A. Cruise Narrative for WOCE P10 A.1. Highlights WHP Cruise Summary Information WOCE section designation: P10 Expedition designation (EXPOCODE): 3250TN026_1 Chief Scientists and their affiliation: Melinda Hall*, Terrence Joyce**/WHOI Dates: 1993.10.05 - 1993.11.10 Ship: R/V Thomas G. Thompson Ports of call: Fiji, Papua New Guinea to Yokohama, Japan Number of stations: 94 svs, 7 lvs 35° 10' N Geographic boundaries of the stations: 140° 45.17 E 149° 20.83 E 4° 0.92' S Floats and drifters deployed: Twelve ALACE floats Moorings deployed or recovered: none Contributing Authors: Daniel Torres, T. Joyce, P. Hacker, E. Firing, Marshall Swartz, Laura Goepfert, Joe Jennings, Bob Key, Steven Covey, Karl Newyear, Scott Birdwhistell, Chris Sabine, Rich Rotter, Art Dorety, Michio AOYAMA, George Anderson * Chief Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute Woods Hole MA 02543 Phone: 508-289-2599 Fax: 508-457-2181 e-mail: mindy@latour.whoi.edu **Co-Chief Scientist Woods Hole oceanographic Institute Woods Hole MA 02543 Phone: 508-289-2530 Fax: 508-457-2181 e-mail: tjoyce@whoi.edu Table of Contents: Cruise Summary Information Hydrographic Measurements Description of scientific program CTD - general CTD - pressure Geographic boundaries of the survey CTD - temperature Cruise track (figure available in PDF version) CTD - conductivity/salinity Description of stations CTD - dissolved oxygen Description of parameters sampled Bottle depth distributions (figure) Salinity Floats and drifters deployed Oxygen Nutrients CFCs Principal Investigators for all measurements Helium Cruise Participants Tritium Radiocarbon Problems and goals not achieved CO2 system parameters Other parameters Underway Data Information Acknowledgments Navigation References Bathymetry Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) DQE Reports Thermosalinograph CTD Meteorological observations S/O2/nutrients AMS 14C Large Volume 14C CFCs Data Processing History (All Figures are available in PDF version) A.2. Cruise Summary The objective of this cruise was to occupy a hydrographic section nominally along 149 E from Papua, New Guinea to shelf of Japan near Yokohama as part of the onetime WHP survey of the Pacific Ocean. A CTD with a 36 place, 10 liter rosette was used on a total of 94 small volume stations with water sampling for salinity, oxygen, nutrients, CFCs, tritium/helium-3, alkalinity, TCO2, and radiocarbon. The station spacing ranged from 5 to 40 nautical miles and most lowerings were made to within 10 meters of the bottom. A lowered ADCP (LADCP) was attached to the rosette on 53 of the stations. At 7 stations, additional casts were made for large volume sampling of radiocarbon in the deep and mid- depth waters. These large volume casts were usually made with nine, 250 liter Gerard Barrels. Underway measurements along the cruise included pCO2, ADCP, digital echo-sounding, thermosalinograph, and meteorology. Twelve ALACE floats were deployed along the cruise track to the south of 20 N. A.3. List of Principal Investigators Name Responsibility Affiliation ----------------------------------------------------------------- M. Hall CTD,S,O2 WHOI L. Gordon Nutrients Oregon State Univ. M. Warner CFCs Univ. Washington C. Sabine TCO2, pCO2, alkalinity Princeton Univ. R. Key Radiocarbon (SVS, LVS) Princeton Univ. W. Jenkins Tritium/Helium-3 WHOI T. Joyce Underway ADCP WHOI P. Hacker & E. Firing Lowered ADCP Univ. Hawaii A.4. Scientific Program The P10 cruise was the third in a series of three WHP onetime cruises aboard the Thompson in 1993 following P17N and P14N. The ship departed Suva, Fiji, on 29 September and steamed westwards towards the northern coastline of Papua, New Guinea, where the section began at the 200m isobath. During the 7 day deadhead, we carried out three test stations (not included in the station numbering scheme) to shake down equipment and water sampling methodology. The station track, designed in early planning documents for 145 E, was shifted eastward in an effort to depart the New Guinea coastline perpendicular to the bathymetry, then skirt the Mariana Ridge and Trough to the east, thus making the whole section in the East Mariana Basin, rather than in both that basin and the Philippine Basin further west. Where bottom depths changed rapidly (near the coast and passing the Caroline Seamounts around 6-8 N) station spacing was dictated by topographic changes; within 3 degrees of the equator, spacing was every 15 minutes of latitude along the ship track (nominally 15 nm, but slightly more due to the track angle), stretching to 30 nm up to 10.5 N, then 40 nm from there to station 73 at 28.5 N. At that point we began our dogleg towards the Japan coast in order to cross the Kuroshio at an approximately right angle. ADCP results indicated that this crossing was indeed close to right angles. Over the northern dogleg, station spacing gradually decreased to resolve the strong front of the Kuroshio and ultimately, to accommodate rapid topographic changes near the coast. Stations generally went to within 10 m of the bottom except over the Japan Trench and a few other stations where bottom depths exceed 6000 dbar. No stations were lost due to weather and the ship arrived on schedule in Yokohama on 10 November. A.5. Major Problems or goals not achieved On station 65, on 31 October, we were retrieving the intermediate Large Volume cast and had taken 2 Gerard bottles off of the wire when the winch failed to stop and the third bottle was 2-blocked, breaking the wire and causing the remaining 7 bottles to be lost. Fortunately, no one was injured, but the loss reduced the ability to carry out LVS sampling and the final LVS stations was designed to use small volume radiocarbon measurements for the intermediate cast. Another problem was encountered with the salinity measurements causing unacceptably large sample to sample 'noise'. Various causes were examined including changing Autosals, changing Autosal location until the problem was finally isolated: the 120 ml flint glass WHOI sample bottles were replaced with 200 ml Scripps Kimax bottles commencing with station 59 and a dramatic improvement was seen. The WHOI bottles, over 5 years old, were found to have flakes of an insoluble substance that appeared to come from the inside surface. A.6. Other Incidents of Note A.7. Cruise Participants Name Responsibility Affiliation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Melinda Hall Chi. Sci., CTD watch WHOI Terrence Joyce Co-Chi. Sci, CTD watch, ADCP WHOI Marshall Swartz CTD & Rosette Hardware WHOI George Tupper Salts, Oxygen, CTD watch, ALACE floats WHOI George Knapp Salts, Oxygen WHOI Susan Wijffels CTD watch WHOI Dan Torres CTD watch, bathymetry WHOI Sarah Zimmerman CTD data processor WHOI Brian Guest CTD watch WHOI Joe LaCasce CTD watch MIT/WHOI joint prgm. Teresa Turner Salts, CTD watch WHOI Scott Birdwhistell Tritium/Helium-3 WHOI Robert Key Carbon-14 Princeton Chris Sabine CO2 Princeton Rich Rotter CO2 Princeton Art Dorety CO2 Princeton Peter Hacker LADCP, CTD watch U. Hawaii Joe Jennings Nutrients OSU Consuelo Carbonell-Moore Nutrients OSU Steve Covey CFCs U. Wash. Karl Newyear CFCs U. Wash. Jim Wells LVS, C-14 Scripps B. Underway Measurements B.1 Navigation, Bathymetry and Meteorology (Daniel Torres) A digital bathymetric system (Bathy 2000,Ocean Data Equipment Corporation) with a 3.5 kHz pinger was operated for the entire cruise and successfully logged bathymetric data while underway at one minute intervals onto an underway Data Acquisition System (DAS) along with meteorological data (wind speed, direction) from masthead sensors and temperature, conductivity and salinity from a SeaBird thermosalinograph. While these and other navigation measurements (from a Magnavox 1107 and Trimble 10X GPS sets) were updated at approximately 2 second intervals, only one minute sub-samples (unaveraged) were stored on the DAS. The meteorological data which was merged into the DAS data stream came from a suite of instruments assembled by Alden Electronics. Below is a list of those instruments along with the manufacturer: Wind speed and direction: R. M. Young Anemometer Air temperature: R. M. Young Temperature Sensor Humidity: Rotronic Humidity Sensor Barometric Pressure: Air Intellisensor Digital Barometer Precipitation: R. M. Young Precipitation Gauge Short wave radiation: Eppley PIR Geometer Long wave radiation: Eppley Pyranometer PSP The following table lists the underway measurements available on the DAS: Value 1 = GMT Date (nav_date) Value 2 = GMT Time (nav_time) Value 3 = DR time (magnavox_dr_time) Value 4 = Latitude (nav_latitude) Value 5 = Longitude (nav_longitude) Value 6 = Status (magnavox_status) Value 7 = Speed Log (knots) (nav_speed_log) Value 8 = SOG (knots) (nav_sog) Value 9 = HDOP (magnavox_hdop) Value 10 = Gyro Heading (deg. T) (nav_gyro_heading) Value 11 = COG (deg. T) (nav_cog) Value 12 = Satellites (magnavox_satellites) Value 13 = Sea Temp. (deg. C) (seabird_temperature_int) Value 14 = Conductivity (S/m) (seabird_conductivity) Value 15 = Salinity (PSU) (seabird_salinity) Value 16 = Water Depth (meters) (water_depth) Value 17 = Wire Out (meters) (wire_out) Value 18 = Wind (m/s)(deg. R) (imet_wind_spd_dir) Value 19 = Air Temp. (deg. C) (imet_air_temperature) Value 20 = Humidity (percent) (imet_humidity) Value 21 = Barometer (millibars) (imet_barometric_pressure) Value 22 = Precip. (mm/m/h)(tot) (imet_precipitation) Value 23 = SW Rad. (watts/m^2) (imet_sw_radiation) Value 24 = LW Rad. (watts/m^2) (imet_lw_radiation) B.2 ADCP and LADCP (T. Joyce, P. Hacker & E. Firing) Direct velocity measurements were made along the cruise track with a hull- mounted and a lowered ADCP, both from RDI. The former was a 150 kHz system which profiled at 8 meter vertical resolution and vector-averaged the 1 second ping data onto a 5 minute time series with a vertical range of sampling from 20 to 350 m depth, approximately. The measurement system included a single GPS receiver and an Ashtech 3DF receiver, which measured position as well as ship's heading, pitch and roll once per second. The Ashtech heading was used to correct for systematic and other errors in the Sperry MK-37 gyros. Data from the ADCP/Ashtech system were logged on a separate data stream from the shipboard DAS. The lowered ADCP (LADCP) was a 300 kHz, RDI system which was mounted on the rosette frame an used for full-depth velocity profiling. It was used primarily in the equatorial band (45 stations from 4 S to 10.5 N) and for 13 stations across the Kuroshio, where strong, deep currents were expected. B.3 Thermosalinograph As noted above, a SeaBird thermosalinograph was employed using an uncontaminated seawater system on the vessel. Data are available at one minute intervals on the DAS. C. Hydrographic measurements C.1 Summary of cruise C.1.1 Major difficulties The only major difficulty affecting CTD operations was the loss of 46 endcaps on the 10-liter bottles, due to stress-induced fractures of the PVC endcap material, and to lanyard failures. This led to a major diversion of technician time to reinstall endcaps and identify failures, and to numerous lost samples, with lost endcaps and springs. The design of the endcap was changed immediately by Scripps, and implemented on the following cruise with excellent results. C.1.2 Equipment Configuration (Marshall Swartz and Laura Goepfert) Two WHOI-modified EG&G Mk-III CTDs were provided for the cruise, although only one was used throughout the entire cruise (CTD #10). It is provided with an optional oxygen current and temperature channel, and has been modified at WHOI to install a thermally-isolated titanium pressure transducer, with a separately digitized pressure temperature channel (Toole et. al., 1993). The CTDs both had a digital input for an external serial device. The cruise used two Falmouth Scientific (FSI) Ocean Temperature Modules (OTM) to provide separate and redundant platinum temperature data for assuring calibration stability. They were interchanged several times during the cruise to build up historical information. One FSI Ocean Conductivity Module (OCM), providing a redundant conductivity reading from an inductive conductivity cell, was also used on this channel. Temperature and pressure calibrations were made at WHOI prior to and following the cruise. The CTD was provided with one platinum temperature probe, with an estimated lag of 250 msec, and a 3 cm conductivity cell. The temperature lag was checked by comparing density reversals in theta salinity (TS) plots (Giles and McDonald, 1986). It was found that 250 ms showed the least amount of looping or density reversals. The oxygen sensor was installed at the beginning of the cruise, and changed out as called for. The OTM provided a 400 msec platinum temperature reading at 25 Hz to the CTD. The OCM provided the redundant conductivity reading at 4 Hz, and the CTD sampled the sensor suite at 25 Hz. Two identical rosette frames were provided by Scripps. Each consisted of 36 10- liter custom-designed bottles released by a General Oceanics (GO) model 1016 36- position pylon. The bottles had been produced at SIO based on a design from PMEL. Inside the frame were mounted the CTD, a Lowered Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (LADCP) provided by University of Hawaii and a 10-kHz pinger. The 1016 pylon was controlled by a GO 1016-SCI Surface Control Interface (SCI), providing power and commands down the cable, and received status data back. The SCI was controlled through a dedicated personal computer. The CTD was left powered on at all times, except when disconnected due to cable changeout or retermination. In no event was the CTD warmed up less than 30 minutes. The CTD was kept out of the sun to avoid overheating of the case. The CTD data was acquired by an EG&G Mk-III deck unit providing demodulated data to two personal computers running EG&G version 3.0 CTD acquisition software (EG&G, Oceansoft acquisition manual, 1990), one providing graphical data to screen and plotter, and the other a running listing output. Bottom approach was controlled by following the pinger direct and bottom return signals on the ship- provided PDR trace. After each station, the CTD data was forwarded to another set of personal computers running both EG&G CTD post-processing software and custom-built