05 high at 4478db. Calc & titration ok. No notes. 1 
	freon, 1 CCl4 & 1 helium sample drawn before o2. Similar problem on other 
	samples this station and Stations 221 & 225 when many samples taken before 
	o2. Footnote OXY questionable.
130	Hydro o2 appears .02 high at 4220db. Calc & titration ok. No notes. 1 
	freon, 1 CCl4 & 1 helium sample drawn before o2. Similar problem on other 
	samples this station and Stations 221 & 225 when many samples taken before 
	o2. Footnote OXY questionable.
128	Hydro o2 appears .02 high at 3708db. Calc & titration ok. No notes. 1 
	freon, 1 CCl4 & 2 helium samples drawn before o2. Similar problem on other 
	samples this station and Stations 221 & 225 when many samples taken before 
	o2. Footnote OXY questionable.
123	See 122 nutrient comments. Footnote nutrients questionable.
122	NBs 22 & 23 nutrients same at 2332db & 2560db. Possibly drawn from same 
	bottle but adjacent stations show some nutrient features this level. o2, S 
	& T have normal gradients. Footnote nutrients questionable.
119-136	See 118 NO3 comment. Footnote NO3 questionable.
118	Deep NO3 1 uM/L high. Note on data sheet: "Cd column refurbished" Next 
	station (212) no3 also high then back to normal on Station 213. Calc & 
	peaks ok. Footnote NO3 questionable.
114	Sample log: "leaking from bottom cap after venting." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
113	o2 flask broken before analysis. Footnote OXY lost.
103	Sample log: "O2 NB3 is 869."
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."
101	Sample log: "leaks a little through bottom cap after venting." Sample 
	values are consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.

Station 212

127	Sample log: "dripping from spigot after venting." Plots of sample values, 
	except as noted, look ok.
125	Sample log: "dripping from spigot after venting." Plots of sample values, 
	except as noted, look ok.
121	Sample log: "dripping from spigot after venting." Plots of sample values 
	look ok, except as noted.
119-136	See 118 NO3 comment. Footnote NO3 questionable.
118	Deep no3 1 uM/L high. Note on Sta 211 data sheet: "Cd column refurbished" 
	Station 211 had high no3 also. back to normal on Station 213. Calc & peaks 
	ok. Read standards, blanks, peaks and did calculations; everything looks 
	ok. May be real. Footnote NO3 questionable.
111	Sample log: "dripping from spigot after venting." Plots of sample values, 
	except as noted, look ok.
110	Sample log: "drips before venting spigot." Plots of sample values, except 
	as noted, look ok.
102-136	See 101 salinity comment. Footnote salinity questionable.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."
101	0.007 PSU drift on Autosal run. Room temp went from 24.0 to 24.9 during 
	run. Bath temp 24C. Delta-Ss look ok. Std dial same as previous station. 2 
	end vials confirm. Footnote salinity questionable.

Station 213

136	Delta-S .004 high at 5393db. 5 Autosal runs. 1st run after rinses gives 
	Delta-S .000. Footnote salinity questionable.
121	Sample log: "dripping from spigot after venting." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
114	Sample log: "bottom lid leaks after venting." Sample value sare consistent 
	with CTD and adjacent stations.
103	Sample log: "potential mix-up during O2 sampling, e NB4,NB3, in sampling 
	order most likely correct. Note if unusual sampling results." Plots of o2 
	values are consistent with CTDO and adjacent stations.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 214

121	Sample log: "dripping at spigot after venting." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 215

130	Sample log: "Slow drip on spigot after venting." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent station 216.
114	Sample log: "leak after venting through bottom cap." O2 and salinity 
	values look ok. Nutrients for NB14 have same value as NB15. Other water 
	samples and adjacent stations have normal gradients. Apparently 114 
	nutrient sample drawn from NB15. Footnote no3, po4, sil, and no2 as bad, 
	ODF recommends deletion.
113	Sample log: "leak after venting through bottom cap. "Compared to CTD data, 
	O2 appears .2 ml/l low and salinity appears steep gradients. Sample values 
	ok.
101-103	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 216

134	Sample log: "drips very slowly from open spigot before venting and from 
	closed spigot after venting." Sample values are consistent with CTD and 
	adjacent stations.
133	Sample log: "possible skip of NB33--have off 1 number. "Drawing error-No 
	oxygen sample drawn. Other samples ok.
112	Sample log: "drips before venting spigot." Sample values are consistent 
	with CTD and adjacent stations.
110	Sample log: "drips from closed spigot before venting, not popped." Sample 
	values are consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
108	Sample log: "drips from spigot before venting." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
101-105	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 217

134	Sample log: "leaks from spigot before venting." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent station.
132	Sample log: "Helium 32 (one failed)."
117	Sample log: "bottle NB17- ran out of H20 during sample collection - 
	potential bubbles in sample." Sample log: "O2 NB27 is 1086." Sample log 
	comments refer to alkalinity, the last sample drawn.
111	Sample log: "spigot dripping after venting." Sample values are consistent 
	with CTD and adjacent station.
109	Sample log: "spigot dripping after venting." O2 value in agreement with 
	CTDO and station 218. Delta-S is high at .007. However, bottle data in 
	close agreement with up-trace in this high gradient depth range.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."
101	o2 titrated in two parts. 1st titration stopped for unknown reason. Did a 
	2nd titration and added the 2 raw titers for calculation. Surface value 
	looks 0.1 to 0.2 high compared to adjacent stations. Footnote o2 bad. ODF 
	recommends deletion of oxygen.

Station 218

228	Sample log: "O2 started sampling at 28, then switched to 36 after 19."
219	Sample log: "Bottom Cap Leak on doesn't reseat." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
212	Sample log: "Small leak from spigot on opened, not popped." Sample values 
	are consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
205	PO4 appears .2 high at 100db. Other nutrients and water samples ok. Same 
	value as 204 which is also high. Contamination? Footnote PO4 questionable.
204	PO4 appears .3 high at 80db. Other nutrients and water samples ok. Same 
	value as 205 which is also high. Contamination? Footnote PO4 questionable.
201-204	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 219

125	Sample log: "cleaned MnCl pump after bottle NB25, MnCl pump cleaned and 
	greased after bottle NB17." Sample values are consistent with CTD and 
	adjacent station.
120-121	Sample log: "syringes for bottles NB20 + NB21 reversed, (first 
	collected has rubber band on it)." This comment would not affect ODF 
	samples.
119	Sample log: "leaks from bottom cap after venting." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent station.
108	Sample log note: "Number tab caught in top cap" Footnote bottle leaking. 
	Delta-S .000 at 260db. Other water samples also look ok.
106	Sample log: "Flask 1057 on bottle 6, got an air bubble in it during 
	pickling w/MgCl." O2 value compares well to CTDO and value on previous 
	station.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 220

124	Sample log: "small spigot leak after air vent opened." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
111	Delta-S .116 high at 434db. Other water samples also indicate bottle 
	closed deeper. Footnote did not trip as scheduled, and all water samples 
	bad. ODF recommends deletion of all water samples, not sure exactly where 
	this bottle tripped.
109	Delta-S .058 low at 308db. Calc & Autosal run ok. Large CTD T & S spike on 
	up trace at trip level. All water samples look ok.
108	Sample log: "Lanyard tab in top end cap" Footnote bottle leaking. Delta-S 
	.008 low at 257db but small CTD spike on up trace (See 109). Hydro salt 
	and other water samples look ok.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 221

136	Hydro o2 appears .05 high at 4944db. Calc & titration ok. No notes. 1 
	freon, 1 CCl4 & 2 helium samples drawn before o2. Similar problem on other 
	samples this station and Stations 211 & 225 when many samples taken before 
	o2. Footnote oxygen questionable.
132	Hydro o2 appears .07 high at 4108db. Calc & titration ok. No notes. 1 
	freon, 1 CCl4 & 1 helium sample drawn before o2. Similar problem on other 
	samples this station and Stations 211 & 225 when many samples taken before 
	o2. Footnote oxygen questionable.
125	Sample log: "O2 NB25 is 699."
122	PO4 appears .04 high at 1905db. Peak fair, definitely high. Footnote po4 
	questionable.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 222

132	Sample log: "Slight drip before venting on 32 - air leak. "Sample values 
	look ok on plots.
111	Delta-S .035 high at 537db. Calc & Autosal runs ok. Other water samples 
	also indicate bottle closed early, just after start up from previous 
	bottle. Same problem sample 110. Reason unknown. Footnote bottle did not 
	trip as scheduled, footnote all water samples bad. ODF recommends deletion 
	of all samples.
110	Delta-S .043 high at 462db. Calc & Autosal runs ok. Other water samples 
	also indicate bottle closed early, just after start up from previous 
	bottle. Same problem sample 111. Reason unknown. Footnote bottle did not 
	trip as scheduled, footnote all water samples bad. ODF recommends deletion 
	of all samples.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 223

121	Sample log: "leaking from spigot after venting." Plots of sample values 
	are consistent with CTD and adjacent station.
108	Delta-S .026 high at 280db. CTD up T very different from down T. Other 
	water samples ok.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 224

116	No water, bottom end cap apparently hung up & closed as rosette came out 
	of water. Footnote no samples drawn.
111	Sample log: "leak from spigot after venting." Sample values are consistent 
	with CTD and adjacent station.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 225

136	Hydro o2 appears .1 high at 4821db. Calc & titration ok. No notes. 1 
	freon, 1 CCl4 & 2 helium samples drawn before o2. Similar problem on other 
	samples this station and Stations 211 & 221 when many samples taken before 
	o2. Footnote oxygen questionable.
135	Hydro o2 appears .07 high at 4636db. Calc & titration ok. No notes. 1 
	freon, 1 CCl4, & 2 helium samples drawn before o2. Similar problem on 
	other samples this station and Stations 211 & 221 when many samples taken 
	before o2. Footnote oxygen questionable.
134	Hydro o2 appears .02 high at 4405db. Calc & titration ok. No notes. 1 
	freon & 1 CCl4 sample drawn before o2. Similar problem on other samples 
	this station and Stations 211 & 221 when many samples taken before o2. 
	Footnote oxygen questionable.
133	Hydro o2 appears .03 high at 4197db. Calc & titration ok. No notes. 1 
	freon, 1 CCl4 & 1 helium sample drawn before o2. Similar problem on other 
	samples this station and Stations 211 & 221 when many samples taken before 
	o2. Footnote oxygen questionable.
131	Hydro o2 appears .03 high at 3812db. Calc & titration ok. No notes. 1 
	freon & 1 CCl4 sample drawn before o2. Similar problem on other samples 
	this station and Stations 211 & 221 when many samples taken before o2. 
	Footnote oxygen questionable.
129	Hydro o2 appears .02 high at 3440db. Calc & titration ok. No notes. 1 
	freon & 2 helium samples drawn before o2. Similar problem on other samples 
	this station and Stations 211 & 221 when many samples taken before o2. 
	Footnote oxygen questionable.
128	Hydro o2 appears .02 high at 3244db. Calc & titration ok. No notes. 1 
	freon & 2 helium samples drawn before o2. Similar problem on other samples 	this station and Stations 211 & 221 when many samples taken before o2. 
	Footnote oxygen questionable.
126	Hydro o2 appears .02 high at 2849db. Calc & titration ok. No notes. 1 
	freon, 1 CCl4 & 2 helium samples drawn before o2. Similar problem on other 
	samples this station and Stations 211 & 221 when many samples taken before 
	o2. Footnote oxygen questionable.
110	Delta-S .240 high at 429db. Other water sample also from deeper levels. 
	Possibly bottom end cap closed early. Similar problem this bottle last 
	station. Adjusted bottom lanyard next station. Footnote bottle did not 
	trip as scheduled, footnote all water samples bad. ODF recommends deletion 
	of all water samples.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 226

101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 227

126	Sample log: "O2 bottle remove flask lid from bottle, replace with 1065."
125	Sample log: "drips from spigot after venting." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
121	Sample log: "drips from spigot after venting." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
111	Sample log: "drips from spigot after venting." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
109	Sample log: "drips from spigot after venting." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
107	Sample log: "drips from spigot after venting." Sample values are 
	consistent with CTD and adjacent stations.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 228

129-133	See 128 SIL comment. Footnote silicate questionable.
128	Appear 1 to 3 uM/L low. Calc & peaks ok. Footnote silicate questionable.
120	Intended to trip at 1448db, water samples same as NB19 at 1240db. Used 
	NB19 CTD trip data for NB20. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
108	No po4. Note on data sheet: "sample spilled, not enough for run." Other 
	nutrients look ok. Footnote PO4 lost.
107	Delta-S .040 low at 182db. Calc & Autosal run ok. Much noise on CTD up 
	trace at this level. All water samples look ok. Footnote CTD salinity bad. 
	CTDO is coded bad because the CTD salinity is coded bad.
101-105	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 229

236	No trip confirmation. All water samples same as NBs 35 & 34 tripped 35db 
	above. Silicate is only property with gradient this level. NB36 may have 
	tripped 35db above intended level of 4467db.
230	Delta-S .005 high at 3462db. 6 Autosal runs to get agreement. First run 
	after rinse gives Delta-S .000. Footnote salinity questionable.
227	Sample log: "drips from around spigot." Sample values are consistent with 
	CTD and adjacent stations.
225	Sample log: "drips from around spigot." Sample values are consistent with 
	CTD and adjacent stations.
222	Sample log: "Major leak through top end cap" Assume air leak. Delta-S .000 
	at 1741db, other water samples also ok.
221	Sample log: "drips from around spigot." Sample values are consistent with 
	CTD and adjacent stations.
220	Intended to trip at 1341db, water samples same as NB19 at 1196db. Used 
	NB19 CTD trip data for NB20. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled. 
	Delta-S at new level .002 high .4 Autosal runs to get agreement. First run 
	after rinse gives Delta-S .000 at NB19 level. Footnote salinity 
	questionable.
217	Sample log: "NB117 has small spigot leak." Sample values are consistent 
	with CTD and adjacent stations.
211	Sample log: "drips from around spigot." Sample values are consistent with 
	CTD and adjacent stations.
201-236	Sample log: "rotor on 24-place pylon advanced one place. "Sample 
	plots look ok. No affect on data.
201-204	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 230

135	Intended to trip at 4216db, water samples & DSRT values same as NB34 at 
	4065db. Used NB35 CTD trip data for NB36. Footnote bottle did not trip as 
	scheduled. Delta-S .003 high for both intended & new levels. 4 Autosal 
	runs to get agreement. First run after rinse gives Delta-S .000. Footnote 
	salinity questionable.
131	Intended to trip at 3453db, water samples and DSRT values same as NB30 at 
	3248db. Used NB30 CTD trip data for NB31. Footnote bottle did not trip as 
	scheduled.
120	Intended to trip at 1210db, water samples same NB19 at 1027db. Used NB19 
	CTD trip data for NB20. Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled.
102	Delta-S .012 high at 25db. Autosal run ok. High gradient. Sample log: 
	"leaks before venting." Oxygen agrees with adjoining stations.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 231

134	Sample log: "leaks - air leak though top cap - does not reseat." Sample 
	values agree with adjacent station and CTD.
101-105	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 232

134	Sample log: "slow drip before venting - air leak." Drip does not affect 
	data.
133	Sample log: "slow drip before venting - air leak." Drip does not affect 
	data.
131	Sample log: "slow drip before venting w/ spigot closed." Drip does not 
	affect data.
125	Sample log: "has small drip from spigot after venting." Drip does not 
	affect data.
121	Sample log: "slow drip before venting w/ spigot closed." Sample log: "has 
	small drip from spigot after venting." Drip does not affect data.
117	Sample log: "small drip from spigot after venting." Drip does not affect 
	data.
112	Sample log: "slow drip before venting - air leak." Drip does not affect 
	data.
111	Sample log: "small drip from spigot after venting." Drip does not affect 
	data.
110	Sample log: "squirts once, then seals from spigot." Sample log: "not 
	popped." Drip does not affect data.
109	Sample log: "small drip from spigot after venting." Drip does not affect 
	data.
105	Sample log: "small drip from spigot after venting." Delta-S.025 high at 
	102db. Autosal run ok. High gradient. Drip does not affect data.
104	SIL appears 6 uM/L high at 76db. Peak fair but definitely high. Other 
	nutrients ok. Footnote SIL questionable.
101-104	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Station 233

110	Sample log: "leaking from spigot when coming on board." Samples appear to 
	be okay.
101-105	CTD Processor: "CTD O2 questionable, 0 - 100 db."

Quality Comments

Remarks for  missing samples, and WOCE codes other than 2 from JUNO - WOCE 
P16A/P17A Large Volume Samples.  Investigation of data may include comparison of 
bottle salinity and silicate data from piggy-back and Gerard with CTD cast data, 
review of data plots of the station profile and adjoining stations, and 
rereading of charts (i.e., nutrients).  Comments from the Sample Logs and the 
results of ODF's investigations are included in this report.

Station 146

347 @2111db	Left protected & middle protected therms both malfunction, no 
		temperature readings.
389 @2111db	See thermometer failure on NB347.
141 @2557db	Delta-S (n-g) at 2557db is 0.0059, salinity is 34.732. Salinities in 
		gerard (81) & niskin (41) are equally off when compared with rosette 
		cast. No indication of any problems in sample log. Footnote salinity 
		uncertain. Silicate values slightly low, but within precision of 
		measurement.
181 @2558db	Footnote salinity uncertain. Other gerard sample integrity to be 
		determined by PI.
144 @3156db	Delta-S (n-g) at 3156db is 0.0031, salinity is 34.722. Values from 
		NB44 are OK. See comments for GER 84.
184 @3156db	Salinity and silicate low compared with NB44 & rosette. Footnote 
		salinity uncertain.
145 @3356db	Delta-S (n-g) at 3356db is 0.0026, salinity is 34.719. Gerard 
		salinity & silicate acceptable.

Station 157

347 @2164db	Both left protected & middle protected therms malfunctioned. No 
		temperature.
389 @2165db	See therm failure on NB347.
141 @2778db	Therm Sheet:"41 Nis no trip, therm OK". No samples from NB 141. 
		Samples from GER 181 are OK.
187 @4045db	Therm Sheet:"87 did not drop messenger". Samples from both Ger 187 
		and piggy-back Nis 146 are OK. However, Ger's 189, 190, 193 and 
		piggy-back Niskins did not close.

Station 164

347 @2114db	Sample log: "Therm ok, bottle no trip." No water samples from this 
		bottle.
241 @2690db	Delta-S (n-g) at 2690db is 0.0045, salinity is 34.712. Ger 81 
		salinity value closer to rosette value than Nis 41. Silicate value 
		about 3 UMOL/KG higher than associated Ger. Ger value close to 
		rosette value. Footnote Salinity & Silicate uncertain.
281 @2691db	See 241 salinity and silicate values.
242 @2945db	Delta-S (n-g) at 2945db is 0.0057, salinity is 34.711. Ger 82 
		salinity value closer to rosette value than Nis 42. Silicate value 
		about 3 UMOL/KG higher than associated Ger. Ger value close to 
		rosette value. Footnote salinity & silicate uncertain.
282 @2945db	See 241 salinity and silicate values.
243 @3199db	Silicate value about 3 UMOL/KG higher than associated Ger. Ger value 
		close to rosette value. Footnote silicate uncertain.
283 @3200db	See 243 silicate value.
244 @3454db	Silicate value about 3 UMOL/KG higher than associated Ger. Ger value 
		close to rosette value. Footnote silicate uncertain.
284 @3454db	See 244 silicate value.
245 @3708db	Silicate value about 3 UMOL/KG higher than associated Ger. Ger value 
		close to rosette value. Footnote silicate uncertain.
285 @3708db	See 245 silicate value.
246 @3962db	Silicate value about 3 UMOL/KG higher than associated Ger. Ger value 
		close to rosette value. Footnote silicate uncertain.
287 @3963db	See 246 silicate value.
247 @4217db	Silicate value about 3 UMOL/KG higher than associated Ger. Ger value 
		close to rosette value. Footnote silicate uncertain. Footnote 
		silicate uncertain.
289 @4217db	See 247 silicate value.
248 @4420db	Silicate value about 3 UMOL/KG higher than associated Ger. Nis value 
		closer to rosette value than Ger 90.
290 @4420db	See 248 silicate value.

Station 187

341 @ 749db	Niskin 41 not tripped. Niskin trip arm on Gerard 81 not down far 
		enough. No Niskin samples. Gerard salt & silicate agree well with 
		Rosette data.
348 @1808db	N-G .003 low at 1808db. Calc & Autosal runs ok. Leave for now. 
		930111/dm Nis 48 piggy-back on Ger 90.
390 @1809db	See 348 salinity comment.
149 @2105db	Niskin 49 not tripped. Niskin trip arm on Gerard 81 not down far 
		enough. No Niskin samples. Nisken 41 normally on this Gerard so 
		thought bottle mismatch was problem. Gerard salt & silicate agree 
		well with Rosette data.
189 @3483db	N-G .048 high. Gerard salinity and silicate both appear to be from 
		higher in water column. Footnote salinity and silicate bad.
142 @3713db	Nis 42 is bottle associated with Ger 90.
190 @3714db	N-G .005 high at 3714db. Gerard silicate also a little lower (1.5) 
		than the Niskin silicate indicating a possible small leak in Gerard 
		sample. Footnote silicate and salinity uncertain.

Station 206

341 @1257db	N-G .005 high at 1257db. Took 4 Autosal runs to get 2 runs to agree. 
		Probably salt crystal contamination. First Autosal run after rinses 
		gives N-G .001 low. Gerard salt and silicates good.
346 @2012db	N-G .006 high at 2012db. Took 7 Autosal runs to get 2 runs to agree. 
		Probably salt crystal contamination. First Autosal run after rinses 
		gives N-G .0004 low. Gerard salt and silicates good.

Station 218

341 @1500db	N-G salt .005 high at 1500db. 4 Autosal runs to get agreement. First 
		run after rinses gives N-G .000. Used first run. 930114/dm
142 @3164db	Sample Log: "Tube (plastic) in upper lid." No samples.
147 @4558db	Sample Log: "Lanyard hung up". No samples.

Station 229

383		(No Pressure) Gerard Barrel 83 failed to trip on cast 3. Messenger 
		was on trip arm with latch not pushed quite far enough to close lid. 
		Messenger not released. Re-lowered untripped barrels to shallower 
		terminal reading as cast 4.
449 @1909db	DSRTs not shaken down from previous cast. Same readings as NB49 on 
		Cast 1. Footnote bad thermometer readings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.	Acknowledgments

This expedition represents the sum cooperative efforts of a great many talented 
and dedicated people.  Captain Swanson, his officers, and crew deserve a 'hats 
off' for their enthusiasm and expertise, countless efforts to improve and 
maintain the Knorr's performance, and careful work.  The scientific group, 
assembled from several institutions, treated the expedition not as a grab bag of 
diverse measurements, but as one program, the WOCE program.  Their dedication 
and skill show in the exceptional quality of these data.  And none of this would 
have been possible without the advice and generous support received from the 
National Science Foundation, which supported this work via grant NSF OCE93-
00648.

E.	References

Unesco, 1983. International Oceanographic tables. Unesco Technical Papers in  
  Marine Science, No. 44.
Unesco, 1991. Processing of Oceanographic Station Data. Unesco memorgraph By 
  JPOTS editorial panel.

F.	WHPO Summary

Several data files are associated with this report.  They are the 
316N138_10.sum, 316N138_10.hyd, 316N138_10.csl and *.wct files.  The 
316N138_10.sum file contains a summary of the location, time, type of parameters 
sampled, and other pertinent information regarding each hydrographic station.  
The 316N138_10.hyd file contains the bottle data. The *.wct files are the ctd 
data for each station.  The *.wct files are zipped into one file called 
316N138_10.wct.zip.  The 316N138_10.csl file is a listing of ctd and calculated 
values at standard levels.

The following is a description of how the standard levels and calculated values 
were derived for the 316N138_10.csl file:

Salinity, Temperature and Pressure: These three values were smoothed from the 
individual CTD files over the N uniformly increasing pressure levels using the 
following binomial filter-

	t(j) = 0.25ti(j-1) + 0.5ti(j) + 0.25ti(j+1) j=2....N-1

When a pressure level is represented in the *.csl file that is not contained 
within the ctd values, the value was linearly interpolated to the desired level 
after applying the binomial filtering.

Sigma-theta(SIG-TH:KG/M3), Sigma-2 (SIG-2: KG/M3), and Sigma-4(SIG-4: KG/M3): 
These values are calculated using the practical salinity scale (PSS-78) and the 
international equation of state for seawater (EOS-80) as described in the Unesco 
publication 44 at reference pressures of the surface for SIG-TH; 2000 dbars for 
Sigma-2; and 4000 dbars for Sigma-4.

Gradient Potential Temperature (GRD-PT: C/DB 10-3) is calculated as the least 
squares slope between two levels, where the standard level is the center of the 
interval.  The interval being the smallest of the two differences between the 
standard level and the two closest values.  The slope is first determined using 
CTD temperature and then the adiabatic lapse rate is subtracted to obtain the 
gradient potential temperature.  Equations and Fortran routines are described in 
Unesco publication 44.

Gradient Salinity (GRD-S: 1/DB 10-3) is calculated as the least squares slope 
between two levels, where the standard level is the center of the standard level 
and the two closes values.  Equations and Fortran routines are described in 
Unesco publication 44.

Potential Vorticity (POT-V: 1/ms 10-11) is calculated as the vertical component 
ignoring contributions due to relative vorticity, i.e. pv=fN2/g, where f is the 
coriolius parameter, N is the buoyancy frequency (data expressed as radius/sec), 
and g is the local acceleration of gravity.

Buoyancy Frequency (B-V: cph) is calculated using the adiabatic leveling method, 
Fofonoff (1985) and Millard, Owens and Fofonoff (1990).  Equations and Fortran 
routines are described in Unesco publication 44.

Potential Energy (PE: J/M2: 10-5) and Dynamic Height (DYN-HT: M) are calculated 
by integrating from 0 to the level of interest.  Equations and  Fortran routines 
are described in Unesco publication 44.

Neutral Density (GAMMA-N: KG/M3) is calculated with the program GAMMA-N (Jackett 
and McDougall) version 1.3 Nov. 94.

G.	Data Quality Evaluation

Figure 1*

BOTTLE DEPTH DISTRIBUTIONS:

Rosette Stations

Figure 2*

Rosette Stations

Figure 3*

Large Volume Stations

Figure 4*

Large Volume Stations

Figure 5*

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix A:

Improving the Measurement of Pressure in the NBIS Mark III CTD

Frank M. Delahoyde and Robert T. Williams

Oceanographic Data Facility
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
La Jolla, Ca. 92093-0214


ABSTRACT

A software model for correcting the dynamic response of the Paine Instruments 
stainless steel strain-gauge pressure transducer used in the NBIS Mark IIIB CTD 
is described.  Laboratory calibration techniques and the response 
characteristics of strain-gauge transducers are discussed.  Experimental data 
supporting the model are presented.

August 23, 1994
Preliminary Draft

1.	Introduction

The NBIS Mark IIIB CTD uses a stainless steel strain-gauge pressure transducer 
to measure pressure.  The early models contained sensors produced by Standard 
Controls.  Later versions contain sensors from Paine Instruments, with no 
significant differences in their characteristics.  These sensors have proven to 
be reliable and of adequate sensitivity and stability for oceanographic 
profiling applications.  Their accuracy depends upon careful and frequent 
calibration, with attention paid to their response characteristics.  With an 
understanding of these characteristics, and applying an appropriate correction 
model, pressure accuracy of 2 db or better can be consistently attained.  This 
level of pressure accuracy is necessary to insure the accuracy of parameters 
calculated from pressure; a 4 db error in pressure can result in a 0.002 PSU 
error in calculated salinity.  The manufacturer's specifications are shown in 
Table 1 and have been found to be generally conservative.

Pressure range			0-8850 psi (0-6100 db) 
Compensated temperature range	-32 to 151°C 
Thermal zero shift		0.01 %F.S./°F (1.10 db/°C) 
Thermal sensitivity shift	0.005% F.S./°F (0.55 db/°C)
Non-linearity and hysteresis	±0.25% F.S. (±15.25 db)
Shock, vibration, acceleration	0.01% F.S./G (0.61 db/G) 
Repeatability			±0.05 %F.S. (±3.05 db) 
			Table 1.
Specifications of Paine Instruments Model 211-35-090-05 strain-gauge 
pressure transducer.

Most pressure calibration methods have concentrated on measuring steady-state 
responses.  A dead-weight tester is used to measure non-linearity and hysteresis 
in the pressure response.  Used in conjunction with a temperature-controlled 
bath, thermal zero and sensitivity shift can be measured.  A response 
characteristic that varies with time before it reaches a steady-state is a 
dynamic response.  For oceanographic applications where both pressure and 
temperature are changing, dynamic response characteristics become important.

The Mark III CTD Strain-gauge has a thermal response-time several orders of 
magnitude greater than the pressure response-time, due to the physical location 
of the sensor.  The transducer is threaded into a port drilled through the CTD 
pressure case endcap, and located on the inside face.  Most of the sensor is 
inside the pressure case, surrounded by a substantial mass of low thermal 
conductivity stainless steel.  The strain-gauge is insulated from the ambient 
temperature by water filling the port and the material encasing the sensing 
element.  Thermal response-time constants on the order of 400 seconds are not 
unusual.  In the ocean, the sensor can be responding to temperatures differing 
from the ambient by more than 20°C, depending on profiling velocity and 
temperature gradients.

Non-linearity and hysteresis are characteristics of the sensor's response to 
pressure.  The amount of hysteresis is dependent upon the maximum pressure 
applied to the sensor.  Typical pressure response-times are less than 40 milli-
seconds.

Stability is a measure of how often a sensor must be calibrated to insure some 
criteria for accuracy.  This depends on how frequently the sensor is used, how 
it is employed, and the required accuracy.  Typical stability metrics for 2 db 
pressure accuracy are on the order of months, and it is usually sufficient to 
calibrate Mark III pressure sensors immediately before and after 1-2 month 
expeditions.

A response-correction model for Mark III CTD pressure based on these sensor 
characteristics must describe the pressure response as functions of pressure, 
maximum pressure, temperature, and time.

One such model, together with appropriate calibration techniques, was developed 
by the authors and has been in use for several years.  This method interpolates 
the pressure correction, using the sensor pressure signal and an estimate of the 
sensor temperature, from tables of calibration values measured at two or more 
temperatures.  The number of calibration temperatures and pressures are selected 
such that the response of the transducer is adequately defined.  In practice, 
pressure calibrations are performed to low (25% F.S.) and full-scale pressures 
at each of two widely-spaced temperatures, typically 0 and 25°C.  An estimate of 
the sensor thermal response-time is made by plunging the thermally-equilibrated 
instrument into an ice-bath, generating a thermal step-change.  Corrections are 
derived by linear interpolation between calibration points selected from the 
tables using the uncalibrated sensor pressure and a temperature modeled for the 
thermal response of the sensor.

This technique can be applied to other types of pressure transducers, where non-
linear response characteristics make simpler models impractical.  It has the 
advantage of operating directly from the pressure calibration data.

2.	Temperature Effects

The response of a Mark III pressure transducer to a step-change in temperature 
can be modeled as the sum of at least two different responses with different 
response-times.

The faster thermal response is due to internal strain-gauge temperature 
compensation.  The manufacturer uses a resistive temperature-compensating 
element in the transducer that ideally would exhibit the same thermal response-
time as the strain-gauge, exactly canceling the temperature response.  In 
practice this is not readily achieved, as the compensating element must be 
exactly matched to an individual sensor.  The temperature compensation is 
adequate to bring the response to within the manufacturer's specifications, but 
typically introduces a second temperature response due to mismatches of the 
magnitude and response-time of the compensation.  Figure 1.0 (not included) 
illustrates typical Mark III pressure response to a temperature step-change.

The original Mark III CTD design further complicates the pressure response by an 
additional attempt at temperature compensation using a thermister attached to 
the transducer.  The response-time of the thermister is grossly mismatched to 
the transducer, and its placement is such that it does not measure the 
transducer temperature.  The correction techniques discussed in this paper 
assume that this compensation has been removed.

The pressure signal can be corrected for thermal response by

	P(corrected)=P(raw)+k(1)T(lagged1)+k(2)T(lagged2)		(1.0) 

Where:

k(1)	   is the temperature coefficient (db/°C) associated with the first 
	   thermal response;
T(lagged1) is the lagged temperature associated with the first thermal 
	   response;
k(2)	   is the temperature coefficient (db/°C) associated with the second 
	   thermal response; and
T(lagged2) is the lagged temperature associated with the second thermal 
	   response.