software from WHOI (Millard and Yang, 1993). The data were first-differenced, lag corrected, pressure sorted and centered into 2 decibar bins for final data quality control and analysis, including fitting to water sample salinity and oxygen results. This data was then forwarded to the PI for analysis daily, to compare to historical and water sample data. C.2 Water sample salinity and oxygen measurements (George Knapp) A complete description of the water sample dissolved oxygen and salinity measurement techniques used during this cruise is presented by Knapp et al. (1990). As described in this report, samples were collected for the analysis of dissolved oxygen and salinity from each of the 36 ten-liter bottles tripped on the upcast of each CTD station, in accordance with the recommendations of the WOCE Hydrographic Office. The vertical distribution of these samples was a compromise between the need to obtain deep samples for the calibration of the CTD conductivity and oxygen sensors and the requirement to define the characteristics of the water masses by the distributions of the various measured parameters. C.2.1 Salinity Analysis Considerable problems with the water sample salinities were encountered during the first half of this cruise. Because the first 16 stations were in shallow water where there was a lot of variability in the salinity, these problems were not readily apparent. As we progressed into deeper water they became more visible. There was an abnormally large scatter in the deep salinities, resulting in many samples being flagged as questionable or bad. Problems with the salinometers included radio interference, an unclean source of ship's power, and several instances of operator error. These problems were gradually sorted out and rectified. By far, however, the largest source of this large scatter in the salinities came from the bottles that were used to collect the salinity samples. The bottles were 120 ml Boston Round, flint glass bottles with screw caps equipped with Poly-Seal cones to prevent leakage and evaporation. Most of the bottles were at least 5 years old, and had been stored continuously with small amounts of salt water in them. Close examination of them revealed flakes of an insoluble substance that appeared to be coming from the inside surface. It is now believed these particles were the main cause of the majority of the bad salinities from approximately the first 58 stations. Commencing with station 59, salinities were collected in 200 ml square Kimax bottles owned by SIO, with polyethylene caps and inserts, and a dramatic improvement was seen. IAPSO Standard Water Batch P-114 was used through station 12. Commencing with station 13, batch P-120 was used for the remainder of the cruise. At the time it was noted that the standby number of the Autosal shifted by +.0015 equivalent salinity units. Post-cruise comparisons of the salinities measured during this cruise with historical measurements suggest that the measured salinities from the later stations were erroneously high. Comparisons of batch P-120 with batches P-118, P-123 and P-124, made during the summer of 1995 confirm that P- 120 is approximately .0015 fresher than stated on its label. Thus, it was decided to subtract .0015 from all salinity measurements commencing with station 13, effectively referencing all salinities to Batch P-114. Because of the multiple problems with salinity during the first 55 stations, estimated accuracy is 0.005 psu. Subsequent salinity data has an estimated accuracy of 0.002 psu. C.2.2 Dissolved Oxygen Analysis No problems were encountered with the analysis of dissolved oxygen. Estimated accuracy is 0.02 ml/l. The majority of the data flagged as questionable or bad was due to sampling error on deck. C.3 Water sample Nutrient measurements (Joe Jennings) C.3.1 Analysts, Equipment and Techniques Nutrient analysts on P10 were Maria Consuelo Carbonell-Moore and Joe C. Jennings, Jr. from L. I. Gordon's analytical group at Oregon State University. The continuous flow analyzer used was an Alpkem Rapid Flow Analyzer (RFA), model 300. A Keithley data acquisition system was used in parallel with analog stripchart recorders to acquire the absorbance data. The software used to process the nutrient data was developed at OSU. All of the reagent and standard materials were provided by OSU. The methods are described in Anonymous (1985) and in Gordon et. al. (a & b). C.3.2 Sampling Procedures Nutrient samples were drawn from all CTD/rosette casts at stations 1 through 94 and at several test stations which preceded station 1. High density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles of approximately 30 ml volume were used as sample containers, and these same bottles were positioned directly in the autosampler tray. These bottles were routinely rinsed at least 3 times with one third to one half of their volume of sample before filling, and were thoroughly cleaned with 10% HCl every two or three days. The nutrient samples were drawn following those for gases: helium, tritium, dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide. In some instances, the nutrient sampling procedure was not completed for almost 2 hours after the CTD arrived on deck. At most stations, the RFA was started before sampling was completed to reduce the delay and minimize possible changes in nutrient concentration due to biological processes. Analyses were typically completed within three to four hours of the end of the CTD/rosette casts except at Stns 21 and 24 where analytical problems resulted in a delay of about 5 hours. C.3.3 Calibration and Standardization The volumetric flasks and pipettes used to prepare standards were gravimetrically calibrated both prior to and after the cruise. The Eppendorf Maxipettor adjustable pipettes used to prepare mixed standards typically have a standard deviation of less than 0.002 ml on repeated deliveries of 10 ml volumes. High concentration mixed standards containing nitrate, phosphate, and silicic acid were prepared at intervals of 4 to 7 days and kept refrigerated in HDPE bottles. During the "deadhead" steam at the beginning of the cruise, duplicate high concentration standards were prepared for each nutrient and compared to ensure that both gave the same response. For almost every station, a fresh "working standard" was prepared by precise dilution of 20 ml of the high concentration mixed standard with low nutrient seawater. This working standard has nutrient concentrations which are 75 - 85% of those found in Deep and Bottom waters. A separate nitrite standard solution was also added to these working standards. Corrections for the actual volumes of the flasks and pipettes were included in the preliminary data. The WOCE Operations Manual calls for nutrient concentrations to be reported in units of micromoles per kilogram (µM/kg). Because the salinity information required to compute density is not usually available at the time of initial computation of the nutrient concentrations, our concentrations are always originally computed and reported as micromoles per liter. This unit conversion will be made using the corrected salinity data when it is available. C.3.4 Equipment and analytical problems There were no major problems with equipment. One failure of a power supply module was resolved quickly by replacement with a spare module. C.3.5 Measurement of Precision and Bias C.3.5.1 Short Term Precision and Bias Throughout the cruise, replicate samples drawn in different sample bottles from the same Niskin bottle were analyzed to assess the precision of the RFA analyses. These replicate samples were analyzed as adjacent samples (one after the other) at the beginning and again at the end of each sample runs to help monitor deterioration in the samples or uncompensated instrumental drift. Our estimates of short term precision based on these replicate analyses are given below. The values given are the absolute mean differences between replicate pairs from the beginning to the end of each sample run. (Units are reported in micromoles per liter and as percentages of typical deep water concentrations.) Phosphate: 0.022 (<1.0%) Nitrate + Nitrite: 0.09 (<0.3%) Silicic acid: 0.3 (<0.3%) Nitrite: 0.02 (<2.0%) C.3.5.2 Longer Term Precision: On most of the sample runs during P10, an "old" working standard from the previous station was run with the "new" working standard which had been freshly prepared. The "old" standards were kept refrigerated in plastic bottles. The average age of the "old" standards when reanalyzed was eight hours. We calculated the difference in absorbance (peak height) between the new standards and the old standard which were run immediately after them. These differences, with regard to sign, were tabulated and analyzed statistically. The results were converted to concentration units by multiplying the difference by the mean sensitivity factor for each nutrient and are shown on the table below. Based on these statistics, it does not appear that significant degradation of the working standards occurred in the 3 to 8 hour time frame between stations. Table 1. Differences between working standards at adjacent stations. Differences are expressed as "new" standard minus "old", and Are given in concentration units (µM/l). The number of Comparisons used for these statistics was 87. Phosphate Nitrate Silicic acid Nitrite ---------------------------------------------------------- Mean, (µM/l) -0.008 -0.013 -0.09 -0.013 wrt sign: RMS dev : 0.009 0.095 0.30 0.032 C.3.6 Comparison with other data. We made comparisons of the P10 nutrient data with data from several other cruises. Where possible, groups of several stations were selected where cruise tracks crossed or were parallel and the nutrients were then plotted against potential temperature (theta). The data we used came from the 1973-1974 GEOSECS cruise, the 1985 WEPOCS I cruise, and the 1989 WOCE section along 10 N. The nutrient data from these cruises was collected either with the Technicon AutoAnalyzer II (GEOSECS and WEPOCS) or the Alpkem RFA 300 (10 N and P10). C.3.6.1 Nitrate The deep and bottom water P10 nitrate concentrations tend to be somewhat lower than the historical data we used for this comparison. The difference is about 0.3 µM between the deepest P10 and WEPOCS I samples, 0.5 µM between the P10 and both the 10N and 24N data, and as much as 1.0 - 1.5 µM at the nutrient maximum (ca. 2300 db) between the P10 nitrates and GEOSECS stn 224. Below about 3500 db, the GEOSECS nitrates are only 0.5 to 0.75 µM higher than the P10 data. There is more overlap of the P10 nitrate/theta envelopes with all of the historic data in the upper water column. Relative to the deep water concentrations, the agreement between cruises is within 1 - 2% except at the nutrient maximum in the GEOSECS stn, where the difference is as much as 3.5%. C.3.6.2 Phosphate The deep phosphate/theta envelopes of the P10 data overlap with those of the WEPOCS I, 10N and 24N cruises. GEOSECS stn 224 plots mostly within the P10 envelope with the deepest GEOSECS samples about 0.03 µM lower than the P10 data. The 24N data envelope tends to be on the lower side of the P10 envelope, but they do overlap. Above about 1.5 C, the 10N phosphate data are somewhat higher (0.02 - 0.07 µM) than the P10 data. As a percentage of deep water concentrations, these cruises agree within 1 - 2%. C.3.6.3 Silicic acid (silicate) The pattern here is similar to that with nitrate; good agreement with the WEPOCS data and overlapping, but slightly lower silicic acid/theta envelopes than the other reference cruises. In the deep and bottom waters, the P10 data is within 1.0 µM of the all of the other cruises. At the silicic acid maximum (2300 db), the GEOSECS data is higher by ca. 4 µM while the 10N and 24N cruise data is 1 - 2 µM higher than the maximum concentrations determined on P10. The agreement is within < 1% in the bottom water and 1 - 3% at the silicic acid maxima. C.3.7 Nutrient QC Notes: P10 Cruise A first pass QC check on the nutrient data was carried out during the P10 cruise, primarily by comparing vertical profiles and nutrient/theta relationships. During the post-cruise quality control phase, all nutrient data were rechecked using log notes and the analog stripchart recordings made at sea and by examining parameter/parameter plots for outliers. Any correctable errors have been identified and corrected as appropriate, and the data quality flags have been edited to conform to the definitions in the WOCE Operations Manual (WOCE Report No. 67/91). A detailed list of flagged data is given in Appendix A for all Rosette (ROS) casts on the cruise. C.3.8 Nutrients Data Processing Notes: Converted the file from Bob Key to the WHP .lvs format. Parameters that were in the original file but were not retained in the .lvs file because they are not in the .lvs record format description: latitude longitude depth (m) nitrate nitrite phosphate silicate AOU sigma 0 sigma 1 sigma 2 sigma 3 sigma 4 QUALT1 flags for: temperature nitrate nitrite phosphate silicate aou The Key file had station numbers 1-13, but the .sum file indicated that the LVS stations were 16, 25, 34, 47, 56, 65, and 74. In addition the cast numbers in the Key file were always 1 and 3, which did not agree with the .sum file. After comparing the maximum pressure in the .sum file with the maximum pressure in the Key file for each cast, I was able to determine which station and cast numbers to use. There is a 0 flag for some of the parameters, in fact all of the oxygens except where there was no sample which is flagged 9. This is not a valid number for the quality flags. I left them as 0 since I have no way of knowing what they should be. Sarilee Anderson 17 Dec. 1999 References Anonymous. 