The lagged temperatures can be modeled satisfactorily as a simple exponential 
decay with no initial delay.  They are modeled from the in-situ temperature 
using response-time constants determined experimentally:

	T(lagged)=e^(-dt/tau)T(p)+(1-e^(-dt/tau))T		(2.0) 
Where:

dt	is the measurement period in seconds;
tau	is the temperature response-time constant in seconds;
T(p)	is the previous lagged temperature;
T	is the in-situ temperature.

Figure 1.0 (not included) illustrates Mark III CTD pressure response to a step 
change in temperature, together with a 2 term exponential model of the response.

One problem with modeling a sensor temperature from the in-situ temperature is 
the choice of an appropriate initialization value.  Using the out-of-water CTD 
pressure and the pressure calibration, a reasonably-accurate initial temperature 
can be calculated.  Because of the long response-time associated with the 
thermal response, care should be taken to insure the CTD is reasonably 
equilibrated with the ambient temperature and does not heat up from exposure to 
the sun.

3.	Pressure Response

Strain-gauge transducers typically exhibit a non-linear pressure response. 
Correcting the response is complicated by hysteresis.  This hysteresis is 
reproducible, and is dependent on the maximum pressure applied to the sensor. 
Figure 2.0 (not included) illustrates the pressure correction curves obtained 
from a Mark III CTD calibrated to several maximum pressures at two different 
temperatures.  To correct for hysteresis, it is necessary to construct an 
unloading correction curve based on the maximum pressure applied to the sensor.

4.	Pressure Hysteresis Correction

A simple method for approximating the unloading curve correction uses the ratio 
of the observed maximum pressure to the calibration maximum pressure to scale 
the amount of hysteresis measured in the calibration (see Figure 3.0; not 
included):

1.  A pressure calibration is performed to some maximum calibration pressure 
    (the "loading" calibration), then back to zero pressure (the "unloading" 
    calibration). Sufficient calibration points are taken to clearly define the 
    response curve. The calibration is then used to correct sensor response.
2.  The sensor response is corrected using the temperature correction and the 
    loading calibration correction until the pressure decreases (begins 
    unloading). The corrected maximum loading pressure P(max) and the maximum 
    calibration pressure P(cal) are noted.
3.  The proportion P(max)/P(cal) is calculated. The amount of hysteresis (the 
    difference between loading and unloading calibration curves) at 0 decibars 
    is scaled by P(max)/P(cal) to give H(0). The amount of hysteresis at P(max) 
    gives H(max).
4.  The slope and intercept of the line between H(0) and H(max) is calculated.
5.  At any pressure less than P(max), the difference between this line and the 
    original unloading curve represents the amount of hysteresis at that 
    pressure. This difference, when subtracted from the original loading curve, 
    generates the unloading curve.

Complications to this technique are introduced when repeated raising and 
lowering of the CTD (a "yo-yo" cast) is necessary. The correction scheme must 
provide a mechanism for returning along the unloading curve to the loading curve 
when the original maximum pressure is exceeded, and the construction of a new 
unloading curve based on the most recent maximum pressure.

Figure 4.0*.
Calibration data for the correction interpolation model.

5.	Correction Interpolation Model

The correction interpolation model for pressure developed by the authors 
combines the modeled thermal response-correction and unloading curve 
interpolation techniques previously described with tables of calibration data 
(Figure 4.0*).  The calibration data are organized into tables at different 
calibration temperatures (stored in ascending temperature sequence).  The first 
table contains the calibration pressures for the loading curve, followed by 
calibration pressures for each of the measured unloading curves (stored from 
shallowest to deepest maximum pressures).  The pressures are stored in ascending 
sequence for each curve.  Subsequent tables, at each calibration temperature, 
contain the raw pressure measurement corresponding to the calibration pressure 
at the calibration temperature.  Each table has the same number of points as its 
corresponding calibration pressures table.  The number of temperatures and 
unloading curves are only limited by the amount of calibration information 
necessary to properly correct the response of a particular sensor to the 
required degree of accuracy.

The model uses the current raw pressure and a sensor temperature modeled from 
the in-situ temperature to look-up the corrected pressures of adjacent 
calibration points from the calibration tables.  The corrected pressure is then 
calculated by linear interpolation of the adjacent calibration points.

The model is initialized when in-situ conductivity exceeds a previously-
established "in-water" value.  A pressure correction (known pressure minus 
observed pressure) is interpolated from the calibration data loading curves 
bracketing the current sensor temperature.  An offset is calculated (the 
correction still required to bring the pressure to 0.0 db after the correction 
interpolated from the loading curves is applied).  This offset is applied to the 
first loading curve interval.  The model is now in the "loading" state.

The model continues in the "loading" state as long as pressure does not 
decrease.  Calibrated pressures are interpolated from four adjacent loading 
curve points: two higher-pressure points and two lower-pressure points at two 
adjacent temperatures.

When pressure decreases, the model enters the "unloading" state.  Unloading 
curves are calculated for the two adjacent temperature calibration tables, using 
the differences between loading and unloading curves.  In this model, the 
possibility of multiple calibration unloading curves permits the construction of 
an unloading curve from the shallowest calibration curve that originates at a 
pressure deeper than the maximum observed pressure.  Using the sensor 
temperature, a correction is interpolated from the two calculated unloading 
curves.  If the CTD is again lowered, the calculated unloading curves are 
followed until the original maximum pressure is reached.  The model then reverts 
to the "loading" state.

The pressure correction is extrapolated if the CTD pressure exceeds the maximum 
calibration pressure.  As the maximum calibration pressure is typically close to 
full-scale, the practice of exceeding this pressure should be restricted.

The model also extrapolates corrections for temperatures outside the range of 
available calibration information.  This is reasonable behavior for Mark III 
pressure transducers, which generally exhibit linear temperature response. 
Certain types of pressure sensors (e.g., piezo-electric quartz transducers) that 
exhibit nonlinear temperature response would necessarily be calibrated at more 
temperatures to adequately define the temperature response.  Any new or unknown 
pressure sensor should be calibrated at several temperatures to insure the 
thermal response is adequately defined.  Subsequent recalibrations can be at 
fewer temperatures if the response is linear.

A graphical representation of the ODF interpolation model is presented in Figure 
5.0*.

Figure 5.0*.
A graphic representation of the ODF interpolation method of pressure 
correction.  The left and right hysteresis curves were measured at 22.75°C 
and 0.9°C, respectively.  The black circles are the loading curve points and 
the grey circles two unloading curves: from 6080db and from 1398db.  The 
center hysteresis curve is interpolated by a computer model at 10.0°C with 
unloading curves at 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 and 5000db.

6.	Further Information

WOCE participants interested in implementing either model, or who have further 
questions can contact the authors at the Oceanographic Data Facility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix B:

CTD Dissolved Oxygen Data Processing

F.M. Delahoyde

Oceanographic Data Facility
Scripps Institution of Oceanography

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the techniques used at the Oceanographic Data Facility 
(ODF) for processing CTD dissolved oxygen data acquired from NBIS Mark III 
instruments, employing Sensormedics  dissolved oxygen sensors.  The response 
characteristics of the sensors are discussed and deployment methods examined. An 
for converting the measured oxygen current, pressure, temperature and 
salinity to dissolved oxygen concentration is presented.  The determination of 
calibration coefficients from Winkler titration check-sample data is discussed. 
Results from the application of the algorithm to some recently-collected data 
sets are examined.

August 31, 1993
Preliminary Draft

1.	Introduction

The Oceanographic Data Facility (ODF) at SIO has been making CTD measurements 
since the early 1970s, primarily using NBIS instrumentation.  These instruments 
employ Sensormedics*1 sensors to effect dissolved O2 measurement.
(*1-Formerly Beckman)

Correcting the non-linear response characteristics of these sensors has driven 
the evolution of a series of sensor models.  Early attempts at laboratory 
calibration had proven futile, due to poor sensor stability and a lack of data 
on dynamic response characteristics.  A practical field calibration technique 
proved to be fitting sensor model coefficients to differences between modified 
Winkler titration check-sample data and the sensor measurements.  Refinements in 
this technique has led to a better understanding of the secondary and dynamic 
responses inherent in these sensors.

The check-sample and sensor data are collected with a 24 or 36-place rosette 
system containing a CTD.  A conducting wire is used to lower and raise the 
package, transmit check-sample trip signals to the rosette, and transmit CTD 
data to the ship for real-time analysis.  O2 check-samples are normally drawn 
from all bottles.  At routine profiling velocities of 50-80 m/min, the processed 
CTD data provide 1-2 meters of vertical resolution in temperature and salinity 
structure, and 10-15 meters in dissolved O2 structure.

2.	The Sensor and Sensor Interface

The Sensormedics sensor is a membrane-covered polarographic detector consisting 
of a 0.5 mil thick FEP Teflon membrane covering a layer of KCl gel.  A gold 
cathode is the sensing electrode, and a silver electrode serves as both the 
anode and the reference.  A 0.8 volt potential applied across the two electrodes 
results in a current proportional to the activity of O2 diffusing through the 
membrane and gel, and reducing at the cathode:

			O2+2H2O+4e--->4OH-

The NBIS interface to the Sensormedics sensor employs a current to frequency 
converter with a sample period of 1.024 seconds.  The sensor frequency is 
resolved to 11-bits, with a full-scale value corresponding to 2.047 µamps.  The 
NBIS interface also provides for an 8-bit digitized O2 membrane temperature, 
which is not used by ODF.  The interface electronics are contained within the 
CTD pressure case.  The sensor is mounted in an ODF-designed pressure-
compensating holder, which is typically attached to the rosette frame in 
proximity to the CTD end-cap.  The sensor assembly plugs into a bulkhead 
connector in the end-cap through an underwater cable, providing easy servicing 
and sensor replacement.

3.	Deployment and Maintenance

The Teflon membrane is extremely vulnerable to petroleum distillates, such as 
diesel oil.  Care is taken to deploy the package through clean water.

Between casts, an air-tight plexi-glass cover is fixed over the sensor.  The 
cover contains an absorbent tissue moistened with distilled water.  The sensor 
membrane is periodically examined for any obvious external damage or 
contamination.

4.	Sensor Response Characteristics
4.1.	O2 Response

The O2 response of the sensor depends upon the O2 activity at the sensor 
cathode.  The selectivity of the reaction is generally guaranteed by the 
relatively anodic value for its equilibrium potential[1].  However, a network of 
reactions can occur at the cathode, depending upon the exact state and ionic 
species present.  H2O2 can appear as a stable reaction intermediate and is 
reduced[2], aliasing the O2 signal.

The sensitivity of the O2 response is determined by the O2 diffusion-rate 
through the membrane diffusion layer.  This is determined by temperature and 
pressure.

4.2.	Temperature Response

The rate of O2 diffusion through the Teflon membrane is primarily determined by 
temperature.  The diffusion rate can be characterized:

		Q(d)= (P(0)/b)e^(-Ep/RT) 		(4.2.0)

where P(0) is a constant for FEP Teflon, b is the membrane thickness, Ep is the 
activation energy for permeation, R is the gas constant and T is temperature. 
Changes in temperature affect the sensitivity of the O2 response.

Secondary temperature effects include changes in sensor geometry due to thermal 
expansion or compression (changing membrane tension), and thermal sensitivity of 
the interface electronics.

4.3.	Pressure Response

The crystalline structure of FEP Teflon changes with pressure.  This affects the 
membrane permeability, and sensitivity of the sensor[3].

4.4.	Flow-dependence

When the flow rate across the sensor membrane decreases below a certain level, 
depletion of dissolved O2 in seawater adjacent to the membrane occurs.  The 
sensor current drops as the membrane diffusion layer thickness is effectively 
increased. Sensormedics recommends a minimum profiling velocity of 17 m/min.

4.5.	Response Time

The time constant for the response of the sensor to an O2 step-change at 20°C in 
surface seawater is nominally 2 seconds.  This is the optimal case, and is 
beyond the Nyquist frequency of the sampling electronics.  At lower temperatures 
and higher pressures, the time constant can exceed 15 seconds.

5.	Calibration

Repeated exposures to low temperatures and high pressures adversely affects the 
stability of the sensor, making laboratory calibration unfeasible.  Calibration 
to Winkler titration check-samples insures the prompt detection of sensor 
malfunctions.

The Winkler titration measures dissolved O2 concentration.  In contrast, the 
polarographic O2 sensor measures O2 activity.  It is necessary to correct for 
salinity, temperature, and pressure effects when calculating concentrations from 
activity[4,5].

ODF normally collects at least 12 check-samples per cast.  The oxygens are 
generally titrated within 6 hours of the cast.  Modeling coefficients and time-
constants are then fit to the check-samples.

6.	The Model

The general form of the ODF O2 conversion equation follows WHOI[6,7] and 
NBIS[8]:

	O2=[c1O(c)+c2]f(sat)(T,S) e^(c3P+c4T(m)) 		(6.0) 

where:

O2 is the dissolved O2 concentration;
O(c) is the sensor current, in µamps;
f(sat)(S,T,P) is the O2 saturation concentration at T,S in ml/l;
S is the salinity, in PSUs;
T is the temperature, in °C;
P is the pressure at O2 response-time, in decibars;
T(m) is the temperature of the sensor membrane, in °C.
c1, c2, c3 and c4 are coefficients to be determined through check-sample 
comparison.

T(m) is derived by NBIS from the digitized O2 temperature.  ODF instead models a 
membrane temperature by low-pass filtering the PRT temperature.  In situ 
pressure and temperature are filtered to match the sensor response.  Time-
constants for the pressure response tau-p, and two temperature responses tau-Ts 
and tau-Tf are fitting parameters.  The O(c) gradient is approximated by low-
pass filtering 1st-order O(c) differences.  This term attempts to correct for 
reduction of species other than O2 at the cathode.  The time-constant for this 
filter, tau-og, is a fitting parameter. Oxygen partial-pressure is then 
calculated:

O(pp)=[c1O(c)+c2] f(sat) (S,T,P) e^(c3Pl+c4Tf+c5Ts+c6 (dOc/dt))		(6.1)

where:

O(pp) is the dissolved O2 partial-pressure in atmospheres;
O(c) is the sensor current, in µamps;
f(sat)(S,T,P) is the O2 saturation partial-pressure at S,T,P in atmospheres;
S is the salinity at O2 response-time, in PSUs;
T is the temperature at O2 response-time, in °C;
P is the pressure at O2 response-time, in decibars;
Pl is the low-pass filtered pressure, in decibars;
Tf is the fast low-pass filtered temperature, in °C;
Ts is the slow low-pass filtered temperature, in °C;
dOc/dt is the sensor current gradient.

c1, c2, c3, c4, c5 andc6 are coefficients determined by applying a modified 
Levenberg-Marquardt non-linear least-squares fitting procedure *2 to differences 
from the Winkler titration check-sample data.
(*2-Procedure snls1 from the Stanford SLATEC math library.) 

CTD O2 current values used for the fit are normally extracted from the down-cast 
at iso-pycnals corresponding to the actual up-cast check-sample points.  This is 
done to avoid the flow-dependence problems occurring at bottle stops.

The response time-constants tau-Ts and tau-P (slow temperature and pressure) are 
typically determined once for a cruise.  The other two time-constants tau-og and 
tau-Tf (O2 current gradient and fast temperature) show some variability and are 
determined for each sensor deployment.  The remaining modeling coefficients are 
determined for each sensor deployment.

7.	Results

8.	Summary

References

[1] Hitchman, M.L., Measurement of Dissolved Oxygen, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and 
    Orbisphere Corp., 1978.
[2] Damjanovic, A., in Modern Aspects of Electrochemistry, (J. O'M. Bockris and 
    B.E. Conway, Eds.), No. 5, Butterworths, London, 1969.
[3] Hopfenburg, H.B., Ed., Permeability of Plastic Films and Coatings to Gases, 
    Vapors and Liquids, Plenum Press, New York, 1974.
[4] Weiss, R. F., "The solubility of nitrogen, oxygen and argon in water and 
    seawater." Deep-Sea Research, 17, 721 (1970).
[5] Eckert, C.A., "The thermodynamics of gases dissolved at great depths." 
    Science, 180, 426 (1973).
[6] Millard, R.C. Jr., "CTD calibration and data processing techniques at WHOI 
    using the practical salinity scale", Proc. Int. STD Conference and Workshop, 
    La Jolla, Mar. Tech. Soc., 19pp. (1982).
[7] Owens, W.B. and Millard, R.C. Jr., "A new algorithm for CTD oxygen 
    calibration", Journ. of Am. Meteorological Soc., 15, 621 (1985).
[8] Brown, N.L. and Morrison, G.K., "WHOI/Brown conductivity, temperature and 
    depth microprofiler", Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Technical Report 
    No. 78-23, 1978.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix C


Calibration Figures*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1a*:	CTD #1 Pre-cruise Pressure Calibration
Figure 1b*:	CTD #1 Post-cruise Pressure Calibration

Figure 1c*:	CTD #1 Averaged Pressure Calibration plus Offset used for JUNO2

Figure 2a*:	CTD #1 Warm-to-Cold Thermal Shock Data
Figure 2b*:	CTD #1 Cold-to-Warm Thermal Shock Data

Figure 3a*:	CTD #1 Pre-cruise PRT-1 Temperature Calibration (ITS-90)
Figure 3b*:	CTD #1 Post-cruise PRT-1 Temperature Calibration (ITS-90)

Figure 4a*:	JUNO2 Conductivity Slopes
Figure 4b*:	JUNO2 Conductivity Offsets

Figure 5a*:	JUNO2 Residual Conductivity Differences (Bottle-CTD) - All Pressures
Figure 5b*:	JUNO2 Residual Conductivity Differences (Bottle-CTD) - 
		Pressure>1500dbar

Figure 6a*:	JUNO2 Residual Dissolved Oxygen Differences (UpBottle-DownCTD) - All 
		Pressures
Figure 6b*:	JUNO2 Residual Dissolved Oxygen Differences (UpBottle-DownCTD) - 
		Pressure>1500dbar

NOTE: Some data may fall outside of the plotted limits.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix D

Tables of Processing Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 6:	CTD Shipboard and Processing Comments
Table 7:	Cast Stops Longer Than One Minute
Table 8:	CTD Temperature and Conductivity Corrections Summary
Table 9:	CTD Oxygen Time Constants
Table 10:	CTD Oxygen Levenberg-Marquardt Non-Linear Least-Squares-Fit 
		Coefficients

Table 6:  CTD Shipboard and Processing Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station/cast	Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
128/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; vcr stopped prematurely, not noticed 
	until cast end.
129/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
130/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; xmiss might be working improperly.
131/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated.
132/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
133/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; rough seas/long station.
134/01	0-4 dbar level extrapolated; new end termination and 24-place pylon 
	change prior to cast; bad weather.
135/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
136/01
137/01
138/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; data acqsn started incorrectly; restart 
	in air.
139/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; corner station; dbI computer confirm at 
	btl 2.
140/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
141/01	0-4 dbar level extrapolated.
142/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; 24-plc pylon repaired prior to cast; 
	cast terminated abnormally.
143/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
144/01	0-4 dbar level extrapolated.
145/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
146/02	0 dbar level extrapolated; winch not zeroed prior to cast or meter 
	slipping.
147/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
148/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
149/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated.
150/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; altimeter erratic at btm apprch; dbI 
	computer confirm at btl. 30.
151/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated.
152/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; btl test: 3 btls tripped at next to btm 
	level.
153/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; 24 btls only, cast delayed by weather.
154/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; 24 btls due to bad weather.
155/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; new end termination prior to cast.
156/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; 2 btls tripped at next to btm level.
157/02	0 dbar level extrapolated; 2 btls tripped at next to btm level; cast 
	terminated abnormally.
158/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
159/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated.
160/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
161/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; trip inner pylon first for freons.
162/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
163/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated.
164/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; southernmost P17S station; long lead 
	time in raw ctd - ice delayed launch.
165/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
166/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated.
167/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
168/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated.
169/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
170/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated.
171/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
172/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated.
173/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated.
174/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated.
175/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
176/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; first station E of E. Pac. Rise.
177/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
178/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
179/01	0-4 dbar level extrapolated.
180/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; problems w/voltage 3x during cast; 
	24v->12v; fiddled w/ 'DCMilli' to incrs. Apparent -0.003 TS shift at 
	(1.7 deg theta, 3000db) of downcast; seems to return at 1950db on upcast.
181/01	0-118 dbar level extrapolated; O2 sensor Dot working at cast start 
	(20 uamps); ok 150m+. -0.01 salt spike at 1.75 deg theta on downcast 
	(maybe biological).
182/01	0-4 dbar level extrapolated; No O2 signal at start (0 uamps); on at 
	250m but not working properly.
183/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; Bad O2 signal top 200m of down cast.
184/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; O2 sensor changed from 2-6-9 to 2-6-10; 
	reads 0 uamps in water; hard launch.
185/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; O2 sensor started a little high; lots 
	of noise.
186/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; O2 sensor screwy after 80m; 4 computer 
	confirms at btl 33.
187/02	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; FMD: various O2 sensor problems since 
	182 seem to be fixed, not sure what Carl did; console operator: no O2 rdgs 
	(on same co log); srfc sampled while package moving.
188/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; some O2 noise.
189/01	0-4 dbar level extrapolated; initial CTD launch aborted due to green 
	water over side - several lanyards/spigots broken on outer rosette. CTD 
	brought inside hangar for repairs, removed inner rosette prior to re-
	launch.
190/01	0-4 dbar level extrapolated; srfc sampled while package moving.
191/01	0-4 dbar level extrapolated; new end termination; moved off orig. 
	station position due to seamount.
192/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated.
193/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
194/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; -0.005 salt shift at 1.55 deg theta 
	(2730-60db) on downcast. Seems to return on upcast. Maybe biological. UP
195/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
196/01
197/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
198/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
199/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated.
200/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; winch zeroed about 10m in; 2 computer 
	confirms at btl 18.
201/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; wind about 30 knots; 5 computer 
	confirms/no DU confirm at btm btl.
202/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; new end termination prior to cast; dbI 
	computer confirm at btl 33.
203/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated.
204/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated.
205/01
206/02	5 computer confirms at btm btl, no DU confirm. Elapsed time problem 
	fixed, PRT-2 replaced by FSI Pressure; -0.004 salt shift at 2350db on 
	downcast. Seems to wash off. UP
207/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; 6 minute NIW at cast start.
208/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; vcr turned on 7 minutes after cast in 
	water; CTD-id on DU apparently switched from 1 to 9 before btm approach 
	thru abt 3500db up.
209/01	new 24-place pylon #2810 this cast; btl 11/531db tripped on the fly. 
	no DU confirm/5 computer confirms at btls 28 and 35; xmiss out at 
	4130db/back again at 5200db (down or up?),
210/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; FMD: strange xmiss signal 1720-3760 
	down, not on upcast.
211/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; xmiss out at 2800, back at 4300db down; -
	0.003 salt shift at 1.2 deg theta on downcast. Returns at 0.4 deg theta on 
	upcast. UP
212/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; changed pylon before this cast.
213/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; +0.004 salt shift at .22 deg theta on 
	upcast (trip #5, bottle 32). Looks like it stays.
214/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; xmiss signal weak/gone 2600-3800m. down, 
	A on up.
215/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; xmiss up to 17490 at 2430db, back at 
	2830db.
216/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; changed pylon prior to cast (now 2803); 
	vcr started at 475m/10 mins. down.
217/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; btl 34 tripped on the fly; 3x-0.002 salt 
	drops at 2400db on downcast.  Probably biological. UP
218/02	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; short voltage drop at 70m down; xmiss 
	out at 2236-2733.
219/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; new pylon #2810; sm. seamount shifted 
	station location; vcr started 20 mins. late; -0.003 salt shift at 1.6 deg 
	theta (2040db) on downcast; looks like it stays. UP
220/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
221/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; xmiss looks ok.
222/01
223/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
224/01	0-4 dbar level extrapolated.
225/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
226/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
227/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
228/01	0 dbar level extrapolated.
229/02	0 dbar level extrapolated; 5xcomputer confirms/no DU confirm at btm. 
	btl; some comment about 2 try trips at btls 13/12 (pylon change); odd 
	trip/smpl# in computer for btl 3; vcr started after 4 minutes of cast. UP
230/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; no DU confirm/5 computer confirms at ban 
	btl.
231/01	0-2 dbar level extrapolated; change to pylon 2805 prior to cast; dbl 
	computer confirm at btl 23.
232/01	0 dbar level extrapolated; wind 17 knots; air -0.5 deg.C.
233/01	3 trips at lvl above btm for O2 draw test.


Table 7: Cast Stops Longer Than One Minute
station	down	minutes	average	pressure
/cast	/up	stopped	pressure	range
			(decibars)	(decibars)
133/01	DOWN	1.1	  12		(10 - 14)
140/01	DOWN	1.1	   6		(4 - 8)
146/02	DOWN	1.1	  78		(76 - 80)
149/01	DOWN	2.0	  46		(44 - 48)
150/01	DOWN	1.3	4248		(4246 - 4250)
166/01	DOWN	2.7	4137		(4132 - 4142)
182/01	DOWN	1.6	3052		(3048 - 3056)
206/02	DOWN	1.2	5144		(5142 - 5146)
208/01	DOWN	2.1	5010		(5008 - 5012)
210/01	DOWN	6.1	   1		(0 - 2)

Table 8: CTD Temperature and Conductivity Corrections Summary
	PRT Response	Temperature Coefficients		Conductivity Coefficients	
Station/  Time		(Tcor = t2T^2	+t1T + t0)		(Ccor = c1C + c0)	
Cast	(seconds)   t2		    t1		   t0		    c1		   c0
128/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00664
129/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00624
130/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00584
131/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00544
132/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00504
133/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00464
134/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
135/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
136/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
137/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
138/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
139/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
140/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
141/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
142/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
143/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
144/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
145/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00302
146/02	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
147/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
148/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
149/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
150/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
151/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
152/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
153/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
154/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
155/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00452
156/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
157/02	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
158/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
159/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
160/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
161/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
162/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
163/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
164/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
165/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
166/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
167/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
168/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
169/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
170/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
171/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
172/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
173/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
174/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
175/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00552
176/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00552
177/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00552
178/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00552
179/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
180/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
181/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
182/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
183/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
184/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00552
185/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00502
186/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00352
187/02	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00352
188/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00352
189/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00352
190/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00352
191/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00352
192/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00352
193/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00352
194/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e4)4	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
195/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
196/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
197/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
198/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
199/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
200/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
201/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
202/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00302
203/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
204/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
205/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00402
206/02	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00254
207/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00204
208/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00204
209/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00204
210/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00204
211/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00204
212/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00204
213/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00204
214/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00204	
215/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00204
216/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00204
217/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00204
218/02	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00204
219/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00578
220/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00556
221/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00534
222/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00512
223/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00490
224/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00469
225/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00447
226/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00425
227/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00403
228/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00381
229/02	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00609
230/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00337
231/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00315
232/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00293
233/01	.30	2.22788e-05	-8.80861e-04	-1.48332	-2.92177e-04	0.00272

Table 9: CTD Oxygen Time Constants
Pressure	Temperature	O2 Gradient
tau-P		tau-Tf	tau-Ts	tau-og
19.4		32.0	363.0	60.0