1985. RFA-300 Rapid Flow Analyzer Operation Manual. Preliminary. Alpkem Corporation, Clackamas, Oregon. Looseleaf binder, unnumbered pages. Gordon, L.I., J.C. Jennings, Jr., A.A. Ross and J.M. Krest., A suggested protocol for continuous flow automated analysis of seawater nutrients (phosphate, nitrate, nitrite and silicic acid) in the WOCE Hydrographic Program and the Joint Global Ocean Fluxes Study. Available from the US WHP Office or the authors. Gordon, L. I., J. Krest, and A. Ross, b. (in preparation), Reducing temperature sensitivity in continuous flow analysis of silicic acid in seawater. C.4 CTD Data (Laura Goepfert) C.4.1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY CALIBRATIONS FOR CTDs The pressure, temperature, and conductivity sensors were calibrated by Marshall Swartz at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute's Calibration Laboratory. C.4.1.1 PRESSURE CALIBRATIONS Method/Calibration Standards The pressure transducer of CTD10 was calibrated in a temperature controlled bath to the WHOI Ruska dead weight tester (DWT) as described by Millard and Yang (1993). The pre-cruise calibration was completed on September 21, 1993 and consisted of pressure calibrations at two temperatures, the ice point, and room temperature. The post-cruise pressure calibration was completed on February 13, 1994 and consisted of three temperatures; 1.36 C, 14.96 C, and 29.7 C. BIAS SLOPE QUADRATIC ------------------------------------------------------------- pre-cruise ice -.555377E+01 0.100175E+00 -.142270E-08 room -.441239E+01 0.100146E+00 -.150717E-08 post-cruise 1.36 C -.447623E+01 0.100137E+00 -.110389E-08 14.96 C -.453082E+01 0.100139E+00 -.128877E-08 29.70 C -.402724E+01 0.100112E+00 -.112505E-08 Using the post-cruise pressure calibrations, new pressure temperature terms were computed. These terms were used to correct both the static and the dynamic response of the pressure transducer to temperature changes (Toole, 1994). PRESSURE TEMPERATURE CTD10 S1 S2 T0 BIAS SLOPE --------------------------------------------------- -1.533E-6 .5112E-1 1.36 36.19 -9.0792E-3 C.4.1.2 TEMPERATURE CALIBRATIONS Method/Calibration Standards The pre-cruise temperature calibration was completed on September 21, 1993, and the post-cruise was finished February 23, 1994. The pre-cruise calibration was done using the ITS-68 temperature scale whereas the post-cruise calibration used the ITS-90 temperature scale. To convert the temperatures to ITS68 scale for use in the determination of salinity the following formula was used (NIST,1990): ITS68 = x +(2.21667E-04 * x) + (5.95238E-07 * x^2). BIAS SLOPE QUADRATIC -------------------------------------------------- pre-cruise .858035E-02 .499729E-03 .389166E-11 post-cruise .684949e-02 .499742e-03 .434164E-11 A shift between the pre and post-cruise temperature calibration for CTD10 was noted. The shift showed an offset of .002 deg. C at 0 deg. C, .001 C at 15 C, and 0 at 25 C. CTD10 temperature measurements during the cruise was compared with an Ocean Temperature Module's (OTM) temperature and the difference between the two remained constant. A shift, therefore, did not occur during the cruise. The OTM used on the cruise was compared with the pre and post-temperature calibrations for a couple of deep stations. It was found that the pre-cruise temperature calibration for CTD 10 most closely matched the temperature readings of the OTM. Therefore, the pre-cruise temperature calibration was used to scale the data. C.4.1.3 CONDUCTIVITY CALIBRATIONS Method/Calibration Standards Only a pre-cruise conductivity calibration was performed. Bottled salinities were drawn during the temperature calibration, five samples at each temperature. These values were then converted to conductivity and compared to the values read by the CTD at the different temperatures (Millard and Yang, 1993). BIAS SLOPE ------------------------------------ pre-cruise .624569E-02 .100627E-02 In the final processing of the data gathered, the pre-cruise ice point pressure and the pre-cruise temperature scaling factors were employed with the post- cruise pressure temperature scaling factors. C.4.2 SUMMARY OF AT SEA CALIBRATIONS The pressure bias of CTD10 at the sea surface, was recorded at the beginning of each station. The pressure bias was found by averaging fifteen scans before the package entered the water and subtracting this from the pressure bias term in each station's calibration file. C.4.2.1 CONDUCTIVITY CALIBRATION Basic fitting procedure The CTD conductivity sensor data was fit to the water sample conductivity as described in Millard and Yang 1993. The cruise was fit as one large group, and divided into sections where there was a noticeable shift in the sensor. These groups were fit for both slope and bias. Due to problems in water sample conductivity measurements as described earlier in this report, any questionable water sample conductivities were excluded from the fit. Furthermore, the edit factor for the determination of good bottles was changed from 2.8 to 2.5. Closer inspection of the CTD-Water Sample (ws) conductivity data revealed a shape in the deep water residuals. The deep water residuals showed an offset of .001. This appeared to be a pressure dependent shape. Alteration of Beta, the coefficient of thermal expansion of the conductivity cell, from 1.5E-08 to .75E- 08 brought the at depth residuals to zero. However, an offset in the surface of the CTD- WS residual plot at approximately 500 db of .002 remained. A correction was applied to the raw CTD conductivity. The correction applied was: C=Cold+.002 *exp [-(C-37.5 ^2/b], where b= 6 when C>37.5 and b=3 when C<37.5 (Toole, 1994). After these corrections had been applied, the stations were re-fit to the raw water sample conductivity. Conductivity fits applied to the final CTD data are tabulated in Appendix B. As stated earlier, it was found that salinities starting with station 13 were .0015 higher than those observed in the historical data. It was determined that a correction of -.0015 be added to both the CTD and the water sample salts. This was done to both the *.CTD files and the *.SEA files. C.4.2.2 Oxygen Calibrations Basic Fitting procedure The CTD oxygen sensor variables were fit to water sample oxygen data to determine the six parameters of the oxygen algorithm (Millard and Yang, 1993). As with conductivity, the entire cruise was fit as one group and then divided into sections where shifts in the behavior of the sensor were noted. The edit factor was changed from 2.8 to 2.5 for valid data. The oxygen data appeared to fit better and easier when the edit factor was lowered. C.4.3 QUALITY CONTROL OF 2DB CTD DATA AND SEA FILES Qualifications for marking conductivity data Surface spikes in Salinity that appeared in the first and second decibars of the stations were not uncommon. These spikes, which were probably caused by pressure averaging conductivity data prior to the package entering the water, were marked as questionable. Several spikes were found in the CTD files, and were removed by interpolating between the pressure bins. The quality word was changed to six to reflect the interpolation. The stations where this occurred and the bins which were interpolated are shown in the table below station start bin end bin 13 2275 db 2289 db 35 2167 db 2191 db 90 1171 db 1175 db In the SEA files the CTD salinity values were subtracted from the water sample salinity and the differences were compared to an edit factor. The edit criteria used from 0 db to 1000 db was .01 psu, and 1000 db to 7000 db, was .005 psu. If surface bottles exceeded the edit criteria they were accepted as good. Variability in surface salinity is expected since the vessel tends to drift during the CTD cast. However, if the CTD salinity was in the salinity spike of the 2db averaged file than it was marked as questionable. C.4.3.2 Qualifications for marking oxygen data As the package approaches the sea floor the descent rate slows, thus affecting the flow rate of sea water passed the oxygen sensor. This slowing of the package results in a 'tail' in the 2 db averaged oxygen values. Therefore, in stations where the 'tail' is present the oxygen values in the pressure bins at the bottom of the cast have been marked as questionable. In the SEA file, the CTD oxygens were subtracted from the water sample oxygen, and the difference was compared to an edit factor. The edit criteria for 0 db to 1000 db was .50 ml/l and from 1000 db to 7000 db was .05 ml/l. If the difference exceeded the criteria the sample was looked at more closely to see which was less questionable. If the surface bottles were off by more than .5 ml/l they were usually accepted as good. Due to the merging of the down-trace CTD oxygens with the up-trace water bottle sample, the edit criteria was often exceeded. This can most often be found in high transition zones where owing to both horizontal variability and large time intervals the difference between the two oxygen values can be large (Owens and Millard, 1985). Therefore, in areas of high transition both values were accepted as good. In the deeper water if both the CTD and water sample exceeded the edit criteria and there exists a high transition zone in either temperature or oxygen content then both were considered good if they fell on the 2 db averaged down CTD trace. C.5 CFC-11 and CFC-12 Measurements Analysts: Mr. Steven Covey, University of Washington Mr. Karl Newyear, University of Washington Our goal was to measure the distribution of theta chlorofluorocarbons, CFC-11 and CFC-12, as part of the P10 onetime section. Full water column profiles and surface marine air samples were analyzed with an electron capture gas chromatography system similar to one described by Bullister and Weiss (1988). In total, 1272 water and 73 air samples were taken. based on 70 pairs of replicate water samples, we estimate our precision to be approximately 2% and 3% of the CFC-12 and CFC-11 concentration, respectively. Our sampling strategy was guided by expected freon presence time constraints. Due to their relatively recent introduction to the natural environment, CFC-11 and CFC-12 are not expected to be found (nor were they) at depths greater than about 1800 m on the section. However, the deepest Niskin bottle was always sampled in order to detect any topographically-trapped circulation features. Additionally, we were limited in time because each sample took 11 minutes to be fully analyzed. In order to sample each station and run the required standards and blanks limited the number of water samples per cast to about 18-21. Sample Collection and Analysis Samples for CFC analysis were drawn from the 10-liter Niskins into 100-cc ground glass syringes fitted with plastic stopcocks. These samples were the first aliquots drawn from the particular Niskins. There were very high contamination levels of the CFC samples during the early part of the expedition resulting from the Niskin bottles. Between WHP sections P14N and P10, the gray Niskin bottles were stored in large foam-filled plastic containers (used for shipments of frozen fish). The insulating foam in these containers was made by using CFC-11 as a blowing agent. The CFC-11 in the air in these boxes builds up to at least 500 times the CFC-11 values in clean air. During the month over which the Niskin bottles were stored in the box, the CFC-11 was absorbed into the PVC material of the Niskins. When these Niskins were then used to collect seawater samples, the CFC-11 desorbs into the water. At the first test station (Station 998), the CFC-11 concentrations varied from 0.2 to 1.8 pmol/kg in waters that should be CFC-free. During section P14N, the CFC-11 blank of these same bottles was 0.0045 pmol/kg. A second test cast was carried out using white PVC bottles made by ODF which had not been stored in the "fish boxes". At this station (999), the CFC blanks were much lower (0.0 to 0.06 pmol/kg) but still higher than normal. These white sampling bottles did not fit the rosette as well as the gray bottles and were replaced for a third test cast. At Station 997, the CFC-11 blanks in the gray bottles had decreased to between 0.06 and 0.75 pmol/kg. The mean and standard deviation of these blanks makes the derivation of any useful CFC-11 concentrations from the gray bottles impossible. The gray bottles unfortunately remained as the only sampling bottles until Station 21. During this time, the CFC-11 sampling blanks decreased to between 0.03 and 0.8 pmol/kg, depending upon the individual bottle. In theory, the desorption of CFC-11 from the Niskins should be a first order process with time. The e-folding time appears to be on the order of 5 days, i.e. by the end of the cruise the contamination levels should be about 2% of those at the beginning of the cruise. At Station 21, bottle 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 were replaced with the white 10-liter bottles for a test which confirmed the gray bottles were still a large problem (The mean CFC-11 sampling blanks were 0.099 +/- 0.044 pmol/kg for the gray bottles and 0.007 +/- 0.010 pmol/kg for the white bottles.) Between Stations 22-55, only white 10-liter bottles were used on the rosette. At Station 56, gray Niskins went into positions 11 and 21 where they remained until the end of the cruise. Positions 2 and 4 were filled with gray Niskins from Station 61 to the end. These bottles remained too contaminated for reliable CFC-11 measurements. The samples were analyzed using a CFC extraction and analysis system of Dr. Richard Gammon of the University of Washington. The analytical procedure and data analysis are described by Bullister and Weiss (1988). Dr. Warner and his technician, Steven Covey, had used the system during WOCE section P14N and left the system set up in the main laboratory of the R.V. Thompson with a small gas flow (to prevent contamination problems) between the two WOCE expeditions. The CFC concentrations in air were measured approximately twice per day during this expedition. Air was pumped to the main laboratory from the bow through Dekabon tubing. Calibration A working standard, calibrated on the SIO1986 scale, was used to calibrate the response of the electron capture detector of the Shimadzu Mini-2 GC to the CFCs. This standard, Airco cylinder CC88098, contained gas with CFC-11 and CFC-12 concentrations of 274.0 parts per trillion (ppt) and 496.8 ppt, respectively. To convert these results to the SIO1993 scale, CFC-11 concentrations need to be multiplied by 0.9755 and CFC-12 concentrations need to be multiplied by 1.0128. Sampling Blanks The contamination problems with CFC-11 are discussed in detail above. CFC-12 was not affected by this problem. We have attempted to estimate this level of contamination by taking the mode of measured CFC concentration in samples which should be CFC-free. In this region, measurements