Table 10: CTD Oxygen Levenberg-Marquardt Non-linear Least-Squares-Fit Coefficients
Station/	c1		c2		c3		c4		c5		c6
Cast		Slope		Offset		Pressure	Temperature	Temperature	Gradient
						(fast)		(slow)
128/01		1.32274e-03	 6.41484e-02	1.18899e-04	 3.99009e-02	-6.47692e-02	-3.54384e-04
129/01		1.47047e-03	 1.69524e-03	1.44619e-04	-2.27546e-02	-2.10247e-02	-1.83009e-04
130/01		1.53160e-03	-5.92498e-03	1.42950e-04	-3.89309e-02	-1.51618e-02	-2.18198e-04
131/01		1.60595e-03	-3.00755e-02	1.47005e-04	-1.03190e-02	-3.90786e-02	-1.70724e-04
132/01		1.47387e-03	 4.09383e-03	1.48803e-04	-1.38448e-02	-2.66836e-02	-8.76100e-05
133/01		1.47295e-03	-7.07102e-03	1.50251e-04	-2.49232e-02	-1.57646e-02	-1.18012e-04
134/01		1.52824e-03	-1.25122e-02	1.47817e-04	-3.27657e-02	-1.56857e-02	-1.73410e-04
135/01		1.65170e-03	-5.67306e-02	1.59692e-04	 1.85105e-04	-4.89594e-02	-1.48090e-04
136/01		1.20346e-03	 8.83890e-02	1.22391e-04	 3.30748e-03	-2.82772e-02	-9.35620e-05
137/01		1.01483e-03	 1.01523e-01	1.41301e-04	-2.69214e-02	 1.79594e-02	-8.46960e-05
138/01		1.49520e-03	-3.52892e-03	1.46074e-04	-2.79107e-02	-1.85991e-02	-1.34791e-04
139/01		1.27732e-03	 4.86021e-02	1.40285e-04	-2.53128e-02	-5.64545e-03	-1.37420e-04
140/01		1.63320e-03	-2.25205e-02	1.39393e-04	-1.86389e-02	-3.85086e-02	-8.95440e-04
141/01		1.80093e-03	-7.61090e-02	1.54262e-04	-2.89706e-02	-3.86470e-02	-1.17178e-04
142/01		1.35535e-03	 2.36302e-02	1.48523e-04	-2.59237e-02	-1.00538e-02	-1.81584e-04
143/01		1.62340e-03	-3.13264e-02	1.47264e-04	-1.33178e-02	-3.81114e-02	-1.54760e-04
144/01		1.52185e-03	-3.95454e-03	1.40741e-04	 2.50477e-03	-4.50158e-02	-1.20048e-04
145/01		1.33821e-03	 4.97285e-02	1.34225e-04	 1.54387e-02	-4.77534e-02	-3.47318e-04
146/02		1.44620e-03	 3.03548e-02	1.29366e-04	 9.72231e-03	-5.31710e-02	-2.94929e-04
147/01		1.42040e-03	 3.30141e-02	1.32533e-04	-1.82464e-03	-4.29825e-02	 1.04796e-05
148/01		1.52143e-03	 4.54982e-03	1.36972e-04	 1.44680e-02	-6.09740e-02	-1.39547e-04
149/01		2.04093e-03	-2.25055e-03	8.33706e-05	 1.00584e-01	-2.20971e-01	-1.83555e-04
150/01		1.71767e-03	-5.47089e-03	1.18525e-04	-6.54671e-02	-2.63931e-02	-1.11969e-04
151/01		1.75480e-03	 8.96957e-02	6.75646e-05	-3.22419e-02	-9.89582e-02	-1.76157e-04
152/01		1.71534e-03	 6.24454e-02	8.48531e-05	 1.32564e-02	-1.21093e-01	-1.33489e-04
153/01		1.50783e-03	 4.38289e-02	1.15589e-04	-3.46881e-02	-3.85157e-02	-1.16455e-04
154/01		1.22985e-03	 1.07574e-01	1.11498e-04	-7.09190e-02	 2.48097e-02	-1.03809e-04
155/01		7.65209e-04	 3.40937e-01	4.84840e-05	-7.57064e-02	 2.89606e-03	-2.56664e-02
156/01		1.37176e-03	 1.08602e-01	9.55996e-05	-4.88818e-02	-3.42515e-02	 9.92672e-05
157/02		1.31261e-03	 1.14785e-01	9.94186e-05	-5.81724e-02	-1.58517e-02	-3.22279e-03
158/01		1.28435e-03	 1.06625e-01	1.05997e-04	-6.73229e-02	 6.43001e-03	-1.43741e-05
159/01		1.29063e-03	 1.28667e-01	9.56821e-05	-5.41292e-02	-2.20236e-02	-9.49253e-05
160/01		1.09287e-03	 1.71724e-01	9.36947e-05	-1.15978e-01	 6.14165e-02	-1.23883e-04
161/01		1.35100e-03	 8.35100e-02	1.12668e-04	-5.73305e-02	-6.09134e-03	-6.53362e-03
162/01		1.18085e-03	 1.57362e-01	9.23950e-05	-6.11699e-02	-3.61270e-03	-6.56609e-05
163/01		9.66954e-04	 2.32399e-01	7.85504e-05	-6.09003e-02	 2.36460e-03	-1.37845e-03
164/01		1.61146e-03	-2.06343e-01	3.09999e-04	 1.08193e-01	-3.04070e-02	-1.00074e-04
165/01		1.20420e-03	 4.19849e-02	1.58463e-04	-1.36015e-02	-3.84333e-03	-4.28509e-05
166/01		1.36547e-03	 3.10701e-02	1.38234e-04	 2.79167e-03	-3.25557e-02	 1.76958e-05
167/01		7.94688e-04	 1.30193e-01	1.50093e-04	-1.68831e-02	 3.61796e-02	-1.00496e-04
168/01		6.06415e-04	 1.96321e-01	1.22350e-04	 4.48651e-02	-2.28515e-03	-1.04291e-03
169/01		1.08080e-03	 9.98814e-02	1.28765e-04	 1.61049e-02	-2.34577e-02	-5.09434e-04
170/01		1.24831e-03	 4.01477e-02	1.53778e-04	-4.94506e-02	 1.95436e-02	 4.72373e-05
171/01		1.30518e-03	 3.94273e-02	1.44623e-04	-2.70912e-02	-6.05209e-03	-5.66360e-04
172/01		1.60026e-03	 4.87778e-02	1.71556e-04	-4.48133e-02	-9.66119e-03	-1.44141e-04
173/01		1.76786e-03	-4.86630e-02	1.42516e-04	 1.22928e-04	-6.22424e-02	-1.27851e-04
174/01		1.43074e-03	 2.69346e-03	1.57401e-04	-4.99663e-02	 4.54527e-03	-2.54365e-05
175/01		1.06123e-03	 9.35980e-02	1.40966e-04	-2.55265e-02	 1.70800e-02	-7.08518e-05
176/01		1.48485e-03	 8.35991e-03	1.44874e-04	 1.20898e-02	-5.49532e-02	-9.02097e-05
177/01		1.30458e-03	 4.22093e-02	1.44453e-04	-2.12087e-02	-1.05403e-02	-7.90242e-05
178/01		1.30128e-03	 2.61648e-02	1.56407e-04	-3.91859e-02	 1.06808e-02	-1.75976e-05
179/01		1.05883e-03	 1.02973e-01	1.31824e-04	 1.61426e-03	-9.28807e-03	-5.41197e-05
180/01		2.50704e-03	-2.28698e-01	1.53160e-04	 1.90096e-02	-1.12517e-01	-2.78905e-04
181/01		5.35896e-04	 2.00350e-01	1.29668e-04	 1.44141e-02	 3.51862e-02	 3.16627e-05
182/01		2.51658e-03	-2.03203e-01	1.37025e-04	 1.51898e-04	-1.03889e-01	-3.62385e-03
183/01		6.66380e-04	 1.73299e-01	1.33526e-04	 1.54610e-02	 1.94780e-02	 4.24976e-03
184/01		8.09220e-04	-1.25915e-01	1.05854e-04	 4.55990e-02	-5.71646e-02	 1.41267e-02
185/01		-3.65760e-03	 1.11902e+00	5.71379e-04	-8.19884e-01	-2.74670e-01	 1.16944e-02
186/01		-1.38436e-03	 7.49511e-01	2.59175e-05	 1.16284e-01	 1.84425e-01	 1.64110e-02
187/02		1.00000e-03	 0.00000e+00	1.50000e-04	 0.00000e+00	-3.00000e-02	-3.00000e-02
188/01		2.40499e-04	 1.96536e-01	1.71383e-04	 2.43468e-02	 8.16150e-02	 1.26636e-05
189/01		2.97625e-04	 1.78999e-01	1.76573e-04	 1.11978e-02	 8.22347e-02	-9.86010e-07
190/01		1.16341e-03	 2.05553e-02	1.40411e-04	 1.10475e-03	-3.51682e-02	 1.69456e-05
191/01		6.73384e-04	 1.28664e-01	1.47798e-04	-1.18349e-02	 3.12575e-02	-2.03076e-05
192/01		4.76989e-04	 1.67504e-01	1.54666e-04	 4.56198e-03	 4.80909e-02	-2.52192e-05
193/01		1.02030e-03	 5.38218e-02	1.41462e-04	-8.45487e-03	-1.21482e-02	-3.70134e-05
194/01		1.56446e-03	-5.54520e-02	1.26125e-04	-7.37437e-03	-5.17468e-02	-5.11035e-03
195/01		1.08241e-03	 3.86020e-02	1.40541e-04	-6.42746e-03	-2.10030e-02	-2.21297e-05
196/01		7.77304e-04	 4.79018e-02	1.79461e-04	-1.79061e-02	 2.23086e-02	-7.47284e-05
197/01		6.72600e-04	 9.06029e-02	1.64669e-04	-3.61449e-02	 5.01406e-02	-8.68229e-05
198/01		9.25434e-04	 9.34218e-02	1.28511e-04	-3.91881e-03	-1.53597e-02	-3.40619e-05
199/01		7.45315e-04	 6.10575e-02	1.74482e-04	-4.32649e-02	 4.45163e-02	-9.64643e-05
200/01		1.23777e-03	-3.67289e-02	1.55265e-04	 3.37256e-03	-4.78104e-02	-2.72637e-05
201/01		1.26775e-03	-5.61717e-02	1.63052e-04	 4.96858e-02	-9.17816e-02	-1.65994e-04
202/01		1.13257e-03	-4.19666e-02	1.66125e-04	 1.81419e-02	-4.91592e-02	-1.79678e-04
203/01		1.07992e-03	-2.23047e-02	1.79480e-04	-8.58426e-03	-1.89110e-02	-4.61580e-06
204/01		1.19188e-03	-1.98465e-02	1.58137e-04	-1.20112e-02	-3.14890e-02	-6.46903e-05
205/01		1.30427e-03	-6.58933e-02	1.72185e-04	-5.52030e-03	-4.60638e-02	-8.15280e-05
206/02		1.26548e-03	-8.48809e-02	1.73555e-04	-1.64139e-02	-3.01714e-02	-7.26468e-05
207/01		1.24572e-03	-9.85550e-02	2.02978e-04	-7.84835e-03	-3.27355e-02	-5.07499e-05
208/01		1.80047e-03	-2.00269e-01	1.75473e-04	 9.85630e-04	-9.26587e-02	-3.79948e-05
209/01		1.21508e-03	 1.46787e-03	1.39317e-04	 1.79174e-02	-5.83694e-02	-1.15916e-05
210/01		1.03896e-03	-1.48976e-02	1.75134e-04	-5.28453e-02	 2.04362e-02	 2.38630e-04
211/01		1.37921e-03	-2.01437e-02	1.32461e-04	-2.66205e-02	-2.03715e-02	-3.03677e-03
212/01		1.08239e-03	-3.48856e-02	1.83517e-04	-5.25931e-03	-2.39519e-02	-6.75494e-05
213/01		9.75730e-04	 1.47312e-02	1.68616e-04	-1.30436e-01	 8.92381e-02	 8.05287e-05
214/01		7.13489e-04	 1.35307e-01	1.27753e-04	-5.58071e-02	 4.69213e-02	-2.90880e-05
215/01		1.16329e-03	-6.04951e-02	1.92254e-04	-2.47305e-02	-1.28801e-02	-3.56344e-05
216/01		1.14497e-03	-5.27313e-02	1.88445e-04	-2.65868e-02	-8.09393e-03	 4.36303e-05
217/01		1.40938e-03	-5.94384e-02	1.48763e-04	-8.44928e-03	-3.08021e-02	-1.14773e-04
218/02		1.03718e-03	 2.18459e-02	1.42477e-04	-2.83981e-02	 4.82055e-03	-1.35934e-06
219/01		1.06732e-03	 4.77032e-02	1.30474e-04	-3.54010e-02	 2.21703e-02	-2.53021e-03
220/01		1.30401e-03	-7.37985e-02	1.76257e-04	 7.72411e-03	-7.07816e-02	 1.04970e-07
221/01		9.08167e-04	 4.56561e-02	1.61375e-04	-1.84142e-02	 6.33392e-03	 2.36243e-05
222/01		9.50214e-04	 2.48886e-02	1.67554e-04	-3.34525e-02	 2.14865e-02	-2.82781e-05
223/01		1.07917e-03	-6.23855e-03	1.65786e-04	 2.03891e-03	-3.26455e-02	 1.93457e-04
224/01		1.04585e-03	 1.14037e-02	1.58948e-04	-1.71851e-02	-1.63058e-02	 5.37781e-05
225/01		9.94097e-04	 6.86713e-02	1.36212e-04	-2.15705e-02	-3.42346e-02	 2.01281e-04
226/01		1.08018e-03	-1.33324e-02	1.71803e-04	-1.00280e-02	-2.62160e-02	 2.36765e-05
227/01		1.10951e-03	 2.90095e-02	1.39900e-04	-3.27465e-02	-3.74694e-02	-7.48011e-04
228/01		9.73280e-04	 5.53297e-02	1.44674e-04	-1.87504e-02	-2.22699e-02	 6.53409e-05
229/02		1.13230e-03	-5.12981e-02	1.83721e-04	-1.13226e-02	 5.55479e-02	-1.08293e-02
230/01		9.73731e-04	 5.85127e-02	1.33795e-04	-1.64368e-02	-1.02325e-02	 7.34064e-05
231/01		9.13531e-05	 5.56219e-01	1.76574e-05	-1.04840e-01	 5.20686e-02	 6.04796e-04
232/01		3.79238e-04	 3.91036e-01	5.41522e-05	-8.41642e-02	 5.15125e-02	 6.12875e-04
233/01		9.61367e-04	 6.87781e-02	1.44768e-04	-1.19995e-02	 3.13506e-03	 1.77288e-04

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
P17E19S
Final Report
for Large Volume Samples and Delta-14-C Measurements

Robert M. Key
July 8, 1996

1.0	General Information

WOCE cruise P17E19S was the second of three legs carried out aboard the R/V 
Knorr in the south central and southeastern Pacific Ocean.  The WHPO designation 
for this leg was 316N138/10 (A.K.A. Juno-2).  Jim Swift of SIO was chief 
scientist for this leg.  This report covers details of data collection and 
analysis for the large volume Gerard samples.  The reader is referred to the ODF 
Final Report (1994) for general information (World Ocean Circulation Experiment 
(WOCE) P17E/P19A Knorr 138 Leg 10; 12/12/94).  The detailed sampling notes from 
that report regarding Gerard casts are reproduced here as an appendix.  The 
cruise departed Papeete, Tahiti on December 4, 1992 and ended at Punta Arenas, 
Chile on January 22, 1993.

Seven large volume (LV) stations were occupied on this leg.  The planned 
sampling density was 1 station every 5° of latitude (~300nmi).  Each station 
included one deep cast (2500db to the bottom), and an intermediate (1000db to 
2500db) cast.  In the event of mistripped Gerard sampler(s), casts were repeated 
as time allowed in an attempt to collect the full suite of samples.  All LV 
casts for the Juno cruises were done using the starboard-aft crane and coring 
cable on the R/V Knorr.  This arrangement was far superior to that used on the 
R/V Thomas Washington for the TUNES cruises. The purpose of these casts was to 
collect samples for 14-C analysis.  14-C coverage for the upper water column was 
done via small volume AMS sampling from the Rosette.

Table 1 summarizes the LV sampling and Figure 1* shows the station positions for 
leg P17E19S.

Table 1: Station/Cast Summary
Station	Cast	South	  West		# LV
		Latitude  Longitude	Samples
146	1	56.002	  125.930	9
	3	56.035	  125.924	9
157	1	61.638	  126.041	6
	3	61.654	  125.971	9
164	2	66.331	  126.098	9
	3	66.350	  126.152	9
187	1	52.394	  108.538	9
	3	52.389	  108.550	9
206	1	54.002	   88.000	9
	3	54.031	   87.995	9
218	1	59.978	   87.956	9
	3	59.994	   87.905	9
229	1	67.028	   87.988	9
	3	67.073	   87.986	2
	4	67.096	   87.976	7

Each Gerard barrel was equipped with a piggyback 5 liter Niskin bottle which, in 
turn, had a full set of high precision reversing thermometers to determine 
sampling pressure and temperature.  Both Gerard and Niskin were sampled for 
salinity and silicate.  Additionally, each Gerard was sampled for radiocarbon. 
The salinity samples from the piggyback bottle were used for comparison with the 
Gerard barrel salinities to verify the integrity of the Gerard sample.  As 
samples were collected, information was recorded on a sample log sheet.  Normal 
sampling practice was to open the drain valve before opening the air vent to see 
if water escapes, indicating the presence of a small air leak in the sampler.  
This observation ("air leak"), and other comments ("lanyard caught in lid", 
"valve left open", etc.) which may indicate some doubt about the integrity of 
the water samples were noted on the sample log sheets.  The discrete 
hydrographic data were entered into the shipboard data system and processed as 
the analyses were completed.  The bottle data were brought to a usable, though 
not final, state at sea.  Data checking procedures included verification that 
the sample was assigned to the correct depth.  The salinity and nutrient data 
were compared with those from adjacent stations and with the rosette cast data from the same station.  Any comments regarding the water samples were 
investigated.  The raw data computer files were also checked for entry errors 
that could have been made on the station number, bottle number and/or sample 
container number.

Figure 1*:	Large volume station locations for WOCE cruise P17E19S.

2.0	Personnel

LV sampling for this cruise was under the direction of the principal 
investigator, Robert M. Key (Princeton).  All LV 14-C extractions at sea were 
done by Key.  In addition to Key, deck work was done by the SIO CTD group 
(primarily Ron Patrick and David Muus) with assistance from the scientific 
party. Muus, Patrick and Key were responsible for reading thermometers. 
Salinities and nutrients were analyzed by SIO-ODF with assistance from Dennis 
Guffy (Texas A&M Univ.).  14-C analyses were performed at Göte Östlund's 
laboratory (U. Miami, R.S.M.A.S.).  Minze Stuiver made the 13-C measurements 
which are necessary to correct the 14-C values for fractionation effects.  Key 
collected the data from the originators, merged the files, assigned quality 
control flags to the 14-C, rechecked the flags assigned by ODF and submitted the 
data files to the WOCE office (7/96).

3.0	Results

This data set and any changes or additions supersedes any prior release.  In 
this data set Gerard samples can be differentiated from Niskin samples by the 
bottle number.  Niskin bottle numbers are in the range 41-49 while Gerards are 
in the range 81-93.

3.1	Pressure and Temperature

Pressure and temperature for the LV casts are determined by reversing 
thermometers mounted on the piggyback Niskin bottle.  Each bottle was equipped 
with the standard set of 2 protected and 1 unprotected thermometer.  Each 
temperature value reported on the LV casts was calculated from the average of 
four readings, provided both protected thermometers functioned normally.  The 
temperatures are based on the International Temperature Scale of 1990.  All 
thermometers, calibrations and calculations were provided by SIO-ODF.  Reported 
temperatures for samples in the thermocline are believed to be accurate to 
0.01°C and for deep samples 0.005°C.  Pressures were calculated using standard 
techniques combining wire out with unprotected thermometer data.  In cases where 
the thermometers failed, pressures were estimated by thermometer data from 
adjacent bottles combined with wire out data.  Because of the inherent error in 
pressure calculations and the finite flushing time required for the Gerard 
barrels, the assigned pressures have an uncertainty of approximately 10 dB.  The 
pressures recorded in the data set for each Gerard-Niskin pair generally differ 
by approximately 0.5 dB with the Gerard pressure being the greater.  This is 
because the Niskin is hung near the upper end of the Gerard.  Figure 2* shows 
potential temperature vs. pressure for the LV casts.  CTD values from the same 
stations and pressure ranges are indicated on the plot (small filled squares).

3.2	Salinity

Salinity samples were collected from each Gerard barrel and each piggyback 
Niskin bottle.  Analyses were performed by the same personnel who ran the salt 
samples collected from the Rosette bottles so the analytical precision should be 
the same for LV salts and Rosette salt samples.  When both Gerard and Niskin 
trip properly, the difference between the two salt measurements should be within 
the range 0.000 - 0.003 on the PSU scale.  Somewhat larger differences can occur if the sea state is very calm and the cast is not "yoyo'ed" once the terminal 
wire out is reached.  This difference is due to the flushing time required for 
the Gerard barrels and the degree of difference is a function of the salinity 
gradient where the sample was collected.  In addition to providing primary 
hydrographic data for the LV casts, measured salinity values help confirm that 
the barrels closed at the desired depth.  For the area covered by this leg, deep 
nutrient values (especially silicate) are as useful for trip confirmation as 
salt measurements due to the very low salt gradients.

Salinity samples were drawn into 200 ml Kimax high alumina borosilicate bottles 
after 3 rinses, and were sealed with custom-made plastic insert thimbles and 
Nalgene screw caps.  This assembly provides very low container dissolution and 
sample evaporation.  As loose inserts were found, they were replaced to ensure a 
continued air-tight seal.  Salinity was determined after a box of samples had 
equilibrated to laboratory temperature, usually within 8-12 hours of collection. 
The draw time and equilibration time, as well as per-sample analysis time and 
temperature were logged.