of other transient tracers such as carbon-14 indicate that the deep waters are much older than the CFC transient. We have used all samples deeper than 2000 meters to determine the blanks of 0.001 picomoles per kilogram (pmol/kg) for CFC-12 and 0.006 pmol/kg for CFC-11 in the white bottles. These concentrations have been subtracted from all the reported dissolved CFC concentrations. Data In addition to the CFC concentrations which have merged with the .hyd file, the following three tables have been included to complete the data set. The first two are tables of the duplicate samples. The third is a table of the atmospheric CFC concentrations interpolated to each station. Table 1: CFC-11 Concentrations in Replicate Samples STATION SAMP CFC-11 NUMBER NO. pM/kg ------- ---- ------ 24 126 0.955 24 126 0.958 26 130 0.429 26 130 0.482 30 128 1.715 30 128 1.694 31 127 1.067 31 127 1.070 32 125 1.818 32 125 1.823 34 326 0.674 34 326 0.684 36 127 1.053 36 127 1.042 38 124 1.803 38 124 1.809 40 111 0.002 40 111 0.005 43 130 0.212 43 130 0.220 45 132 2.251 45 132 2.261 46 131 0.188 46 131 0.192 47 332 1.727 47 332 1.722 48 132 1.895 48 132 1.972 50 130 1.634 50 130 1.647 51 134 1.953 51 134 1.961 53 132 2.298 53 132 2.314 55 134 1.980 55 134 1.932 56 333 2.181 56 333 2.203 57 130 2.572 57 130 2.564 58 132 2.398 58 132 2.352 59 135 1.683 59 135 1.699 60 130 1.781 60 130 1.763 61 128 2.517 61 128 2.431 63 131 2.452 63 131 2.459 64 129 2.498 64 129 2.442 65 331 2.492 65 331 2.504 66 133 2.595 66 133 2.564 67 130 2.419 67 130 2.372 68 134 2.473 68 134 2.401 69 132 2.617 69 132 2.686 70 132 2.495 70 132 2.531 71 126 1.380 71 126 1.299 72 134 2.484 72 134 2.446 73 134 2.378 73 134 2.437 74 332 2.674 74 332 2.673 76 130 2.535 76 130 2.468 77 132 2.731 77 132 2.647 79 130 2.189 79 130 2.195 80 132 2.640 80 132 2.635 81 134 2.225 81 134 2.320 82 130 2.499 82 130 2.514 83 132 2.633 83 132 2.675 86 130 2.157 86 130 2.211 88 128 1.599 88 128 1.639 90 120 1.499 90 120 1.519 92 114 2.120 92 114 2.120 93 108 2.176 93 108 2.185 Table 2: CFC-12 Concentrations in Replicate Samples Sta Samp CFC-12 --- ---- ------ 1 101 0.710 1 101 0.710 1 105 0.984 1 105 0.994 1 109 0.981 1 109 0.980 2 110 0.054 2 110 0.031 3 101 0.012 3 101 0.002 3 109 0.339 3 109 0.333 3 116 0.987 3 116 0.991 4 101 -0.003 4 101 0.014 4 119 0.998 4 119 0.951 5 101 -0.004 5 101 0.012 5 118 0.740 5 118 0.731 6 118 0.793 6 118 0.804 10 104 0.107 10 104 0.112 12 114 0.381 12 114 0.397 14 117 0.709 14 117 0.740 16 322 0.334 16 322 0.327 17 114 -0.001 17 114 -0.001 20 127 0.827 20 127 0.857 24 125 0.258 24 125 0.276 24 126 0.464 24 126 0.459 26 130 0.235 26 130 0.240 30 128 0.852 30 128 0.840 31 127 0.510 31 127 0.528 32 101 -0.001 32 101 0.005 32 125 0.932 32 125 0.949 34 326 0.310 34 326 0.337 36 127 0.497 36 127 0.506 38 124 0.923 38 124 0.940 40 111 0.000 40 111 0.002 43 130 0.089 43 130 0.102 45 132 1.104 45 132 1.154 46 131 0.094 46 131 0.093 47 332 0.831 47 332 0.848 48 132 0.949 48 132 0.979 50 130 0.797 50 130 0.801 51 134 1.060 51 134 1.052 53 132 1.221 53 132 1.231 55 134 1.102 55 134 1.071 56 333 1.162 56 333 1.177 57 130 1.339 57 130 1.333 58 132 1.258 58 132 1.250 59 135 0.946 59 135 0.932 60 130 0.982 60 130 0.978 61 128 1.317 61 128 1.293 63 131 1.263 63 131 1.297 64 129 1.294 64 129 1.251 65 331 1.286 65 331 1.299 66 133 1.383 66 133 1.368 67 130 1.248 67 130 1.215 68 134 1.334 68 134 1.285 69 132 1.408 69 132 1.441 70 132 1.323 70 132 1.338 71 126 0.651 71 126 0.628 72 134 1.329 72 134 1.316 73 134 1.262 73 134 1.312 74 332 1.425 74 332 1.403 76 130 1.309 76 130 1.269 77 132 1.453 77 132 1.421 79 130 1.114 79 130 1.122 80 132 1.400 80 132 1.416 81 134 1.180 81 134 1.221 82 130 1.308 82 130 1.341 83 132 1.400 83 132 1.421 86 130 1.084 86 130 1.137 88 128 0.805 88 128 0.823 90 120 0.729 90 120 0.720 92 114 1.071 92 114 1.076 93 108 1.134 93 108 1.144 Table 3: Atmospheric CFC Concentrations STATION F11 F12 NUMBER PPT PPT ------- ----- ----- 1 262.5 515.6 2 262.5 515.6 3 262.5 515.6 4 262.5 515.6 5 262.5 515.6 6 262.5 515.6 7 262.5 515.6 8 262.5 515.6 9 262.5 515.6 10 262.2 515.4 11 262.2 515.4 12 262.2 515.4 13 262.2 515.6 14 262.2 515.6 15 262.2 515.6 16 262.2 515.6 17 262.3 516.2 18 262.1 516.2 19 262.7 515.2 20 262.7 515.2 21 262.7 515.2 22 262.7 515.2 23 263.3 515.3 24 263.3 515.3 25 263.3 515.3 26 263.3 515.3 27 263.6 515.2 28 264.2 514.1 29 264.2 514.1 30 263.6 515.2 31 263.5 514.7 32 263.3 515.5 33 263.3 515.5 34 263.3 515.5 35 263.3 515.5 36 264.4 518.7 37 265.2 520.5 38 264.4 520.5 39 265.6 522.2 40 267.2 525.6 41 267.2 525.6 42 267.2 525.6 43 267.2 525.6 44 267.2 525.6 45 267.2 525.6 46 266.9 524.4 47 266.9 524.4 48 267.1 524.0 49 268.4 528.8 50 268.5 530.2 51 268.5 530.2 52 268.5 530.2 53 269.0 531.9 54 269.0 531.9 55 269.0 531.9 56 269.0 531.9 57 269.0 531.9 58 268.4 530.5 59 267.1 526.6 60 267.1 526.6 61 267.3 527.3 62 267.5 528.1 63 267.5 528.1 64 267.5 528.1 65 267.5 528.1 66 267.8 526.5 67 268.1 525.8 68 268.1 525.8 69 268.1 525.8 70 268.2 525.0 71 268.2 525.0 72 268.2 525.0 73 268.1 525.2 74 267.8 526.2 75 267.8 526.2 76 267.8 526.2 77 268.2 527.2 78 268.4 527.3 79 268.4 527.3 80 268.4 527.3 81 268.7 527.3 82 269.1 528.2 83 269.1 528.4 84 269.1 528.4 85 269.1 528.4 86 269.1 528.4 87 269.1 528.4 88 274.5 543.1 89 274.5 543.1 90 274.5 543.1 91 274.5 543.1 92 272.8 537.8 93 272.8 537.8 94 272.8 537.8 C.6 Tritium/Helium-3 (Scott Birdwhistell) A total of 32 stations were sampled for Tritium and helium on the cruise. Stations were selected to elucidate the boundary current on the north side of New Guinea, the equatorial zone, the Kuroshio and the large scale general circulation of the western Pacific. Normally 16 helium and tritium samples were taken on each of the stations resulting in approximately 480 water samples for each variable, mainly in the upper and mid-depth parts of the water column. In addition, two stations were sampled for deep heliums. These 32 samples will be used in conjunction wit other WOCE deep helium stations, to describe aspects of the abyssal circulation. C.7 CO2 (Chris Sabine, Rich Rotter and Art Dorety) The Princeton Ocean Tracer Laboratory (OTL) group participated in P10 as part of the department of Energy (DOE) global survey of carbon dioxide in the oceans. On the cruise approximately 1100 samples from 35 stations were collected and analyzed for total carbon dioxide (TCO2) using standard coulometric techniques. An equivalent number of samples were collected for alkalinity titration, of which 80% were analyzed on board he ship using an automated, closed cell, potentiometric system. The remaining 220 sample will be returned for analysis ashore. The data will be used by our group to further understand the marine carbon system of the far western Pacific and the potential role of this area as a sink for anthropogenic CO2. In addition to the discreet sampling for CO2, an underway pCO2 system was run throughout the cruise to collect boundary layer atmospheric and ocean mixed layer concentrations. This system together with the ship's navigational and meteorological data will be used to calculate air-sea pCO2 differences for flux calculations. Appendix A: Nutrient Quality Control Notes (Joe Jennings) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- STN NUTRIENTS HYDRO PROBLEM FLAG # AFFECTED SAMPLE # NOTED ASSIGNED ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 003 ALL 14 empty hydro bottle 9 007 ALL 18 empty hydro bottle 9 015 ALL 11 empty hydro bottle 9 015 ALL 21 empty hydro bottle 9 016 N+N, PO4 4 Low; oxygen and Salt flagged; bad bottle? 3 016 N+N, PO4 14 Low; oxygen and Salt flagged; bad bottle? 3 017 ALL 1 empty hydro bottle 9 017 ALL 20 empty hydro bottle; row missing in file. It should be flagged with 9's and not deleted 9 019 ALL 24 empty hydro bottle 9 020 ALL 5 empty hydro bottle 9 021 ALL 35 Noted as leaker 4 022 N+N 2,4,6-8, Out of profile 3 12,13,15 023 N+N 1,2,6,8-16 Cd coil dying, crummy peaks 3 025 ALL 17 empty hydro bottle 9 025 ALL 5 Bad bottle 4 025 ALL 11 Noted as leaker 4 025 ALL 3 empty hydro bottle 9 025 ALL 29 Noted as leaker 4 026 ALL 3 empty hydro bottle 9 026 ALL 11 empty hydro bottle 9 026 ALL 29 Leaker 4 026 ALL 1 empty hydro bottle 9 026 ALL 20 Leaker? 3 027 ALL 3 empty hydro bottle 9 027 ALL 13 empty hydro bottle 9 028 ALL 1 didn't sample, leaking badly 9 028 ALL 21 didn't sample, leaking badly 9 028 PO4 3 Too high 3 029 ALL 29 didn't sample, leaking badly 9 029 ALL 13 didn't sample, leaking badly 9 029 ALL 11 didn't sample, leaking badly 9 030 ALL 11 too low, Salt flagged, O2 suspicious 9 030 ALL 26 out of water, did not sample 9 030 ALL 31 didn't sample, leaking badly 9 031 ALL 13 Noted as leaker 4 031 ALL 11 empty hydro bottle 9 032 N+N 11,14 Low on theta plot, no obvious problems 3 033 N+N 13 Low in theta plot, no obvious problems 3 033 PO4 8-17 Possible shift; can't be corrected 3 034 ALL 7 didn't sample, leaking badly 9 035 ALL 11 didn't sample, leaking badly 9 036 ALL 14 empty hydro bottle 9 036 ALL 5 Noted as leaker 4 041 ALL 21 Noted as leaker 4 042 ALL 22 High? Salt bad 3 043 ALL 21 didn't sample, leaking badly 9 043 ALL 33 didn't sample, leaking badly 9 043 N+N 22 High? Salt bad 3 044 ALL 13 Noted as leaker; no notes in logsheet 4 045 N+N 19 High 3 047 ALL 25 didn't sample, leaking badly 9 048 ALL 33 didn't sample, leaking badly 9 050 ALL 11 Noted as leaker 4 050 ALL 5 Noted as leaker 4 051 ALL 3 Bad bottle, petcock open 4 051 ALL 5 Bad bottle, petcock open 4 052 ALL 8 Leaker? 3 058 ALL 17 Noted as leaker 4 058 ALL 5 Noted as leaker 4 059 ALL 5 Noted as leaker 4 061 ALL 4 didn't sample, leaking badly 9 062 ALL 27 Leaker, low 4 065 ALL 1 Noted as leaker 4 069 ALL 27 Noted as leaker, high 4 070 ALL 9 Noted as leaker 4 071 ALL 9 Noted as leaker 4 071 Si(OH)4 16-18 Low 3 071 ALL 15 Noted as leaker 4 072 ALL 21 Noted as leaker 4 074 ALL 29 Noted as leaker 4 077 N+N 6-21 High; apparent baseline shift 3 079 PO4 18-23 Very high, no obvious reason 3 079 ALL 24 Leaker 4 080 Si(OH)4 16,17 Low 3 081 ALL 4 Noted as leaker 4 082 ALL 33 High, no reason, oxygen flagged 3 082 ALL 15 Noted as leaker 4 086 ALL 11 Noted as leaker 4 088 ALL 21 Noted as leaker 4 Note: "Noted as leaker" generally refers to samples which were drawn and analyzed, but were noted in the Small Volume Sample Log as suspected of leaking. This data is reported, but is considered to be "bad". By contrast, "didn't sample" generally refers to hydro bottles which were clearly identified as leaking early in the process of drawing samples and which were therefore not sampled. Appendix B COMMENTS ON CTD DATA ACQUISITION (Marshall Swartz) From the beginning of the cruise, the 10-liter bottles had problems with endcap failures. Typically, the endcap would fracture when closed due to a lanyard failure, or a piece of the body of the endcap would fracture, causing the uncontrolled ejection of the remaining parts out of the bottle into the hanger. This was found to be due to design deficiencies in the thickness of the body of the encap, and due to machining problems, causing stress fractures along a machined groove root. The deficiencies were communicated to Scripps, and the problem was corrected on subsequent designs. The spring tension was maintained as low as would retain water in the bottles (approximately 35-35 lbs.). Two Scripps frames with 10-liter bottles were maintained in a ready state. They are noted as the "old" and the "new" frame/bottle set. They were used interchangeably, with the only difference being that the LADCP, which had to be removed from the frame to be recharged, was more easily mounted and dismounted from the "new" frame, and thus was kept there. Station by Station problems, changes including: STATION COMMENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 OTM 1316 installed within 15 cm horizontally of CTD temperature sensor. 2 3 Bottle 14 not sampled due to leakage. 4 5 Double bottle trip at 900db (nominal pressure)-operator error. 6 7 OTM 1316 stopped shutdown during cast. Suspected firmware lockup in OTM. Bottle 18 not sampled due to leakage. 8 Package powered down than back up at approximately 100db to try and revive OTM 1316. 9 Changed cable for OTM 1316, used cable from #2 frame. 10 11 12 13 Salinity spike in down trace, interpolated down 2 db averaged file btw 2275 db and 2289 db. 14 15 Suspected pylon 1460 performance, and removed it. Installed pylon 1419 and new cable prior to station 15. New station configuration. CTD 10, P1419, aft SCI 1419, OTM 1316 AND GREY BOTTLES No sample from bottle 11 or 20, both returned to surface empty. 16 First of the GERARD Stations. Cast one Deep Gerard, cast two CTD, cast 3 shallow Gerard. Conductivity sensor left dry. 17 Started waiting 30 sec after arriving at each bottle depth before triggering bottle release, to assure flushing and dissipation of entrained water. A couple of synch errors interpolated in down *.edt file. Bottle 20 not cocked, but vented to sea. 18 Conductivity jump interpolated in down *.edt file. 19 Swapped OTM 1316 to OTM 1317. Resurfaced package to remove rag. Winch problems on up cast between 3400- 3200 db. Bottle 24 not sampled due o'ring not being properly seated. 20 Bottle 5 not sampled bottom o'ring not seated. Bottle 31 was tripped mechanically but not electrically salts, and oxygens drawn to see where it tripped. 21 Swapped OTM 1317 to OTM 1316. Several deep bottles fired in pairs to assists CFC people evaluate bottles. SCI had com errors going to position. Two synch errors taken out of up *.edt trace. 22 23 24 Bottles 1-30 tripped, skipped 31-35, tripped 36. Salt bottles SG 'grey' on odd number positions. Salt bottles SW 'white' on even number positions. Conductivity jump at 29.3 db interpolated. 25 Swapped OTM 1316 to OTM 1317. Gerard station before CTD cast New frame, with CTD 10 and Pylon 1419. Lanyard hangups on bottles 11, 17, and 29, no sample taken. 26 Conductivity sensor not covered, dried out. OTM 1317 intermittent response. Lanyard hangups on bottles 3, 11, and 28, no samples taken. Synch error interpolated at 403 db in down *.edt file. 27 Lanyard hangups on bottles 3,13, and 21, no samples taken. 28 No samples taken from bottle 21, no water. 29 Fired bottles 1- 31, skipped 32- 35, fired 36 Lanyard hangups on bottles 1, 11, 13, and 21, no samples taken. Conductivity interpolation at 21.3 db in down *.edt. 30 Fired bottles 1-32, skipped 33- 35, fired 36. Conductivity interpolation at 16.5 db in down *.edt file 31 Lanyard hangups on bottles 11 and 17, no samples. 32 33 34 Gerard Station 35 OCM replace OTM 1317. Autosal #10 developed electrical problem in range select circuit and was repaired. Fired bottle 1-28, skipped 29- 35, fired 36. Skipped bottle 21, could not get a seal. Salinity spike- interpolated 2 db averaged file btw 2167 db and 2191 db. 36 Fired bottles 1-30, skipped 31- 35, fired 36. Again bottle 21 was skipped. 37 Fired bottles 1- 25, skipped 26-35, fired bottle 36. Petcock open on bottle 21, did not sample. Synch error in upcast at 2205 db, interpolated. 38 Fired bottles 1-26, skipped 27- 35, fired bottle 36. Pinger battery changed. Autosal cell interface circuit board was fixed prior to running salts on station 38. 39 Fired bottles 1- 18, skipped 19- 35, fired 36. 40 Fired bottles 1- 24, skipped 25- 35, fired 36. 41 Fired bottles 1-27, skipped 28- 35, fired 36. 42 Fired bottles 1- 36, skipping 11, 21, 34, and 35. 43 Fired bottles 1- 36, skipping positions 11 and 21. Synch errors at 253 db interpolated *.edt file. 44 Fired bottles 1- 36, skipping positions 11 and 21. Acquisition started on PC after package entered the water. 45 Fired bottles 1- 36, skipped positions 3, and 21. 46 Gerard station NOISEY SALTS Skipped positions 11 and 21 again. 47 Skipped positions 11 and 21 again. 48 Lanyard hangup on bottle 33, no sample. 49 Winch problem at 5000db, paid out wire and then started bringing the package back up. 50 Synch error at 1284 db, interpolated down cast *.edt file. 51 Swapped OCM to OTM 1317 Winch problems at 2952 m, lost main propulsion for 6 min. Paid out winch due to gaps in lays, started reeling back in at 3353 m (wire out). Winch stopped at 926.8 db (upcast), more winch problems at 460 db. Bottles 1- 15 may have been compromised by winch payout. In an effort to identify source of errors in sample salts, triple salt samples were taken. One set was drawn into WHOI 125ml bottles and sampled on WHOI autosal #10, one set taken with SIO 250ml bottles and run on WHOI Autosal #10, and one set taken with SIO 250ml bottles and run on an SIO Autosal operating in the wet lab. All samples drawn by same individual. 52 A couple of winch problems on upcast. Winch paused at 4715 m, occasional slow downs and pauses due to winch. Conductivity spike in down trace interpolated around 3393 db in *.edt file. 53 Changed OTM 1317 out for OCM. Winch was slowed down and stopped on several occasion on the upcast due to winch leveling problems. 54 55 Bottle position 11 and 21 were not used. 56 Winch problems on upcast around 4000 db. Salt replicates for bottles in firing positions 1-9. 57 Winch slow down on up cast at 4720 db. Bottle 13, lanyard caught in end cap- no sample. EXTRA SAMPLES OF SALTS DRAWN FOR COMPARISON SCRIPPS BOTTLES ON WHOI AND SCRIPPS AUTOSALS 58 59 Winch slow down at approximately 5265 db. 60 EXTRA SAMPLE OF SALTS DRAWN TO COMPARE SAMPLE BOTTLES 61 Swapped OCM to OTM 1317. No sample bottle 4, water would not come out. Sampled 1-31, skipped 32-35, sampled 36. Noticed large (approximately 0.5 cm squared area) flakes of iridescent material inside WHOI 125ml sample bottles which appear to trap water and come off. These bottles are several years old, and no problems have been noted previously. Tried removing flakes with hydrochloric acid with only partial success. 62 Synch error interpolated at 1986 db in down cast. 63 Swapped OTM 1317 to OCM. Rough weather, took Package down immediately from surface. No sample bottle 35. Synch error interpolated at 2861 db. 64 65 Gerard station, Cast 2. Lost 7 gerard barrels- cable snapped. Winch problems on upcast, slow between bottles. 66 Winch slow down on uptrace btw 4715 db and 3590 db. 67 New winch speed: was 30m/min 0- 300m 60m/min 300- 5500m 40m/min 5500- bottom NOW 30m/min 0-300m 60m/min 300- near bottom. 68 Wire connectors on termination replaced prior to station. Slow down of package speed on down trace btw 4200 m and 4650m. 69 Bottle position 13 not sampled- end cap not closed. 70 71 Numerous communications errors encountered with pylon/SCI. Result is that pylon resets itself to home position during cast, and must be repositioned to the next bottle- not always successfully. Suspect that the pylon/SCI communication channel FSK signal is being interfered by the CTD FSK signal, a condition which shows up on an oscilloscope. 72 Swapped OCM for OTM 1317. Pylon/SCI communications problems again like station 71. Reset pylon by powering off the SCI, waiting 30 seconds, then powering on and repositioning to desired bottle. 73 Winch wrap problem at 1412 m out, brought down to 1820 m. Bottles 19 and 20 may have been compromised due to this. 74 Swapped OTM 1317 for OCM. Bottle in position 13 came up empty- no sample. 75 76 Wire problems, package slow down during up cast 77 Winch slow down at 2393 m on upcast. Synch error in down cast interpolated 2120 db. 78 79 No water in bottle 29, no samples. 80 81 Swapped OCM for OTM 1317. POWERED DOWN BEFORE STATION FOR TWO HOURS WHILE LADCP REPLACED AND OTM 1317 REPLACED OCM. 82 Winch slowed several times on uptrace. Operator error- two bottles tripped at 150 m, none at 800 m. Conductivity jumps in down trace. Synch error interpolated at 2288 db. 83 84 85 HEAVY WEATHER, SHIP DRIFTED A WAYS BTW UP AND DOWN CAST. 86 HEAVY WEATHER CONTINUED, LARGE DRIFT FOR VESSELL. Winch stop on down cast at ~2900 db. Lower end cap open on bottle 5, no sample. 87 WEATHER GETTING BETTER. Several winch slow down on upcast. COM ERRORS RESETTING PYLON. 88 Conductivity jump in down cast- interpolated 3213 db. Skipped bottle 33, 34 and 35. 89 Skipped bottles 28- 35. 90 Skipped bottles 25- 35. No sample bottle 19, leaks at end cap. Conductivity jumps in down cast. Salinity spike, interpolated 2db averaged file btw 1171 db and 1175 db. 91 Skipped bottles 23-35. 92 Skipped bottles 16- 35. 93 94 Conductivity jumps in down cast at 89.7 db, interpolated *.edt file. ======================= DATA QUALITY EVALUATION ======================= COMMENTS ON DQ EVALUATION OF WOCE P10 CTD DATA (Michio AOYAMA) 21 March 1996 General: The data quality of WOCE P10 CTD data (EXPOCODE: 3250TN026_1) and the CTD salinity and oxygen found in dot sea file are examined. The individual 2 dbar profiles were observed in temperature, salinity and oxygen by comparing the profiles obtained in the same basin. The 94 profiles of P10 CTD data were divided into four groups as follows; Station number corresponding basin name from 1 to 20 from 20 to 39 East Caroline Basin from 39 to 60 East Mariana Basin from 60 to 94 North Pacific Basin The CTD salinity and oxygen calibrations are examined using the water sample data file p10.mka. DQE used the water sample data flagged "2" only for the DQE work. Details 1. CTD profiles The temperature and salinity profiles generally look good. DQE observed decrease of oxygen concentration near the bottom of the sea in the most of the dot wct files. These decreases observed at the deepest 10 - 30 dbar and ranged from 1 µmol/kg to 4 µmol/kg. Since DQE thinks that these decreases is originated the decrease of lowering rate of CTD and an a lowring rate artifact, they should be flagged "3". 2 Evaluation of CTD calibrations to water samples 2.1 Salinity calibration; The onboard calibration for salinity looks good in general. Standard deviation of Ds, Ds = CTD salinity in dot sea file - bottle salinity, is 0.00553 pss for all data and 0.00123 pss for deeper than 2000 dbar, respectively. The histogram of Ds for all depths shows a symmetric distribution (fig. 1). Since the larger difference are shallower layers, larger Ds disappeared in the histogram of Ds for deeper than 2000 dbar (fig. 2). DQE, however, observed the non-symmetric distribution of Ds in deep salinity fit. DQE thinks that this non-symmetric distribution depends on a small bias on the bottle salinity measurements among the first 58 stations (see the DQE comments on Hydrographic data). 2.2 Oxygen calibration; The histogram of Dox, Dox = CTD oxygen in dot sea file - bottle oxygen, for all depths shows a symmetric distribution. Standard deviation of Dox is 4.38 µmol/kg for all depths. The histogram of Dox for deeper than 2000 dbar becomes beautiful and standard deviation of Dox is 0.96 µmol/kg (fig. 4). These confirms the good oxygen calibration work. DQE observed no significant station dependency of Dox. Though, pressure dependency of Dox is observed (see the DQE comments on Hydrographic data). 3. The following are some specific problems that should be looked at: stn. 34 from 3800 dbar to 4300 dbar; temperature looks like shifting toward 0.02 deg C higher than those of nearby stations. stn. 42 from 3500 dbar to 4000 dbar; temperature looks like shifting toward 0.02 deg C higher than those of nearby stations. stn. 68 from 4700 dbar to 4900 dbar; periodical noisy oxygen profile were observed. Suggest flg "3". stn. 89 from 3000 dbar to 4000 dbar; temperature looks like shifting toward 0.03 deg C lower than those of nearby stations. In the 4 dot wct files, wrong STNNBRs are found. DQE changed the STNNBRs as follows; file name found DQE put --------------------------------------------- tn26d022.wct STNNBR 21 22 tn26d046.wct STNNBR 45 46 tn26d062.wct STNNBR 63 62 tn26d066.wct STNNBR 67 66 DQE assumed that the filename might be correct. However, DQE compared the maximum pressures in dot wct file with those in dot sum file to confirm it. COMMENTS ON DQ EVALUATION OF WOCE P10 HYDROGRAPHIC DATA. (Michio AOYAMA) 20 March 1996, revised on 21 March The data quality of the hydrographic data of the WOCE P10 cruise (EXPOCODE: 3250TN026_1) are examined. The data files for this DQE work was P10.sum and P10.mka (this P10.mka file is created for DQE, then it has a new column of quality 2 word) provided by WHPO. General The station spacing ranged from 5 to 40 nautical miles and the sampling layer spacing was kept ca. 250 dbar in the deeper layers during this P10 cruise. The ctd lowerings were made to within 10 meters to the sea bottom except several stations. Since the data originators have done a pretty reliable work in evaluating their data, hydrographic data flagged "2-good" has a pretty good quality. Then this DQE work was enjoyable and fun for me. This high density and high quality data will improve our knowledge on the western North Pacific following the update of Pacific Ocean deep water data set. Although, I would like to complain of the flagging to salinity data in hydrographic data file. DQE used the data flagged "2" by data originator for this DQE work. DQE examined 6 profiles and 5 property vs. property plots as listed below: salinity, oxygen, silicate, nitrate, nitrite and phosphate profiles theta vs. salinity plot theta vs. oxygen plot salinity vs. oxygen plot nitrate vs. phosphate plot salinity vs. silicate plot 1. Salinity DS, DS=CTD salinity - bottle salinity in dot sea file, vs. station #. for the deeper layer (theta below 1.5 deg C) show relatively larger variability of salinity difference among the stations up to 58. DS ranged from -0.005 to 0.003 at the first 58 stations. Then DS ranged from -0.003 to 0.002 psu. This distribution is easy to understand with the saying on the problem of salinity measurements in the cruise report. Cruise report stated the accuracy is 0.005 psu for the first 55 stations, this might be first 58 stations, and 0.002 psu for the subsequent stations (C.2.1 salinity Analysis) . DQE, however, think that this statement should be for "precision", not for "accuracy". Fig. 1 also shows a bias of ca. -0.001 in DS distribution among the first 58 stations. DQE thinks that observed bias may have originated from the bias during the bottle salinity measurement. The overlay plot of theta vs. bottle salinity, theta vs. CTD salinity in upcast and theta vs. CTD salinity in upcast for stations 53 and 54 are shown for example (fig. 2) Unreasonable values for some of the bottle salinity (marked "+" in fig. 2) are observed in fig. 2. DQE thinks that these questionable bottle salinity data could not be flagged out by PI because of the problem on the salinity measurements among the first 58 stations. Then, DQE suggests that some of the bottle salinity data having larger DS should be flagged "3". The overlay plot of theta vs. salinity (bottle, CTD up and CTD down) will help flagging to them. DQE thinks that the edit criteria might be around 0.003 pss (0.002 x 1.414) because both CTD salinity and bottle salinity would be able to have accepted accuracy of 0.002 psu. The edit criteria stated in the cruise report for deep waters does not meet the WHP one-time survey standards for water samples and it for CTD measurements. The used criteria was 0.005 psu from 1000 dbar to 7000 dbar and it is wider than 0.003 psu induced as mentioned above. 2. Oxygen Bottle oxygen profile looks good. Salinity vs. oxygen and theta vs. oxygen plots also looks reasonable. DQE thinks that the flags of the bottle oxygen data are reliable. The used edit criteria for CTD oxygen and bottle oxygen was 0.05 ml/l (ca. 2.2 µmol/kg) for 1000 dbar to 7000 dbar (C.3.2). DQE examined Dox, Dox=CTD oxygen - bottle Oxygen, vs. pressure. In the depth from 1000 dbar to 7000 dbar(fig. 3), Dox ranged within the edit criteria except a few data at the oxygen minimum layers. In the deeper and low gradient layers, Dox ranged +/- 1.5 µmol/kg and this corresponds 1% of the oxygen concentration there. Then DQE agrees with this edit criteria. DQE observes "weak pressure dependency" of Dox in fig. 3. Although the range of dependency is ca. 1 µmol/kg, if PI of CTDO could correct this tendency, the quality of CTD oxygen data will be improved. 3. Nutrients Since nutrient PI has done a pretty reliable work in evaluating their data, the profiles of silicate, nitrate, nitrite and phosphate looks pretty well. Nitrate vs. phosphate plot and silicate vs. salinity plot also look pretty reasonable. 4. The following are some specific problems that should be looked at: STNNBR XX/ CASTNO X/ SAMPNO XX at XXXX dbar: 20/1/13 at 1595 dbar: Nitrite concentration is 0.11 µmol/kg. This high concentration might originate from contamination during handling/analysis. Suggest flag "4". 35/1/18 at 699 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like higher. Suggest flag "3". 