Figure 2*:	Potential temperature from DSRT on LV casts vs. pressure. CTD data 
		from the same stations and depth ranges are indicated by small 
		filled squares.

A single Guildline Autosal Model 8400A salinometer located in a temperature 
controlled laboratory was used to measure salinities.  The salinometer was 
standardized for each cast with IAPSO Standard Seawater (SSW) Batch P-120, using 
at least one fresh vial per cast.  The estimated accuracy of bottle salinities 
run at sea is usually better than 0.002 PSU relative to the particular Standard 
Seawater batch used. PSS-78 salinity (UNESCO 1981) was then calculated for each 
sample from the measured conductivity ratios, and the results merged with the 
cruise database.  There were some problems with lab temperature control 
throughout cruise; the Autosal bath temperature was adjusted accordingly. 
Salinities were generally considered good for the expedition despite the lab 
temperature problem.  The quality of the temperature and salinity is 
demonstrated by Figure 3* which shows data from all of the large volume samples 
overlain by CTD/Rosette data from the same stations.  Each Gerard-Niskin pair is 
assigned the same temperature which allows direct comparison of many of the 
paired salinity values on the figure.

3.3	Nutrients

Nutrient samples were collected from Gerard samples.  On this leg silicate 
values were measured on all samples.  LV nutrients were measured along with 
Rosette nutrients so the analytical precision for Gerard samples should be the 
same as Rosette samples.  Nutrients collected from LV casts are frequently 
subject to systematic offsets from samples taken from Rosette bottles.  For this 
reason it is recommended that these data be viewed primarily as a means of 
checking sample integrity (i.e. trip confirmation).  The Rosette-Gerard 
discrepancy is frequently less for silicate than for other nutrients.

Figure 3*:	Theta-salinity for all of the large volume cast data with a QC flag 
		of 2 for both temperature and salinity.  CTD theta values with 
		Rosette bottle salinities (small filled squares) are overlain for 
		comparison.

Nutrient samples were drawn into 45 ml high density polypropylene, narrow mouth, 
screw-capped centrifuge tubes which were rinsed three times before filling. 
Standardizations were performed with solutions prepared aboard ship from pre-
weighed chemicals; these solutions were used as working standards before and 
after each cast to correct for instrumental drift during analysis.  Sets of 4-6 
different concentrations of shipboard standards were analyzed periodically to 
determine the linearity of colorimeter response and the resulting correction 
factors.

Nutrient analyses were performed on an ODF-modified 4 channel Technicon 
AutoAnalyzer II, generally within one hour of the cast. Occasionally some 
samples were refrigerated at 2 to 6°C for a maximum of 4 hours.  The methods 
used are described by Gordon et al. (1992), Atlas et al. (1971), and Hager et 
al. (1972).  All peaks were logged manually, and all the runs were re-read to
check for possible reading errors.

Silicate was analyzed using the technique of Armstrong et al. (1967).  ODF''s 
methodology is known to be non-linear at high silicate concentrations (>120 µM); 
a correction for this non-linearity was applied.  Phosphate was analyzed using a 
modification of the Bernhardt and Wilhelms (1967) technique.

Figure 4*:	Plot includes silicate data from both Gerard and piggyback Niskin 
		samples.  Rosette/CTD data from the same stations and depth ranges 
		are overlain (small filled squares).

Na2SiF6, the silicate primary standard, was obtained from Fluka Chemical Company 
and Fischer Scientific and is reported by the suppliers to be >98% pure. Primary 
standards for phosphate, KH2PO4, were obtained from Johnson Matthey Chemical Co. 
and the supplier reports purity of 99.999%.  Nutrients, reported in micromoles 
per kilogram, were converted from micromoles per liter by dividing by sample 
density calculated at zero pressure, in-situ salinity, and an assumed laboratory 
temperature of 25°C.  The overall quality of the silicate data for this cruise 
is demonstrated in Figure 4* which shows both Gerard and piggyback Niskin 
silicate values as a function of potential temperature. Overlain on the plot 
(small filled squares) are the Rosette measurements for the same stations and 
depth ranges.

3.4	14-C

Some of the Delta-14-C values reported here have been distributed in data 
reports produced by Östlund (1994, 1995).  Those reports included preliminary 
hydrographic data and are superseded by this submission.

All Gerard samples deemed to be "OK" on initial inspection at sea were extracted 
for 14-C analysis using the technique described by Key (1991).  The extracted 
14-CO2/NaOH samples were returned to the Ocean Tracer Lab at Princeton and 
subsequently shipped to Ostlund's lab in Miami.  Both 13-C and 14-C measurements 
are performed on the same CO2 gas extracted from the large volume samples.  The 
standard for the 14-C measurements is the NBS oxalic acid standard for 
radiocarbon dating. R-value is the ratio between the measured specific activity 
of the sample CO2 to that of CO2 prepared from the standard, the latter number 
corrected to a delta-13-C value of -19 0/00 and age corrected from today to 
AD1950 all according to the international agreement.  Delta-14-C is the 
deviation in 0/00 from unity, of the activity ratio, isotope corrected to a 
sample delta-13-C value of -25 0/00.  For further information of these 
calculations and procedures see Broecker and Olson (1981), Stuiver and Robinson 
(1974) and Stuiver (1980). Ostlund's lab reports a precision of 4 0/00 for each 
measurement based on a long term average of counting statistics.  Of the 123 
Gerard samples collected, 14-C has been measured on 102 (83%).  This exceeds the 
rate funded for this work (80%). Existing 14-C data for the area sampled on this 
cruise is limited to a few GEO-SECS measurements.  Comparison of these two data 
sets indicates that they are in agreement to the precision of the measurements.

4.0	Data Summary

Figures 4* & 5* summarize the large volume 14-C data collected on this leg.  All 
Delta-14-C measurements with a quality flag value of 2 are included in each 
figure.  Figure 5* shows the Delta-14-C values plotted as a function of pressure. 
One sigma error bars (±4 0/00) are shown with each datum.  The most noticeable 
characteristic is the fact that there is little or no gradient for values 
collected at pressure greater than 2000dB.  Figure 6* shows the Delta-14-C 
values plotted against measured Gerard barrel silicate values.  Essentially no 
correlation between Delta-14-C and silicate is indicated by this data.  The 
angled heavy line is the relationship suggested by Broecker et al. (1995) to be 
representative of the mean global pre-bomb Delta-14-C -silicate correlation.  As 
was pointed out in that paper, and as is evident with this data set, the 
relationship does not hold for high latitude southern waters.

5.0	Quality Control Flag Assignment

Quality flag values were assigned to all bottles and all measurements using the 
code defined in Tables 0.1 and 0.2 of WHP Office Report WHPO 91-1 Rev. 2 
sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 respectively.  In this report the only bottle flag 
values used were 2, 3, 4 and 9.  For the measurement flags values of 2, 3, 4 or 
9 were assigned.  The interpretation of measurement flag 9 is unambiguous, 
however the choice between values 2, 3 or 4 is involves some interpretation.  
For this data set, the salt and nutrient values were checked by plotting them 
over the same parameters taken from the rosette at the same station.  Points 
which were clearly outliers were flagged "4".  Points which were somewhat 
outside the envelop of the other points were flagged "3".  In cases where the 
entire cast seemed to be shifted to higher or lower concentrations (in nutrient 
values), but the values formed a smooth profile, the data was flagged as "2".  A 
few of the large volume flag values have been changed from those given in the 
ODF final report.  Once the nutrient and salt data had been flagged, these 
results were considered in flagging the 14-C data.  There is very little overlap 
between this data set and any existing 14-C data, so that type of comparison was 
impractical.  In general the lack of other data for comparison led to a more 
lenient grading on the 14-C data.  When flagging 14-C data, the measurement 
error was taken into consideration.  That is, approximately one-third of the 14-C measurements are expected to deviate from the true value by more than the 
measurement precision of ~4 0/00.  All of the Delta-14-C values reported for 
this cruise were flagged "2".

Figure 5*:	All LV Delta-14-C values as a function of pressure.  Vertical bars 
		indicate one sigma (4 0/00) errors.

No measured values have been removed from this data set.  When using this data 
set, it is advised that the nutrient data only be considered as a tool for 
judging the quality of the 14-C data regardless of the quality code value.  A 
summary of all flags is provided in Table 2. 

Figure 6*:	All LV Delta-14-C measurements having a quality control flag value 
		of 2 or 6 are plotted. Vertical bars are one sigma errors. The heavy 
		line is that suggested by Broecker, et al. (1995) to be 
		representative of the global relationship between pre-bomb 14-C and 
		silicate.

TABLE 2. Quality Code Summary

WHP Quality Codes
	Levels	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
BTLNBR	  246	0	239	1	1	0	0	0	0	5
SALNTY	  240	0	227	12	1	0	0	0	0	6
SILCAT	  240	0	223	16	1	0	0	0	0	6
REVPRS	  246	0	246	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
REVTMP	  238	0	235	1	1	0	0	0	0	9
DELC14*a  123	0	102	0	0	21	0	0	0	0

*a. 14-C large volume samples can not be collected from piggyback Niskin 
bottles

6.0	References and Supporting Documentation

Armstrong, F. A. J., C. R. Stearns, and J. D. H. Strickland, 1967. The 
  measurement of upwelling and subsequent biological processes by means of the 
  Technicon Autoanalyzer and associated equipment, Deep-Sea Research, 14, 381-389.
Atlas, E. L., S. W. Hager, L. I. Gordon and P. K. Park, 1971. A Practical Manual 
  for Use of the Technicon(R) AutoAnalyzer(R) in Seawater Nutrient Analyses; 
  Revised. Technical Report 215, Reference 71-22. Oregon State University, 
  Department of Oceanography. 49 pp.
Bernhardt, H. and A. Wilhelms, 1967. The continuous determination of low level 
  iron, soluble phosphate and total phosphate with the AutoAnalyzer, Technicon 
  Symposia, Volume I, 385-389.
Broecker, W.S., and E.A. Olson, 1961, Lamont radiocarbon measurements VIII, 
  Radiocarbon, 3, 176-274.
Broecker, W.S., S. Sutherland, W. Smethie, T.-H. Peng and G. Östlund, Oceanic 
  radiocarbon: Separation of the natural and bomb components, Global 
  Biogeochemical Cycles, 9(2), 263-288, 1995.
Gordon, L. I., Jennings, Joe C. Jr., Ross, Andrew A., Krest, James M., 1992, A 
  suggested protocol for continuous flow automated analysis of seawater 
  nutrients in the WOCE Hydrographic Program and the Joint Global Ocean Fluxes 
  Study, OSU College of Oceanography Descr. Chem. Oc. Grp. Tech. Rpt. 92-1.
Hager, S. W., E. L. Atlas, L. D. Gordon, A. W. Mantyla, and P. K. Park, 1972, A 
  comparison at sea of manual and autoanalyzer analyses of phosphate, nitrate, 
  and silicate, Limnology and Oceanography, 17, 931-937.
Key, R.M., 1991, Radiocarbon, in: WOCE Hydrographic Operations and Methods 
  Manual, WOCE Hydrographic Program Office Technical Report.
Key, R.M., D. Muus and J. Wells, 1991, Zen and the art of Gerard barrel 
  maintenance, WOCE Hydrographic Program Office Technical Report.
ODF, World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) P17E/P19A, Final data report, 
  Dec.12, 1994.
Östlund, G., WOCE Radiocarbon (Miami), Tritium Laboratory Data Release #94-11, 
  1994.
Östlund, G., WOCE Radiocarbon (Miami) Remaining Sample Analyses, Tritium 
  Laboratory Data Release #95-39, 1995.
Stuiver, M., and S.W. Robinson, 1974, University of Washington GEOSECS North 
  Atlantic carbon-14 results, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 23, 87-90.
Stuiver, M., 1980, Workshop on 14-C data reporting, Radiocarbon, 3, 964-966.
  UNESCO, 1981, Background papers and supporting data on the Practical Salinity 
  Scale, 1978, UNESCO Technical Papers in Marine Science, No. 37, 144 p.

7.0	Appendix

Quality Comments

Remarks for missing samples, and WOCE codes other than 2 from JUNO - WOCE 
P16A/P17A Large Volume Samples. Investigation of data may include comparison of 
bottle salinity and silicate data from piggyback and Gerard with CTD cast data, 
review of data plots of the station profile and adjoining stations, and 
rereading of charts (i.e., nutrients). Comments from the Sample Logs and the 
results of ODF's investigations are included in this report.

Station 146

347 @2111db	Left protected and middle protected therms both malfunction, no 
		temperature readings.
389 @2111db	See thermometer failure on NB347.
141 @2557db	Delta-S (n-g) at 2557db is 0.0059, salinity is 34.732. Salinities 
		in gerard(81) and niskin(41) are equally off when compared with 
		rosette cast. No indication of any problems in sample log. Footnote 
		salinity uncertain. Silicate values slightly low, but within 
		precision of measurement.
181 @2558db	Footnote salinity uncertain. Other gerard sample integrity to be 
		determined by PI.
144 @3156db	Delta-S (n-g) at 3156db is 0.0031, salinity is 34.722. Values 
		from NB44 are OK. See comments for GER 84.
184 @3156db	Salinity and silicate low compared with NB44 and rosette. 
		Footnote salinity uncertain.
145 @3356db	Delta-S (n-g) at 3356db is 0.0026, salinity is 34.719. Gerard 
		salinity and silicate acceptable.

Station 157

347 @2164db	Both left protected and middle protected therms malfunctioned. No 
		temperature.
389 @2165db	See therm failure on NB347.
141 @2778db	Therm Sheet: "41 Nis no trip, therm OK". No samples from NB141. 
		Samples from GER 181 are OK.
187 @4045db	Therm Sheet: "87 did not drop messenger". Samples from both Ger 
		187 and piggyback Nis 146 are OK. However, Ger's 189, 190, 193 and 
		piggyback Niskins did not close.

Station 164

347 @2114db	Sample log: "Therm ok, bottle no trip." No water samples from this 
		bottle.
241 @2690db	Delta-S (n-g) at 2690db is 0.0045, salinity is 34.712. Ger 81 
		salinity value closer to rosette value than Nis 41. Silicate value 
		about 3 µmol/kg higher than associated Ger. Ger value close to 
		rosette value. Footnote Salinity and Silicate uncertain.
281 @2691db	See 241 salinity and silicate values.
242 @2945db	Delta-S (n-g) at 2945db is 0.0057, salinity is 34.711. Ger 82 
		salinity value closer to rosette value than Nis 42. Silicate value 
		about 3 µmol/kg higher than associated Ger. Ger value close to 
		rosette value. Footnote salinity and silicate uncertain.
282 @2945db	See 241 salinity and silicate values.
243 @3199db	Silicate value about 3 µmol/kg higher than associated Ger. Ger value 
		close to rosette value. Footnote silicate uncertain.
283 @3200db	See 243 silicate value.
244 @3454db	Silicate value about 3 µmol/kg higher than associated Ger. Ger value 
		close to rosette value. Footnote silicate uncertain.
284 @3454db	See 244 silicate value.
245 @3708db	Silicate value about 3 µmol/kg higher than associated Ger. Ger value 
		close to rosette value. Footnote silicate uncertain.
285 @3708db	See 245 silicate value.
246 @3962db	Silicate value about 3 µmol/kg higher than associated Ger. Ger value 
		close to rosette value. Footnote silicate uncertain.
287 @3963db	See 246 silicate value.
247 @4217db	Silicate value about 3 µmol/kg higher than associated Ger. Ger value 
		close to rosette value. Footnote silicate uncertain. Footnote 
		silicate uncertain.
289 @4217db	See 247 silicate value.
248 @4420db	Silicate value about 3 µmol/kg higher than associated Ger. Nis value 
		closer to rosette value than Ger 90.
290 @4420db	See 248 silicate value.

Station 187

341 @ 749db	Niskin 41 not tripped. Niskin trip arm on Gerard 81 not down far 
		enough. No Niskin samples. Gerard salt & silicate agree well with 
		Rosette data.
348 @1808db	(N-G) 0.003 low at 1808db. Calc & Autosal runs ok. Leave for now. 
		930111/dm Nis 48 piggyback on Ger 90.
390 @1809db	See 348 salinity comment.
149 @2105db	Niskin 49 not tripped. Niskin trip arm on Gerard 81 not down far 
		enough. No Niskin samples. Niskin 41 normally on this Gerard so 
		thought bottle mismatch was problem. Gerard salt & silicate agree 
		well with Rosette data.
189 @3483db	(N-G) 0.048 high. Gerard salinity and silicate both appear to be 
		from higher in water column. Leave for now to indicate Gerard sample 
		problem. 930111/dm
142 @3713db	Nis 42 is bottle associated with Ger 90.
190 @3714db	(N-G) 0.005 high at 3714db. Gerard silicate also a little lower(1.5) 
		than the Niskin silicate indicating a possible small leak in Gerard 
		sample. Footnote silicate and salinity uncertain.