79/1/25 - 36 at 893dbar - 6.5 dbar: Phosphate concentration gap is observed between 2198dbar (2.96 µmol/kg) and 2398dbar(2.72 µmol/kg). The phosphate data between 2198dbar and 1193dbar were flagged "3" by PI. DQE observed that the phosphate data shallower than 893 dbar show higher concentration, especially at 893dbar and 798dbar. DQE guess that something might occurred during analyses. If so, suggest flag "3" to the phosphate data shallower than 893 dbar. 81/1/34 at 99dbar: Bottle oxygen looks higher. Suggest change flag to "3".. 83/1/4 at 5004 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like slightly higher. Suggest flag "3". A note about the Quality 2 flags for P10, hydrographic data. (George Anderson) The DQE has been done for the discrete bottle data for salinity, oxygen, and the nutrients. However, the Quality 2 flags might suggest that this work has not been done. Almost all of the Q-2 flags have been set to 1. There are a few that are not 1, but in every case but one, the Q-1 flag has been set or reset to the number in the Q-2 field. The one case where the Q-1 flag is not identical to the Q-2 flag is for station 20, bottle 13, at 1595.3 db. The Q-2 flag is a 4, the Q-1 flag is a 2. The "4" was recommended by the DQ evaluator, and I would agree with his comment and conclusion. My recommendation: 1. copy the Q1 flags to the Q2 field. 2. for the one station mentioned above, change the nitrite Q-2 flag to a 4. this is flag 8. 3. replace the present file on the WEB site with this new file. 4. add a note to the documentation file indicating that this has been done. Sarilee has a program which copies the Q-1 flags to the Q-2 field. I'm sure she could update the file as I've indicated above and dump the corrected file into the WHPO folder for you or Danie to move to the WEB site. With this done, one more DQE loose end will have been eliminated. George 1. Error weighted mean reported with data set 2. Larger of the standard deviation and the error weighted standard deviation of the mean. 1999.11.30 The enclosed file: "p10hy.all.params.no3.dqe" has been modified as follows: 1. The Q1 flags have been copied to the Q2 field. 2. The date in the heading has been changed to June 7, 1999 3. The initials at the end of this field have been changed to GCA. Background It would appear that when the original DQE work was performed on the bottle data, specifically: salinity, oxygen and nutrients, all Q2 flags had been set to 1. When the DQ evaluator completed his work, only the 1's in the Q2 field that disagreed with his determinations were set to something other than 1. As a result, most all the Q2 flags remained as 1's with a few flags being changed to something other than 1. I reviewed all the differences between the Q2 and Q1 flags. In all cases but one, the Q1 flags had been changed to reflect the determinations of the DQ evaluator. The only discrepancy that remained was for station 20, bottle 13 at 1595.3 db. The DQ evaluator showed the Q2 flag for nitrite as a 4, the Q1 flag remained a 2. (I happen to agree with the DQ evaluator; a nitrite value of 0.11 at ~1600 db is unlikely.) So when copying the Q1 flags to the Q2 field, this difference was carried forward. Much of this data is public, but according to Danie's notes made during some recent data merging, some of the data are not public. When moving this file to the WEB site for Cruise P10, please keep this in mind. I believe all the data merged into the P10 file by Danie is contained in this file. George Anderson FINAL REPORT FOR AMS 14C SAMPLES (R. Key) April 24, 1998 1.0 General Information WOCE cruise P10 was carried out aboard the R/V Thomas G. Thompson in the southwestern Pacific Ocean. The WHPO designation for this cruise was 3250TN026_1. Melinda Hall and Terry Joyce were the co-chief scientists. The cruise departed Suva, Fiji on October 5, 1993 and ended on November 10, 1993 at Yokohama, Japan. The ship deadheaded from Fiji to just north of Papua, New Guinea at 4ƒS-145ƒE where the first station was occupied. From there the track was nominally northward along 149ƒE, generally staying east of the Philippine Sea. A total of 94 stations were occupied. The reader is referred to cruise documentation provided by the chief scientists as the primary source for cruise information. This report covers details of the small volume radiocarbon samples. The AMS station locations are summarized in Table 1 and shown in Figure 1. A total of 588 AMS delta-14-C samples were collected at 38 stations. In addition to the AMS samples, large volume Gerard samples were also collected on this cruise. The large volume measurements are expected to be completed later this year and will be described in a separate report. Figure 1: AMS 14C station locations for WOCE P10 (map by GMT, Wessel and Smith, 1991,1995). TABLE 1. AMS Stations on WOCE Section P10 Station Date Latitude Longitude Bottom Max. Depth Sample (m) Pressure ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 10/12/93 -4.015 144.811 212 200 3 10/12/93 -3.892 144.892 1399 1382 6 10/13/93 -3.145 144.286 2080 2077 9 10/13/93 -2.250 145.500 1005 998 13 10/14/93 -1.250 145.786 2299 2297 16 10/15/93 -0.475 146.008 3523 3562 18 10/15/93 0.000 146.142 2477 3503 20 10/16/93 0.500 146.283 4134 4182 22 10/16/93 1.000 146.428 4521 4573 25 10/17/93 1.750 146.642 4446 4498 28 10/18/93 2.500 146.858 4437 4496 31 10/19/93 3.503 147.214 4586 4656 34 10/20/93 5.000 147.850 4193 4243 36 10/20/93 6.000 148.272 4095 4141 41 10/21/93 8.500 149.333 3617 3665 44 10/22/93 9.697 149.333 5333 5428 45 10/22/93 10.000 149.333 5548 5643 47 10/23/93 11.158 149.331 5809 5912 50 10/25/93 13.167 149.333 5959 6068 53 10/26/93 15.167 149.333 5677 5777 56 10/27/93 17.167 149.333 5391 5482 59 10/28/93 19.167 149.333 5550 5647 62 10/29/93 21.167 149.333 5389 5481 65 10/30/93 23.181 149.339 5797 5904 66 10/31/93 23.833 149.333 5835 5943 68 11/1/93 25.167 149.333 5903 6014 71 11/2/93 27.167 149.333 5885 5996 74 11/3/93 29.158 149.286 5972 6087 76 11/4/93 30.189 148.047 6181 6304 78 11/5/93 31.208 146.761 6059 6179 80 11/5/93 32.230 145.475 5875 5989 83 11/6/93 33.667 143.667 5608 5713 85 11/7/93 34.169 142.692 5595 5699 88 11/8/93 34.725 141.611 5285 5380 90 11/8/93 34.928 141.211 3304 3345 92 11/9/93 35.092 140.892 1174 1156 93 11/9/93 35.125 140.831 484 472 94 11/9/93 35.167 140.781 216 208 2.0 Personnel 14C sampling for this cruise was carried out by R. Key from the Ocean Tracer Lab at Princeton University. Sample extraction, d13C analyses and 14C analyses were performed by NOSAMS (National Ocean Sciences AMS Facility at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution). Salinity and oxygen were analyzed by the WHOI CTD group (G. Tupper, G. Knapp and T. Turner) and nutrients by Oregon State University (J. Jennings and C. Carbonell-Moore for L. Gordon). R. Key collected the data from the originators, merged the files, assigned quality control flags to the 14C results and submitted the data files to the WOCE office (4/98). R. Key is the PI for the 14C data. 3.0 Results This 14C data set and any changes or additions supersedes any prior release. The delta-14-C results reported here are, under WOCE guidelines, considered proprie- tary for two years after publication of the preliminary data report (March, 2000) or until publication, whichever comes first. 3.1 Hydrography Hydrography from this leg has been submitted to the WOCE office by the chief scientist and described in the hydrographic report which is available via the web address (http://whpo.ucsd.edu/data/onetime/pacific/p10/index.htm). 3.2 14C The delta-14-C values reported here were originally published in a NOSAMS data report (NOSAMS, March 13, 1998). That report included results which had not been through the WOCE quality control procedures. All of the AMS samples from this cruise have been measured. Replicate measurements were made on 21 water samples. These replicate analyses are tabulated in Table 2. The table shows the error weighted mean and uncertainty for each set of replicates. Uncertainty is defined here as the larger of the standard deviation and the error weighted standard deviation of the mean. For these replicates, the simple average of the tabulated uncertainties for the replicates is 4.0î (equal weighting for each replicate set). This precision is typical for the time frame over which these samples were measured (Feb. - Oct., 1997). Note that the errors given for individual measurements in the final data report (with the exception of the replicates) include only counting errors, and errors due to blanks and backgrounds. The uncertainty obtained for replicate analyses is an estimate of the true error which includes errors due to sample collection, sample degassing, etc. For a detailed discussion of this see Key (1996a). Once the large volume measurements are completed, comparison between the AMS and LV results will be possible. Table 2: Summary of Replicate Analyses Sta-Cast-Bottle delta-14-C Err E.W.Mean(a) Uncertainty(b) --------------------------------------------------------------- 6-1-3 -209.4 2.8 -211.0 2.3 -212.6 2.8 6-1-5 -187.3 2.7 -189.2 4.4 -193.5 4.2 31-1-29 90.8 6.0 89.4 3.4 88.7 4.2 34-3-18 -159.8 6.9 -155.2 5.1 -152.6 5.3 34-3-25 -52.8 4.5 -55.3 2.6 -56.5 3.1 34-3-27 70.2 5.3 71.5 3.4 72.4 4.5 36-1-24 -80.0 3.5 -79.8 2.8 -79.4 4.9 65-3-33 135.0 4.1 134.6 2.5 134.4 3.1 65-3-35 118.0 3.4 118.6 2.6 119.5 4.0 68-1-30 117.2 4.6 117.0 3.1 116.7 4.1 71-1-25 -126.5 3.1 -129.1 4.1 -132.3 3.4 71-1-30 109.8 4.1 107.4 3.6 104.6 4.5 74-3-15 -235.1 2.7 -234.1 3.6 -229.9 5.6 76-1-28 53.7 3.5 50.3 5.0 46.6 3.6 78-1-31 128.4 4.1 123.0 6.8 118.8 3.6 83-1-34 121.0 4.1 120.2 2.7 119.6 3.6 85-1-24 -110.6 4.0 -115.2 5.8 -118.8 3.5 85-1-27 34.9 5.3 30.6 4.9 28.0 4.0 90-1-4 -232.2 2.7 -230.4 3.6 -227.1 3.7 90-1-17 -76.5 3.6 -71.9 6.5 -67.4 3.6 90-1-20 2.9 3.1 1.6 4.3 -3.2 5.8 --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. When using this data set for scientific application, any 14C 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 14C data, the measurement error was taken into consideration. That is, approximately one-third of the 14C measurements are expected to deviate from the true value by more than the measurement precision (~4.0î). No measured values have been removed from this data set, therefore a flag value of 5 implies that the sample was totally lost somewhere between collection and analysis. 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 ------------ 2 551 3 1 4 3 5 12 6 21 5.0 Data Summary Figures 2-6 summarize the delta-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 2s error bars plotted as a function of pressure. The mid depth delta-14-C minimum occurs around 2000 to 2400 meters, but is weak in this data set relative to the eastern North Pacific. Measurements in the thermocline region fall into two distinct groups with the higher values being from the southern end of the section and the extreme northern end while the lower grouping is from the central portion (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). Figure 2: delta-14-C results for P10 stations shown with 2s error bars. Only those measurements having a quality control flag value of 2 or 6 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. Samples collected from shallower depths at these stations show an upward trend with decreasing silicate values reflecting the addition of bomb produced 14C. As in Figure 2, two distinct trends are apparent. Here the upper grouping is from the northern end of the section and the lower from the southern end. Figure 3: delta-14-C as a function of silicate for P10 AMS samples. The straight line shows the relationship proposed by Broecker, et al., 1995 (delta- 14-C = -70 - Si with radiocarbon in î and silicate in mmol/kg). Another way to visualize the 14C - silicate correlation is as a section. Figure 4 shows delta-14-C as contour lines in silicate - latitude space for samples having a potential density greater than 26.9 which corresponds to ~500m. In this space, shallow waters are toward the bottom of the figure. The density cutoff was selected to eliminate those samples having a very large bomb produced 14C component. For this data set, Broecker's hypothesis does not work very well. The delta-14-C isolines trend upward to the north and the spacing between the isolines, for contours which fall below the depth of bomb-radiocarbon contamination, decreases northward. The upward curvature of the isolines at the northern end of the section is due to the addition of bomb-produced radiocarbon via ventilation or due to an "anomalous" silicate signal (Talley and Joyce, 1992). Figure 4: Section of 14C contours along latitude in silicate space for the 500- 2500m depth range. Note that for this section, "shallow" is toward the bottom. Figures 5-6 show delta-14-C contoured along the section. Figure 5 is a normal section in latitude-depth space while Figure 6 shows the same data set in potential density-latitude space. The depth section was gridded using LeTraon's (1990)objective technique and the density section was gridded using the "loess" methods described in Chambers et al. (1983), Chambers and Hastie (1991), Cleveland (1979) and Cleveland and Devlin (1988). Figure 5: delta-14-C along WOCE section P10. Most of the deep and bottom waters along this section were sampled with the large volume technique. The few AMS samples collected below 1500m were omitted from this section. Figure 6: Same data as Figure 5 contoured in potential density space. In Figure 5 the primary structure of the isopleths is due to the presence of the Pacific North Equatorial Current which flows westward across the southern end of the section and the Japan current which flows northeastward across the far northern end of the section. Upwelling near the equator is not particularly evident in Figure 5, but is the source of most of the structure seen in the isopleths in Figure 6 in the low latitude zone. The deep and bottom water AMS results are too sparse to contour. These data will be merged with the large volume results and once that data is available in order to prepare a deep section. 6.0 References Broecker, W.S., S. Sutherland and W. Smethie, Oceanic radiocarbon: Separation of the natural and bomb components, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 9(2), 263- 288, 1995. 