Station 206

341 @1257db	(N-G) 0.005 high at 1257db. Took 4 Autosal runs to get 2 runs to 
		agree. Probably salt crystal contamination. First Autosal run after 
		rinses gives (N-G) 0.001 low. Gerard salt and silicates good.
346 @2012db	(N-G) 0.006 high at 2012db. Took 7 Autosal runs to get 2 runs to 
		agree. Probably salt crystal contamination. First Autosal run after 
		rinses gives (N-G) 0.0004 low. Gerard salt and silicates good.

Station 218

341 @1500db	(N-G) salt 0.005 high at 1500db. 4 Autosal runs to get agreement. 
		First run after rinses gives (N-G) 0.000. Used first run. 930114/dm
142 @3164db	Sample Log: "Tube (plastic) in upper lid". No samples.
147 @4558db	Sample Log: "Lanyard hung up". No samples.

Station 229

383 (No Pressure) Gerard Barrel 83 failed to trip on cast 3. Messenger was on 
		trip arm with latch not pushed quite far enough close lid. Messenger 
		not released. Lowered remaining barrels to shallower terminal 
		reading as cast 4.
449 @1909db	DSRTs not shaken down from previous cast. Same readings as NB49 on 
		Cast 1. Footnote bad thermometer readings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P17E19S
Final Report for AMS 14-C Samples

Robert M. Key
March 3, 1997

1.0	General Information

WOCE P17E19S (WHPO 316N138/10) consisted of two meridional sections and one 
zonal section in the far southeastern Pacific Ocean.  The cruise departed 
Papeete, Tahiti on December 4, 1992 and ended on January 22, 1993 at Puenta 
Arenas, Chile.  The reader is referred to cruise documentation provided by the 
chief scientist, James H. Swift, as the primary source for cruise information.

This report covers details of the small volume radiocarbon samples.  The AMS 
station locations are shown in Figure 1* and summarized in Table 1.  A total of 
480 samples were collected at the 28 stations sampled for Delta-14-C.  Seven of 
the stations were also sampled using the large volume technique.  The results of 
the large volume sampling program were reported by Key (1996).

Figure 1*:	AMS 14-C station locations for WOCE P17E19S.

Table 1: Radiocarbon station summary
Station	Date	Latitude  Longitude	Bottom
			  Depth (m)
130	12/14	-52.504	  -133.350	4402
135	12/16	-52.510	  -129.275	3840
140	12/17	-53.004	  -125.998	4385
143	12/18	-54.477	  -125.982	3637
146	12/19	-56.002	  -125.975	4273
149	12/20	-57.492	  -126.001	4060
153	12/22	-59.604	  -126.053	4809
157	12/23	-61.659	  -125.991	4818
160	12/24	-63.681	  -126.005	4968
163	12/25	-65.660	  -126.031	4772
165	12/29	-52.042	  -125.622	3256
170	12/30	-51.299	  -122.517	3440
175	12/31	-51.654	  -118.376	2972
180	  1/1	-51.956	  -114.296	3364
187	  1/3	-52.389	  -108.538	3890
193	  1/5	-52.900	  -102.238	4510
197	  1/7	-53.245	  -97.879	4638
202	  1/8	-53.672	  -92.383	4910
206	 1/10	-54.016	  -87.986	5041
209	 1/11	-55.509	  -88.019	5170
212	 1/12	-56.995	  -87.996	5097
215	 1/12	-58.504	  -88.009	5087
218	 1/13	-60.000	  -87.982	5022
221	 1/14	-61.656	  -87.964	4867
224	 1/15	-63.678	  -87.973	4790
226	 1/16	-65.005	  -87.983	4673
229	 1/17	-67.019	  -87.994	4417
232	 1/17	-68.871	  -87.976	3534

2.0	Personnel

14-C sampling for this cruise was carried out by R. Key from Princeton U. 14-C 
analyses were performed at the National Ocean Sciences AMS Facility (NOSAMS) at 
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.  Salinities and nutrients were analyzed by 
the SIO CTD group.  Key collected the data from the originators, merged the 
files, assigned quality control flags to the 14-C and submitted the data files 
to the WOCE office (3/97).  Key is P.I. for these 14-C data.

3.0	Results

This 14-C data set and any changes or additions supersedes any prior release.

3.1	Hydrography

Hydrography from this leg has been submitted to the WOCE office by the chief 
scientist and described in the final hydrographic reports.

3.2	14-C

The Delta-14-C values reported here were originally distributed in a data report 
(NOSAMS, Jan.15, 1997).  That report included preliminary hydrographic data and 
14-C results which had not been through the WOCE quality control procedures. 
This report supersedes that data distributions.

All of the AMS samples from this cruise have been measured.  Replicate 
measurements were made on 14 of the water samples.  These replicate analyses are 
tabulated in Table 2.  The table shows the error weighted mean and uncertainty 
for each set of replicates.  The uncertainty is defined here as the larger of 
the standard deviation and the error weighted standard deviation of the mean. 
For these samples, the average standard deviations is 4.3 0/00.  This precision 
estimate is approximately correct for the time frame over which these samples 
were measured (Feb. - Dec. 1996, but primarily the latter half of the year).  
For a summary of the improvement in precision with time at NOSAMS, see Key, et 
al. (1996).  Note that the errors given in the final data report include only 
counting errors, and errors due to blanks and backgrounds.  The uncertainty 
obtained for replicate analysis is an estimate of the true error which includes 
errors due to sample collection, sample degassing, etc.

Table 2: Summary of Replicate Analyses
Sta-Cast-Bottle	Delta-14-C	Err	Mean*a	Uncertainty*b
160-1-12	-142.1		3.1	-144.6	3.4
		-146.9		2.9
160-1-13	-146.3		3.4	-147.0	3.2
		-149.2		3.2
175-1-35	-191.8		2.8	-195.4	8.7
		-204.1		4.3
180-1-24	-156.2		3.1	-160.1	5.0
		-163.3		2.8
180-1-29	-169.9		2.8	-172.3	4.2
		-175.9		3.4
202-1-15	 -20.2		3.4	 -23.8	4.6
		 -26.7		3.0
206-2-20	 -94.3		3.1	 -97.7	4.2
		-100.2		2.7
209-1-13	 -15.8		5.2	 -17.3	2.3
		 -17.7		2.6
212-1-1		  31.0		3.4	  33.6	4.9
		  38.0		4.5
226-1-15	-143.4		3.2	-144.3	2.2
		-144.9		2.9
232-1-8		-141.9		2.5	-144.6	9.0
		-154.7		4.8
232-1-11	-156.5		6.0	-158.6	2.5
		-159.1		2.7
232-1-16	-143.7		2.3	-147.0	5.5
		-151.5		2.7
232-1-28	-167.1		3.3	-169.2	2.8
		-171.0		3.1

*a. Error weighted mean reported with data set
*b. Larger of the standard deviation and the error weighted 
standard deviation of the mean.

4.0	Quality Control Flag Assignment

Quality flag values were assigned to all Delta-14-C measurements using the code 
defined in Table 0.2 of WHP Office Report WHPO 91-1 Rev. 2 section 4.5.2. 
(Joyce, et al., 1994).  Measurement flags values of 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have been 
assigned.  The choice between values 2 (good), 3 (questionable) or 4 (bad) 
involves some interpretation.  There is no overlap between this data set and any 
existing 14-C data, so that type of comparison was difficult.  In general the 
lack of other data for comparison led to a more lenient grading on the 14-C 
data.

When using this data set for scientific application, any 14-C datum which is 
flagged with a "3" should be carefully considered.  My subjective opinion is 
that any datum flagged "4" should be disregarded.  When flagging 14-C data, the 
measurement error was taken into consideration.  That is, approximately one-
third of the 14-C measurements are expected to deviate from the true value by 
more than the measurement precision (~4.3 0/00).  No measured values have been 
removed from this data set.  Table 3 summarizes the quality control flags 
assigned to this data set.  For a detailed description of the flagging procedure 
see Key, et al. (1996).

Table 3: Summary of Assigned Quality Control Flags
Flag	Number
2	455
3	5
4	3
5	3
6	14

5.0	Data Summary

Figures 2-5 summarize the AMS 14-C data collected on this leg.  Only Delta-14-C 
measurements with a quality flag value of 2 ("good") or 6 ("replicate") are 
included in each figure.  Figure 2* shows the Delta-14-C values with 2sigma 
error bars plotted as a function of pressure. The data density in this figure 
demonstrates the scheme for the small volume sampling - AMS samples were used to 
cover the surface and thermocline waters while large volume samples covered deep 
and bottom waters (at a significantly decreased density).  The deep AMS samples 
collected on this leg were primarily substitutes for large volume sample when 
the weather was too harsh to allow Gerard bottle casts.  The most outstanding 
things to note in Figure 2* are the very old near surface values, the lack of a 
mid-depth minimum and the large spread in the near surface.  The old near 
surface values are due to the large vertical mixing known to occur in this 
region.  The large spread in the near surface waters is due to the fact that the 
cruise track crossed two frontal regions.  The stations taken north of the 
northernmost front have the highest ("youngest) near surface values.

Figure 2*:	AMS Delta-14-C results for P17E19S stations shown with 2sigma error 
		bars.  Only those measurements having a quality control flag value 
		of 2 are plotted.

Figure 3* shows the Delta-14-C values plotted against silicate.  The straight 
line shown in the figure is the least squares regression relationship derived by 
Broecker et al. (1995) based on the GEOSECS global data set.  According to their 
analysis, this line (Delta-14-C = -70 - Si) represents the relationship between 
naturally occurring radiocarbon and silicate for most of the ocean.  They 
interpret deviations in Delta-14-C above this line to be due to input of bomb-
produced radiocarbon, however, they note that the interpretation can be 
problematic at high latitudes.  It is unlikely that the points falling above the 
line with silicate concentrations greater than 100 mm/kg are elevated due to the 
addition of bomb-produced Delta-14-C.  If the GEOSECS Pacific data from the same 
latitude range were added to Figure 3*, the points would fall within the envelop 
of the WOCE data.

Figure 3*:	Delta-14-C as a function of silicate for P17E19S AMS samples.  The 
		straight line shows the relationship proposed by Broecker, et al., 
		1995 (Delta-14-C = -70 - Si with radiocarbon in 0/00 and silicate in 
		µmol/kg).

Figure 4*, Figure 5* and Figure 6* show contoured sections of the Delta-14-C 
distribution for the upper 1.5 kilometer of the water column.  The data in these 
sections were girded using the "loess" methods described in Chambers et al. 
(1983), Chambers and Hastie (1991), Cleveland (1979) and Cleveland and Devlin 
(1988).  Figure 4* shows the zonal section which runs approximately along 52°S, 
but trends slightly south of east.  All of the stations on this section were 
taken north of the Subantarctic Front, however, most of the waviness in the 
contour lines in this section is probably due to meanders in the general 
circumpolar circulation.  This is implied by the lower portion of Figure 4* in 
which the same data is plotted against potential density (sigma-theta).

Figure 5* and Figure 6* show Delta-14-C for the meridional sections along 125°W 
and 88°W, respectively.  The data included in each section was limited to 
samples collected in the upper 1500dB of the water column.  The lower portion of 
each figure shows the same data used in the upper portion, but plotted in 
potential density space rather than pressure space.  n each figure the same 
isopycnals appear to outcrop (Delta-14-C => -60 0/00), however, each of these 
isolines on the 88°W section outcrops further to the south and at a lighter 
density than on the 125°W section.

5.1	References and Supporting Documentation

Chambers, J.M. and Hastie, T.J., 1991, Statistical Models in S, Wadsworth & 
  Brooks, Cole Computer Science Series, Pacific Grove, CA, 608pp.
Chambers, J.M., Cleveland, W.S., Kleiner, B., and Tukey, P.A., 1983, Graphical 
  Methods for Data Analysis, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Cleveland, W.S., 1979, Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing 
  scatterplots, J. Amer. Statistical Assoc., 74, 829-836.
Cleveland, W.S. and S.J. Devlin, 1988, Locally-weighted regression: An approach 
  to regression analysis by local fitting, J. Am. Statist. Assoc, 83:596-610.
Joyce, T., and Corry, C., eds., Corry, C., Dessier, A., Dickson, A., Joyce, T., 
  Kenny, M., Key, R., Legler, D., Millard, R., Onken, R., Saunders, P., Stalcup, 
  M., contrib., Requirements for WOCE Hydrographic Programme Data Reporting, 
  WHPO Pub. 90-1 Rev. 2, 145pp., 1994.
Key, R.M., P17E19S Final report for large volume samples and _14C measurements, 
  Ocean Tracer Laboratory Tech. Rep. # 96-8, 15pp, 7/8/96.
Key, R.M., WOCE Pacific Ocean radiocarbon program, Radiocarbon, 38, in press, 
  1996.
Key, R.M., P.D. Quay and NOSAMS, WOCE AMS Radiocarbon I: Pacific Ocean results; 
  P6, P16 & P17, Radiocarbon, 38, in press, 1996.
NOSAMS, National Ocean Sciences AMS Facility Data Report #97-001, Woods Hole 
  Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, 02543, 1997.

Figure 4*:	Delta-14-C in the upper 1500dB of Juno-2 (WOCE line P17E19S) along 
		52°S. Gridding done using a loess method (references given in text).  
		All of the samples were measured using the AMS technique.  In B. the 
		heavy line indicates the ocean surface.  The waviness in the 
		pressure section (A) is due to meanders in the Antarctic Circumpolar 
		Current.

Figure 5*:	Delta-14-C in the upper 1500dB of Juno-2 (WOCE line P17E19S) along 
		125°W.  Gridding done using the loess method (references in text).  
		All of the samples were measured using the AMS technique.  In B. the 
		heavy line indicates the ocean surface.

Figure 6*:	Delta-14-C in the upper 1500dB of Juno-2 (WOCE line P17E19S) along 
		88°W.  Gridding done using the loess method (references in text).  
		All of the samples were measured using the AMS technique.  In B. the 
		heavy line indicates the ocean surface.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 September 1996

DQ Evaluation of JUNO II (Knorr Cr. 138/10) P17E/P19A Hydrographic Data
A. Mantyla

This second Antarctic leg of Juno suffered from many rosette trip problems, 
although with less serious data loss compared to the first leg.  For the most 
part, the trip depth uncertainties have been resolved satisfactorily.  I've 
noted a few stations below that may need another look and possible adjustment of 
a few depths.  Data density was also less than desired on the few stations where 
the normal 36 place rosette casts were replaced by 24 bottle casts, and in 
regions south of 61S where station spacing was increased from the usual 30 
nautical mile intervals to 40 nautical miles.

The data originators have done a thorough job in evaluating the data, and in 
resolving inadvertent shifts in rosette bottle tripping sequences that result 
from mis-fires, hang-ups, or double-trips.  In some cases the data originators 
flagged bottle codes "4" to indicate that the bottle did not trip where planned, 
although all of the water sample data is okay and confirmed by CTD salinity and 
oxygen comparisons.  For the most part, I have changed those codes to "2" 
because the data really is okay, even though the CTD operators did not initially 
know which bottle they were tripping.  Because many data users automatically discard any data flagged 3 or 4, it would be a shame to have data not used that 
is really okay. Station 201, 206, and 208 are good examples.

I have softened many of the originators codes from "data uncertain" to "data 
okay" and from "data bad" to "data uncertain"; they seemed over zealous in 
rejecting data that in many cases were within WOCE precision targets.  Also, the 
"bad" code should not be used for data that appears to be only slightly off of 
the "normal" profile.  The "bad" code should be reserved for known problems or 
truly impossible results.

The nutrient data, particularly the nitrates, were not as sharp as they were on 
the last leg.  The nitrate profiles shifted from station to station, independent 
of any change in phosphate profiles.  Several nitrate profiles were flagged 
uncertain, and many other profiles could have been flagged.  Most offsets are 
less than 0.5 mm, so even the "doubtful" data is substantially better than any 
nearby historical data.  This cruise could have benefited by a more careful 
evaluation of the nitrate standard factors and blanks, along with analyses of 
group PO4 - NO3 scatter plots to refine the nitrate results into a more 
acceptably consistent pattern.

The CTD oxygen data, taken from the down cast, were considered to be poor at the 
start of the cast, so all of the CTD O2 data in the top 100m were arbitrarily 
flagged uncertain by the data originators.  However, many agree quite well with 
the titration data, so I've changed some of those flags to okay.  A few of the 
mixed layer O2 analytical results were not in very good agreement, usually the 
surface value seemed to be in error and have been flagged uncertain.  That was 
also true of some surface salinities (unstable).  First sample analytical 
problems may occur when the equipment is not sufficiently cleared of a very 
different previous sample (low salinity surface sample run immediately after the 
high salinity Wormly Water Standard, for example).  Deeper O2 data that appeared 
to be off by only .02 - .03 ml/l, or less than 1%, I prefer to accept since that 
is still better than the CTD O2 data or no data at all, so I've changed some 
flags to okay accordingly.

There was discussion in the cruise report on whether or not to report CTD trip 
data for depths where the rosette bottle failed and did not get any water 
samples from those depths.  My own strong preference would be to report the CTD 
data in those instances, they really help to flesh out the density profile and 
pinpoint salinity extrema that were meant to be sampled.

Sta. 134 BE - date is wrong, the day and month were transposed.  It is in order 
originally listed by the data originators, rather than in the order preferred by 
the U.S. WOCE Office.

Sta. 176 BO and EN - day, month and year are incorrect.  That date and time 
occurred back on sta. 172.

Sta. 151 - bottles 35 and 32 would look better moved up one depth shallower to 
the omitted trip depth of 3656db and the listed depth of 3859db, leaving just 
CTD info at 4121db.  (Mis-trips started at 2nd bottle up on sta. 153 and here.)

Sta. 152 - As on sta. 151, move the 2nd and 3rd bottles up from the bottom to 
one depth shallower, to the unlisted depth of 4021db and to 4222db, leaving just 
the CTD info at 4391db.  As on sta. 153, mis-trip likely started at the 2nd 
bottle up.

Sta's. 156-159 - bottles 31 and 32 listed at identical depths, would look better 
at the next deeper (unlisted) depth, particularly for the oxygen and silicate 
profiles.  Salinity gradients are weak, so salt check not definitive at these 
depths.

Sta's. 162-164 - bottle 34 would fit better at next planned trip depth up, 
suggest change and correct the data.

Sta's. 184-185 - all O2's "u"'d, but profiles look as good as any. No CTD O2's 
either.  Would prefer to keep this data rather than have no data at all, there 
isn't any good historical data in this region at all.

Sta. 212 - all salts flagged uncertain, CTD comparison indicates that a 
salinometer drift correction of zero at the surface to .005 at the bottom should 
be applied to the bottle data.  If that were done the mean CTD minus bottle 
salinity difference would be .0007 ± .0013 standard deviation and the bottle 
salts would be okay, confirmed by the composite CTD data.

Sta. 228 - 5 near bottom silicates were flagged questionable.  There really 
wasn't any basis to do so, other than they seemed to be a couple of micromoles 
low compared to adjacent (but not nearby) stations. I haven't changed the flags, 
but I recommend keeping the data as okay.

All in all, this is a very valuable data set from a sparsely sampled part of the 
ocean.  It would have been nice to have had stations up the Antarctic 
continental slope on to the shelf, but I'm sure time constraints did not allow 
that.  None the less, combined with the next Juno leg, the section is reasonably 
complete from the Antarctic slope to North America.  I look forward to seeing 
the sections.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 11, 1996

Bob Millard

Data Quality Evaluation Report for WOCE legs P17E and p19S

Two WOCE hydrographic sections P17E and p19S are examined in this report.  
The data were collected southeast of Tahiti; zonally along 52°S from 
135°W to 88W together with two meridional sections south of 52°S 
approaching the Antarctic continent along 126°W and 88°W.  The overall 
potential temperature versus salinity plot of figure 1* shows the range of 
potential temperature variation from below -1.8 to 9°C while the salinity 
varies from 33 to 34.74 psu. Valid oxygens range from 170 to 370 Umol/kg, 
as indicated on the potential temperature versus oxygen plots of figure 
2*.  All of the 2 decibar CTD temperature, salinity and oxygen observations 
are displayed in figures 1* and 2* along with all good water sample and CTD 
observations from the bottle file. The CTD data pre generally well 
calibrated to the water samples and for the most part free of spurious 
observations.  There are a few odd oxygen values found in the upper layer 
seen in these overall plots which will be examined later.

The cruise report is informative.  It contains a good description of the 
instrument calibration methods both in the laboratory and during the 
cruise.  The CTD data processing methods applied to this data set and the 
processing approach to obtain the 2 decibar profiles are also described 
in detail; following similar descriptions of other Scripps cruise 
reports.  The laboratory calibration description for pressure has some 
standards pressure values expressed in psi while the CTD measurements 
are in decibars.  I would suggest changing the reporting of all 
pressures to units of decibars.

The cruise report sections on processing methods and calibration 
techniques makes a good start towards a technical report describing the 
method CTD calibration and processing carried out at Scripps.  Such a 
report would allow parts of the current cruise report material to be 
reduced to references with only the adaptations of procedures discussed 
in the cruise report along with the problems encountered with processing 
the particular data set (which this cruise report does a good job of 
addressing).

The station varying CTD conductivity calibration technique used for this 
data set differs from the approach we use at WHOI for handling a station 
varying conductivity calibration.  At WHOI we model the conductivity 
drift from station to station with the conductivity slope variation 
while the changes described in this report were handled by adjusting the 
conductivity bias.  A conductivity slope change from station to station 
models the effect of a conductivity sensor output variations associated 
with a coating or ablation process occurring within the conductivity 
cell.  This cruise report describes applying a smoothed station to 
station varying bias. Has this been found to adequately model the 
conductivity cells behavior under all profiling conditions?  I do not 
expect the difference between adjusting the conductivity values using a 
bias versus a slope to effect the results of this data set as the range 
of conductivity variations is fairly small but generally the shallow 
conductivity magnitude of mid-latitude profiles is nearly twice the deep 
values which will lead to observable differences between using a 
conductivity bias versus a slope term for the adjustment.

A check of the CTD salinity calibrations for up-profile bottle file 
samples is given in figure 3a*, b*, and c*.  Figure 3a* shows salinities 
differences (all differences are CTD-Water Sample [WS] value) for those 
WS data marked good in the quality word of the bottle file all pressure 
levels.  Only a few salinity values of stations in the upper 150's and 
early 160's 205-210 and last few stations 220-233 appear to have 
excessively large salinity differences.  Further checking shows all of 
these occur in high salt gradient regions where large differences might 
be expected.  Figure 3b* shows the good salinities differences below 1000 
decibars with a station average (solid line).  The scatter (standard 
deviation) for all the good deep water (pressures greater than 1000 
dbars) salinity differences is a low value equal to 0.0011 psu.  Only a 
few stations (159, 162, 191, 193, 207, 209 and 213) appear to have 
possible deep salinity calibration problems and they will be examined 
more closely in the vertical using potential temperature versus salinity 
plots.  Figure 3c*, the plot of salinity differences versus pressure, 
shows the CTD salinity data for both P17E and P19S WOCE legs are very 
well calibrated in the vertical with not even a suggestion of a 
calibration problem in the vertical.

Waterfall plots of salinity differences versus pressure offset and 
labelled with station numbers are shown in figure 4* for stations groups 
around the station 213 that appeared questionable earlier.  This plot 
reinforce the possibility of a salinity calibration error in the CTD but 
difference plots can't sort out whether the CTD or bottle salinity is in 
error.  Figure 5* plots potential temperature versus salinity for stations 
around 213 and it is clear that the CTD salinity in the bottle file is 
salty but the 2 decibar down profile salinities are well calibrated.  A 
potential temperature salinity plot for stations around 159 through 162 
(figure 6*) shows that some of the deep bottle salts of station 162 are 
fresh below .6 C while the CTD salts in the bottle file are too salty for 
station 159.  The water sample salts for station 191, see figure 7a*, 
appear low compared to both the down & up CTD salts and finally the water 
sample salinities of station 207 are fresh compared to the CTD station of 
207 and neighboring stations.  All salinity calibrations problems appear 
to be limited to the water sample file data and the quality flags of this 
file should be checked over.  The 2-dbar down-profile CTD salinities 
appear well calibrated.

Overall and deep water (pressures greater than 1000 dbars) histograms of 
salinity and oxygen differences (CTD-WS) are shown in figure 8*.  The 
salinity differences below 1000 dbars has a very low standard deviation 
(0.0011 psu) and a mean difference of 0.0003 psu both indicate careful 
bottle salinity quality control and CTD calibration.  The oxygen 
differences below 1000 dbars shows a standard deviation of 1.29 Umol/kg 
which is some what larger than the earlier P16A P17A cruise value of .78 
Umol/kg.  The oxygen mean difference is 0.13 Umol/kg.  The mean and 
standard deviation of water sample versus CTD oxygen differences 
indicates careful bottle oxygen quality control and calibration of the 
CTD oxygen data.  The overall histograms for both salinity and oxygen 
were edited to remove outlyers greater than ± .05 psu and ± 40 Umol/kg 
respectively.  There were no salinity differences exceeding the criteria 
and the oxygen differences were edited from the histogram are given in 
table I below. All oxygen differences are shallow and are attributed to 
down/up mismatches associated with larger vertical oxygen gradient 
regions.

		Table I
sta.	P	Dox	Ox (WS)	Ox CTD
159	254.5	-53.0	235.7	288.7
161	164.1	-56.8	251.0	308.0
161	194.6	-53.0	232.2	285.2

A comparison of the station to station CTD oxygen calibrations to the 
bottle oxygens (CTD-WS Umol/kg) is shown in figures 9a* and b*.  Oxygen 
differences at depths greater than 1000 decibars are extremely tight 
around the zero line with no stations standing out except for the 
missing stations 184 through 187.  The vertical calibration of the CTD 
oxygens appears well behaved as indicated in figure 9c*.  The overall 
potential temperature versus oxygen plot given in figure 2* suggested 
that a few CTD profiles have some odd oxygen values.  The 2- dbars CTD 
data for stations 184-187 are correctly marked with a missing oxygen 
flag in the O2 quality word "9".  Stations 182, 196 and 227 appear to 
have odd looking upper section of the 2-dbar CTD profiles as is also 
noted in the cruise report.  The CTD oxygens for station 182 are shown 
together with neighboring stations in figure 10*.  The oxygens are 
flagged as questionable ("3") in the 2 dbar data file.  I would assign a 
quality code of bad "N" to the upper 900 decibars of station 182 since 
the oxygens are clearly not reasonable as they range from -26. to over 
1100 Umol/kg.  Station 196 displays oddly low oxygens from 4000 dbars to 
the bottom (figure 11*) which are flagged as questionable "3" in the 
quality word.  Station 196's CTD oxygens appear high from 3000 to 4000 
decibars both versus pressure and versus potential temperature but are 
flagged as good ("2").  Station 201 (figure 11*) also shows a drop in 
oxygen in the bottom 100 meters that looks suspect.  Station 208, 
plotted in figure 11b* shows a marked decrease in oxygen in the bottom 
100 dbars.  The low oxygens in Both stations 201 and 208 are perhaps 
associated with decreased lower rate near the bottom.

Noise Checks for spurious salinity and oxygen values:

This section makes an evaluation of the CTD salinity and oxygen noise 
levels with checks for spurious data values.  To check for spurious 
salinity and oxygen observations in the 2 decibar CTD data the standard 
deviation of the high-pass filtered oxygen and salinity with wavelengths 
between 4 and 25 decibars is summarized in the deep water depth ranges to 
the cast bottom.  The standard deviation is plotted versus station for 
several depth intervals from the bottom to the surface but only the 
deepest (3000 dbar) interval is shown.  Figure 12a*, & b* shows the 
standard deviation of salinity (12a*) and oxygen (12b*) from 3000 dbars to 
the bottom of the cast.  The station bottom pressure is shown in figure 
12c*.  Note some station don't go to 3000 dbars and the are left blank in 
the plots.  The average salinity scatter (0.00020 psu) is indicated on 
the plot and includes stations with up to 50 percent larger levels of 
scatter (stations 131-134, 165, 169, 171, 189, and 219) which upon closer 
examination represent real variations associated with salinity fine 
structure in the deep waters.  The salinity noise level is estimated from 
stations with a minimum deep water salinity variance to be approximately 
0.00018 psu (see stations 145 and 215) which falls in the middle of 
observed CTD noise levels from other data sets examined ( 0.0001 to 
0.0003 psu).  The average oxygen standard deviation (figure 12b*) is 0.23 
Umol/kg which is about twice the observed oxygen noise level (minimum) of 
roughly 0.12 Umol/kg.  The minimum variance is observed around station 
160 (see figure 12b*).  The oxygen minimum falls at the lower end of 
observed CTD oxygen noise from other data sets (0.08 Umol/kg to 0.35 
Umol/kg).  The excessive oxygen scatter seen in figure 12b* for stations 
164, 180, 190 and 207 and 208 in some cases is twice the average oxygen 
scatter value and appears on closer examination to be associated with 
enhanced instrumental/processing noise as discussed next.

Figure 13a* shows that station 164 CTD oxygens are clearly somewhat noisy 
than neighboring stations and also has an odd near bottom oxygen 
decrease seen earlier for stations 201 and 208.  Figure 13b* shows the 
same noisy behavior compared to its neighboring stations for station 180 
with a clear oxygen glitch (low) around 3010 dbars.  Again, station 190 
(figure 13c*) again shows excessive short wavelength oxygen variations 
compared with neighboring stations.  Finally stations 208 discussed 
earlier and station 207 (both plotted on figure 11b*) also show elevated 
noise levels compared to neighboring stations.  Although the elevated 
oxygen noise levels of these stations should be noted some where, I 
would not set the data quality flag to questionable.

The extremes values of the high-passed filtered salinities and oxygens 
are shown in figures 14a* & c* with the pressure level that they occur 
shown in figure 16b*.  Only one extreme value was found to be a data 
problem, the bad near surface oxygen values for station 182 as shown in 
figure 10* and marked as questionable in the 2-dbar data file.  The 
extreme surface salinity at station 164 (south most station along 126W) 
is real.

Vertical stability checks:

A check for density inversions provides additional information about 
spurious salinity and/or temperature values particularly in the near 
surface region where this method provides a more sensitive test than 
looking at the high wave number salinity variability.  The vertical 
gradient of potential density (determined by computing the first 
difference of density) is calculated and checked for decreases in 
density with depth exceeding one of two thresholds: -0.005 and -0.0075 
kg/m3.  The P17E and 19S CTD data has very few questionable data by the 
vertical stability criteria compared with other data sets reviewed.  A 
plot of the 4 points flagged are given in figure 15*.  All are in the 
higher gradient region of the upper 125 decibars.  Table 11 is a list of 
the density inversion values plotted on figure 15* together with station 
number and pressure.

			Table II
	Density inversions: 2 decibar CTD data
		Dsg/Dp < -0.005 kg/dbar
Dsg/Dp		station		pressure dbars
-6.7571326e-003	1.8100000e+002	0.0000000e+000
-5.8722514e-003	1.9400000e+002	9.4000000e+001
-5.1537654e-003	2.1000000e+002	1.1600000e+002
-7.8537612e-003	2.1100000e+002	9.0000000e+001

		Dsg/Dp < -0.0075 kg/dbar
Dsg/Dp		station		pressure dbars
-7.8537612e-003	2.1100000e+002	9.0000000e+001

*Figures shown in PDF file.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATA STATUS NOTES

1999.05.10	DMB:  I have merged total carbon, pco2, and pco2tmp into the 
		p17e_p19s bottle file.  The data are from Alex Kozyr and are public.  
		I have replaced the file in the data directory and updated the 
		public table to reflect the file change.

HeNe NOTES

EXPOCODE:	316N138/10

1. Column:	STNNBR
2. Column:	CAST
3. Column:	BOTTLE
4. Column:	DELHE3 [%]
5. Column:	ERR. DELHE3 [%]
6. Column:	FLAG DELHE3 [%]
7. Column:	HELIUM [NMOL/KG]
8. Column:	ERR. HELIUM [NMOL/KG]
9. Column:	FLAG HELIUM
10. Column:	NEON [NMOL/KG]
11. Column:	ERR. NEON [NMOL/KG]
12. Column:	FLAG NEON

*All figures shown in PDF file