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., WOCE Pacific Ocean radiocarbon program, Radiocarbon, 38(3), 415-423, 1996(a). Key, R.M., P.D. Quay and NOSAMS, WOCE AMS Radiocarbon I: Pacific Ocean results; P6, P16 & P17, Radiocarbon, 38(3), 425-518, 1996. LeTraon, P.Y., A method for optimal analysis of fields with spatially variable mean, J. Geophys. Res., 95, 13,543-13,547, 1990. NOSAMS, National Ocean Sciences AMS Facility Data Report #98-027, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, 02543, Mar., 1998. Stuiver, M., G. ÷stlund, R.M. Key and P.J. Reimer, Large-volume WOCE radiocarbon sampling in the Pacific Ocean, Radiocarbon, 38(3), 519-561, 1996 Talley, L.D. and T.M. Joyce, The double silica maximum in the North Pacific, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 5465-5480, 1992. Wessel, P. and W.H.F. Smith, Free software helps map and display data, EOS Trans. AGU, 72(441), 445-446, 1991. Wessel, P. and W.H.F. Smith, New version of the generic mapping tools released, EOS Trans. AGU, 76, 329, 1995. FINAL REPORT FOR LARGE VOLUME SAMPLES AND DELTA-14-C MEASUREMENTS (Robert M. Key) April 10, 1998 1.0 General Information WOCE cruise P10 was carried out aboard the R/V Thomas G. Thompson in the western Pacific Ocean. The WHPO designation for this leg was 3250TN026_1. Melinda Hall of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute was chief scientist for this cruise. This report covers details of data collection and analysis for the large volume Gerard samples. The reader is referred to the Hall's Final Report for general information. The cruise departed Suva, Fiji on October 5, 1993 and ended at Yokohama, Japan on November 10, 1993. The objective of this cruise was to occupy a hydrographic section nominally along 149ƒE from Papua, New Guinea to the shelf of Japan near Yokohama as part of the onetime WHP survey of the Pacific Ocean. Seven large volume (LV) stations were occupied on this leg. The planned sampling density was 1 station every 5ƒ of latitude (~300nmi). Each station (except station 74 which had only one cast) included one deep cast (2500db to the bottom), and an intermediate (1000db to 2500db) cast. All LV casts were done using the starboard-aft winch and coring cable. The purpose of these casts was to collect samples for 14C analysis. 14C 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 P10. TABLE 1. Station/Cast Summary Station Cast Latitude Longitude #Samples ---------------------------------------- 16 1 -0.473 146.015 9 3 -0.465 146.000 9 25 1 1.750 146.643 9 3 1.771 146.640 9 34 1 4.997 147.882 9 3 5.000 147.860 9 47 1 11.169 149.329 9 3 11.166 149.325 9 56 1 17.163 149.302 9 3 17.187 149.328 9 65 1 23.170 149.335 9 3 23.197 149.328 2 74 1 29.163 149.327 5 7 13 TOTALS 106 Figure 1: Large volume station locations for WOCE cruise P10 (map by GMT). 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 nutrients. 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. The discrete hydrographic data were entered into the shipboard data sys-tem and processed as the analyses were completed. The bottle data were brought to a us- able, 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. During retrieval of station 65 cast 3, seven of the nine Gerard barrels, along with all accompanying equipment, were lost when the winch operator failed to stop when signaled. A few hours were spent trying to drag for the equipment, but this was a long shot at best and complicated by the fact that the remaining coring cable was just long enough to reach bottom. For the remainder of the cruise, the deep water was sampled using AMS samples. Fortunately, this was the last WOCE cruise for which large volume sampling was planned. 2.0 Personnel LV sampling for this cruise was under the direction of the principal investigator, Robert M. Key (Princeton). All LV 14C extractions at sea were done by Key. Deck work was done by the WHOI CTD group under the direction of J. Wells from SIO-ODF. Wells and Key were responsible for reading thermometers. Salinities and nutrients were analyzed by WHOI (George Tupper, George Knapp and Teresa Turner) and Oregon State Univ. (Joe Jennings), respectively. 14C and 13C analyses were performed by Minze Stuiver, Univ. Washington. Key collected the data from the originators, merged the files, as-signed quality control flags to all of the large volume hydrographic data and radiocarbon results and submitted the data files to the WOCE office. 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 41-53 while Gerard barrels are in the range 81-94. 3.1 Pressure and Temperature Pressure and temperature for the LV casts are determined by reversing thermome- ters 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 0.01ƒC and for deep samples 0.005ƒC. 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. Figure 2 shows potential temperature vs. pressure for the LV casts. Figure 2: Potential temperature from DSRT on LV casts vs. pressure. 3.2 Salinity Salinity samples were collected from each Gerard barrel and each piggyback Nis- kin 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. In terms of accuracy, the large volume salinity values for this cruise are actually better than those from the Rosette at the same station. The problem with the Rosette salinity values was discovered to be inadequate rinsing (which is never a problem with the LV 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. Salinity samples were drawn into 200 ml Kimax high alumina borosilicate bottles after 3-5 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. A single Guildline Autosal Model 8400A salinometer located in a temperature controlled laboratory was used to measure salinities. The salinometer was standardized for each large volume 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. Each Gerard-Niskin pair is as- signed the same temperature which allows direct comparison of many of the paired salinity values on the figure. The following is taken directly from the chief scientist's report for this cruise. Note that the correction mentioned (and applied) for the Rosette samples has not been applied to the large volume cast results. IAPSO Standard Water Batch P-114 was used through station 12. Commencing with station 13, batch P-120 was used for the remainder of the cruise. At the time it was noted that the standby number of the Autosal shifted by +.0015 equivalent salinity units. Post-cruise comparisons of the salinities measured during this cruise with historical measurements suggest that the measured salinities from the later stations were erroneously high. Comparisons of batch P-120 with batches P-118, P-123 and P-124,made during the summer of 1995 confirm that P-120 is approximately 0.0015 fresher than stated on its label. Thus, it was decided to subtract 0.0015 from all salinity measurements commencing with station 13, effectively referencing all salinities to BatchP-114. Because of the multiple problems with salinity during the first 55 stations, estimated accuracy is 0.005. Subsequent salinity data has an estimated accuracy of 0.002. 3.3 Nutrients Nutrient samples were collected from both Gerard barrels and piggyback Niskin bottles. LV nutrients were measured along with Rosette nutrients so the analytical precision should be the same as Rosette samples. Nutrients collected from LV casts are some-times 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. See the chief scientist's report for details of nutrient analysis. 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 25ƒC. The overall quality of the nutrient data for this cruise is demonstrated in Figure 4 which shows both Gerard and piggyback values as a function of potential temperature. Overlain on the plot (lines) are the Rosette measure- ments for the same stations and depth ranges. The Rosette phosphate data are omitted since, at this scale, only confusion results if added. Figure 3: Theta-salinity for all of the large volume cast data with a QC flag of 2 for both temperature and salinity. 3.4 14C All Gerard samples deemed to be "OK" on initial inspection at sea were extracted for 14C analysis using the technique described by Key (1991). The extracted 14CO2/NaOH samples were returned to the Ocean Tracer Lab at Princeton and subsequently shipped to Stuiver's lab in Seattle. Both 13C and 14C measurements are performed on the same CO2 gas extracted from the large volume samples. The standard for the 14C 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-13C value of -19ppt and age corrected from today to AD1950 all according to the international agreement. delta-14-C is the deviation in ppt from unity, of the activity ratio, isotope corrected to a sample delta-13C value of -25ppt. For further information of these calculations and procedures see Broecker and Olson (1981), Stuiver and Robinson (1974) and Stuiver (1980). 14C has been measured on all LV samples collected. This exceeds the rate funded for this work (80%). Prior to this cruise, no 14C data existed for this entire region of the ocean, except for 3 thermocline stations reported by Masao Ishii (personal communication) and a GEOSECS station east of Japan. 4.0 Data Summary Figures 5 & 6 summarize the large volume 14C data collected on this leg. All D 14C measurements with a quality flag value of 2 are included in each figure. Figure 5 shows the D 14C values plotted as a function of pressure . One sigma error bars (±4ppt) are shown with each datum. The mid-depth minimum which is characteristic of Pacific profiles is present in some of these profiles, however, it is interesting that the minimum is more pronounced at the southern end of the section than at the northern end. Figure 6 shows the delta-14-C values plotted against measured Gerard barrel silicate values. The angled heavy line is the relationship suggested by Broecker et al. (1995) to be representa- tive of the mean global pre-bomb delta-14-C - silicate correlation. The relationship does not appear to hold for these waters. Figure 7 is a section of the radiocarbon data from P10 large volume samples. The northward flowing Antarctic water is evident near the bottom of the section. Lying above is the older water (14C minimum) North Pacific deep water. The minimum values in this section are not at low as those found in the eastern north Pacific. Figure 4: Plot includes nutrient data from both Gerard and piggyback Niskin samples. Rosette/CTD data from the same stations and depth ranges are overlain as lines except for phosphate where the added lines would be too confused to be helpful for comparison. Rosette samples use the same symbols as large volume data from the same station, but are only one-half size. 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". Once the nutrient and salt data had been flagged, these results were considered in flagging the 14C data. There is no overlap between this data set and any existing 14C data, so that type of comparison was impractical. The lack of other data for comparison led to a more lenient grading on the 14C data. When flagging 14C data, the measurement error was taken into consideration. That is, approximately one-third of the 14C measurements are expected to deviate from the true value by more than the measurement precision of ~2ppt. Figure 5: All LV delta-14-C values as a function of pressure. Vertical bars indicate two sigma errors. 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 14C and silicate. Figure 7: Radiocarbon section for deep and bottom waters. Evident in the figure are northward flowing waters of Antarctic origin along the bottom and the older presumably southward flowing deep water around 2500dB. 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 14C data regardless of the quality code value. A summary of all flags is provided in Table 2. TABLE 2. Quality Code Summary WHP Quality Codes Levels 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ------------------------------------------------- BTLNBR 226 0 209 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 SALNTY 226 0 203 1 5 0 0 0 0 14 SILCAT 226 0 205 0 5 0 0 0 0 16 REVTMP 226 0 206 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 DELC14* 105 0 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------------- *14C large volume samples can not be collected from piggyback Niskin bottles 6.0 References and Supporting Documentation 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. ÷stlund, Oceanic radiocarbon: Separation of the natural and bomb components, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 9(2), 263-288, 1995. 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. 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 14C 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. D. Acknowledgments Funding for this research cruise was primarily from various grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF), OCE93-06689 (M. Hall). We also wish to thank Captain and crew of the R/V Thomas Thompson for a successful cruise. E. References Anonymous. 1985. RFA-300 Rapid Flow Analyzer Operation Manual. Preliminary. Alpkem Corporation, Clackamas, Oregon. Looseleaf binder, unnumbered pages. Bullister, J. L. and R. F. Weiss. 1988. Determination of CCl3F and CCl2F2 in seawater and air. Deep Sea Research, vol. 35, no. 5, 839-853. Giles, Alan B. and Trevor J. McDonald. 1986. Two methods for the reduction of Salinity Spiking of CTDs. Deep Sea Research. vol. 33, no 9. 1253-1274. Gordon, L.I., J.C. Jennings, Jr., A.A. Ross and J.M. Krest., A suggested protocol for continuous flow automated analysis of seawater nutrients (phosphate, nitrate, nitrite and silicic acid) in the WOCE Hydrographic Program and the Joint Global Ocean Fluxes Study. Available from the US WHP Office or the authors. Gordon, L. I., J. Krest, and A. Ross, b. (in preparation), Reducing temperature sensitivity in continuous flow analysis of silicic acid in seawater. Knapp, G.P., M.C. Stalcup and R.J. Stanley (1990). Automated oxygen titration and salinity determination. Technical Report WHOI-90-35, Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst. Mangum, B.W. and G.T. Furukawa.1990. Guidelines for Realizing the International Temperature Scale of 1990 (ITS-90). Nist Technical Notes 1265. Millard, R. C. and K. Yang.1993. CTD Calibration and Processing Methods used at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Technical Report No. 93-44, 96 pages. Oceansoft MKIII/SCTD Acquisition Software Manual. 1990. P/N Manual 10239. EG&G Marine Instruments. Owens, Brechner W. and Robert C. Millard, Jr.1985. A New Algorithm for CTD Oxygen Calibrations. J. Phys. Oceanog. vol. 15.621-631. Toole, John, G. Bond, R.Millard. 1993. Implementation of a titanium strain gauge pressure transducer for CTD applications. Deep Sea Research. vol. 40, no 5. 1009-1021. Toole, John. 1994. personal communication. FINAL CFC DATA QUALITY EVALUATION (DQE) COMMENTS ON P10. (David Wisegarver) Dec 2000 During the initial DQE review of the CFC data, a small number of samples were given QUALT2 flags which differed from the initial QUALT1 flags assigned by the PI. After discussion, the PI concurred with the DQE assigned flags and updated the QUAL1 flags for these samples. The CFC concentrations have been adjusted to the SIO98 calibration Scale (Prinn et al. 2000) so that all of the Pacific WOCE CFC data will be on a common calibration scale. For further information, comments or questions, please, contact the CFC PI for this section (mwarner@ocean.washington.edu) or David Wisegarver (wise@pmel.noaa.gov). Additional information on WOCE CFC synthesis may be available at: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/cfc. *********************************************************************** Prinn, R. G., R. F. Weiss, P. J. Fraser, P. G. Simmonds, D. M. Cunnold, F. N. Alyea, S. O'Doherty, P. Salameh, B. R. Miller, J. Huang, R. H. J. Wang, D. E. Hartley, C. Harth, L. P. Steele, G. Sturrock, P. M. Midgley, and A. McCulloch, A history of chemically and radiatively important gases in air deduced from ALE/GAGE/AGAGE. Journal of Geophysical Research, 105, 17,751-17,792, 2000. ************************************************************************ WHPO DATA PROCESSING HISTORY: Date Contact Data Type Data Status Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3/14/96 Aoyama CTD DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO 3/20/96 Aoyama NUTs DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO 3/21/96 Aoyama BTL DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO 8/15/97 Uribe DOC Submitted See Note: 2000.12.11 KJU: File contained here is a CRUISE SUMMARY and NOT sumfile. Documentation is online. 2000.10.11 KJU: Files were found in incoming directory under whp_reports. This directory was zipped, files were separated and placed under proper cruise. All of them are sum files. Received 1997 August 15th. 4/22/98 Key DELC14 DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO distribute to WOCE PIs only, included LV sampling Today I uploaded the P10 small volume data and final report to your anon ftp site. I send the final report in three formats: P10.ps (postscript version with figures), P10.txt (ascii with no figs), P10.rtf (rich text format). proprietary till March, 2000. 4/27/98 Kozyr ALKALI/TCARBN Final Data Rcvd @ WHPO I have put the final CO2-related data file for the Pacific Ocean WOCE Section P10 to the WHPO ftp INCOMING area. 11/19/98 Key ALK/C02 Final Data Rcvd @ WHPO As data originators of the TCO2 and alkalinity data for P10, we consider it to be public. It only becomes "officially" public after CDIAC has issued its final report For now, P10 C14 is still proprietary except to WOCE PIs. 12/3/98 Jenkins He/Tr Submitted Preliminary Attached is a listing of the preliminary data (we have a proposal into NSF to do a synthesis to finalize the data). S.Diggs noted problems merging this data w/ BTL file. 1/25/99 Bartolacci CTD/BTL/TRA Data Update Public except for tracers 1/26/99 Warner CFCs Data are Public Yes they can be public. -Mark 1/26/99 Talley He/Tr Tracers merged into HYD file 2/1/99 Jenkins HELIUM/Tr Data are NonPublic for 6 months 2/9/99 Talley SUM Data Update see note: I just found an error in the p10su.txt file, on line 231, where cast 4 (LVS) was mislabeled as station 66, and should have been 65. I corrected it and put the corrected file in my ftp site on whpo.ucsd.edu. 3/26/99 Ross NO2+NO3 Data Update see note: In regard to the "P10 - Nitrate" note Lou sent to you the other day - the data listed under the "NITRATE" column is in fact the total of "Nitrate AND Nitrite" or N+N. You are correct in stating that to obtain NITRATE only, you must subtract out the corresponding NITRITE value. Again, the units of umol/Kg are correct for all nutrients. To clarify, I obtained the P10 data (p10hy.txt) from the WOCE website that your PACIFIC data listing website linked - >http://whpo.ucsd.edu/data/onetime/pacific/p10/index.htm. 4/21/99 Kozyr DOC Requested full doc file 4/23/99 Bartolacci DOC complete doc OnLine (ascii) I've updated the p10 doc file, and changed the table accordingly. 4/28/99 Kappa DOC Cruise Rpt Rcvd @ WHPO Sent complete doc file to Kozyr 4/29/99 Quay DELC13 Data and/or Status info Requested by dmb 5/6/99 Bartolacci He/Tr Following note sent to Jenkins: I would like to thank you for the submission of helium and tritium data for p10, and ask you a few questions about the data. The data sent had no WOCE quality flags associated with them. Upon merging, data are designated a flags solely on the basis of being present or missing from the data set (i.e. if a value was present, it was considered an acceptable measurement and designated a flag of 2, if a missing value was present [-99.00] it was understood that no sample was drawn from the bottle and was designated a flag of 9). However, if you wish to send flags that further describe the quality of the data they would be most welcome! Definitions of the WOCE quality flags can be found in the WOCE Operations Manual, which is also on line at http://whpo.ucsd.edu/ under WHP Manuals (chapter 4). Along with Tritium was a parameter named Sigma Tritium which was defined as the uncertainty in the Tritium measurement. Can we assume this parameter to be equivalent to the WOCE parameter Tritium Error? If the quality flags we designated are acceptable, please notify us and we will continue with the merging process. Thank you for your time! According to email sent by Lynne Talley, the incorrect units on HELIUM were changed from PMOL/KG to NMOL/KG. See email below. B. Jenkins was notified via email and phone regarding these data discrepancies. No word from the PI on a course of action. See email below. 5/10/99 Bartolacci He/Tr Following note sent to Jenkins: In regards to my previous email on the questions surrounding helium and tritium data for p10 I'd like to add another. Further inspection of the data with Steve Diggs revealed some values that may be questionable. Steve suggested I ask you about these as well. The tritium and sigma tritium data use -99.00 as missing values, however the same does not appear to be true for the helium and delta helium3 values. There is a value of -9.90 that appears in the delta helium3 column which corresponds to a helium value of -4.417 consistently. To my (very limited) knowledge the range of helium values is somewhere between 1-3 nmol/kg. Is -4.417 a valid value for helium or is this an artifact of a calculation? Could you briefly explain what parameters comprise the ratio of delta helium3? Also, there are some values in the helium column that have a different precisions. For example, is 1.7 appears as a helium value in the same station as 1.860. Is 1.7 actually 1.700? The WOCE format standards for helium are 8.4 which means precision will be 'added' to these values. If you have carried out measurements to this precision, do you wish to resend values for helium? The WOCE formats will also force the tritium (and sigma tritium) values to a precision of 8.2. These values will be rounded. Thanks very much for your time concerning this data! A sample station (that has values in question) follows below. Sincerely, Danie Bartolacci 90 15 34.93 141.21 8 11 93 224 49 20.336 34.511 216. -99.00 -99.00 0.48 1.7 223 98 17.474 34.642 187. 1.441 0.010 4.28 1.757 221 197 12.735 34.476 168. 1.558 0.011 9.48 1.797 220 246 10.899 34.391 156. 1.238 0.009 11.42 1.803 218 345 8.834 34.305 139. 1.199 0.010 13.59 1.810 217 396 7.652 34.271 127. 1.053 0.009 14.34 1.817 216 496 5.459 34.247 91. 0.607 0.007 15.82 1.839 215 597 4.411 34.320 73. 0.349 0.005 16.51 1.849 214 697 3.684 34.328 55. 0.218 0.004 16.35 1.860 213 796 3.433 34.367 55. -99.00 -99.00 16.85 1.9 212 897 3.112 34.395 54. 0.117 0.003 -9.90 -4.417 11/17/99 Key DELC14 LVS DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO 11/18/99 Key DELC14 LVS Final Data Rcvd @ WHPO 11/30/99 Bartolacci He/Tr/C14/C02 Data Update I have replaced both the public (he/tr, Tcarb, Alk, and DelC14 masked out of the file) and nonpublic (encrypted) bottle files with the newly formatted version from George Anderson. The new files have correct Q2 bytes in the QUALT2 column now. Old version had all 1's in the Q2 word. I have updated the table to reflect the date of the update. 12/17/99 Anderson LVS Data Update See note: Converted the file from Bob Key to the WHP .lvs format. Parameters that were in the original file but were not retained in the .lvs file because they are not in the .lvs record format description: latitude QUALT1 flags for: longitude temperature depth (m) nitrate nitrate nitrite nitrite phosphate phosphate silicate silicate aou AOU sigma 0 sigma 1 sigma 2 sigma 3 sigma 4 The Key file had station numbers 1-13, but the .sum file indicated that the LVS stations were 16, 25, 34, 47, 56, 65, and 74. In addition the the cast numbers in the Key file were always 1 and 3, which did not agree with the .sum file. After comparing the maximum pressure in the .sum file with the maximum pressure in the Key file for each cast, I was able to determine which station and cast numbers to use. There is a 0 flag for some of the parameters, in fact all of the oxygens except where there was no sample which is flagged 9. This is not a valid number for the quality flags. I left them as 0 since I have no way of knowing what they should be. Sarilee Anderson -- 17 Dec. 1999 1/12/00 Key LVS Data Update See Note: I understand the problem. Some days I'm not sure what ocean I'm working on. P10LV files are attached, including the Final Report (pdf). A few additional notes regarding this data set follow. Some of these comments are generic to my LV file procedure (i.e. treatment of missing bottom depth in SUM file), but most are specific to p10 1. cast numbers. Some confusion existed here because after the cruise Terry and staff changed cast numbers on stations which had a Ra-228 surface soak. This messed up shore based measurements since the sample collection deck logs no longer matched the SUM file. The attached file P10LVSUM.ASC is a copy of the SUM file produced by WHOI whenever. The file p10lvsta is my reduction of that file with corrections to what I think things should be. 2. In p10lvsta, I have filled in any missing bottom depths. 3. The locations (BE,BO,EN) are better taken from P10LVSUM.ASC than from p10lvsta since I only keep one location (almost always BO). 4. The data file has a flag (tf) for the reversing temperature values 5. Some values in the data file have a flag value of "0" intentionally, by agreement between Jim Swift and me. This indicates that the value was somehow approximated. Oxygen was never measured for the LV casts. Here I interpolated oxygen based on the measured rosette values at the same station. Missing temperature and salinity values were interpolated from surrounding LV cast samples on the same station. 6. I provided all QC flags. QC values are burst into individual flag values with names that are easily recognized (i.e. sif=silicate flag, sf=salt flag). Marking is according to WOCE convention. QC performed relative to this cruise only (i.e. no comparison to other cruises). Gerard barrel QC on nutrients not as strict as Rosette samples. Note however that the salts values (especially deep) for the first half of this cruise are better than the measured Rosette salt values due to "lazy" collection technique by a graduate student on the Rosette salts (should be a comment in the Chi. Sci. Rpt. about this, but I wouldn't bet on it - Mandy was in way over her head on this one). 7. Depths estimated from latitude and pressure using the algorithm published anon. in the 1970 Bulletin Geodesique. 8. Number of decimal places. There should be the required number or more for all variables, however, my software truncates trailing "0's" on print. 9. Nutrient data received in umol/l; converted with lab temperature of 25C and measured salinity. 10. AOU values calculated using the Weiss algorithm rather than the Garcia algorithm. I now prefer the latter, but you should probably just dump these and recalculate using your programs to be sure of consistancy. Ditto on theta and sigmaX. This is probably more than you wanted to know. Rather than me sending you a giant data dump, I suggest that we deal with the LV cruises one at a time so that the exceptions get properly noted for the final archive. I have all LV data that exists from U.S. WOCE Pacific. 2/4/00 Kozyr ALK/TCARBN Final Data Rcvd @ WHPO 2/9/00 Bartolacci CO2 Data Merged/OnLine TCARBN merged new values into existing column. Changed missing data valuefrom -999.9 in latest co2 data set to -9.0 in current bottle file. ALKALI merged new values into existing column. Changed missing data valuefrom -999.9 in latest co2 data set to -9.0 in current bottle file. C14ERR added new column for these values into existing column. Changed missing data value in latest co2 data set from -999.9 to -9.0 in current bottle file. Ran maskhyd to add name/date stamp. Ran wocecvt to check format. Both programs ran with no errors detected in routine formatting. New file has been placed in p10 directory, and table has been updated to reflect the change. This information has been added as a readme file to the original p10 directory. -- DMB 2000.02.09 2/25/00 Warner CFCs Data Update See note: Since John Bullister has asked us all to check our data, I have resubmitted the WOCE P10 CFC data to the ftp site. I have changed it to the SIO1993 calibration scale, and flagged one or two questionable points. 3/8/00 Bartolacci CFCs Data Merged/OnLine Merged CFC11/12 values from Mark Warner (email below). Used "driver.pl" and "warner.pl" to reformat data in order to merge. Used D. Newton's "mrgsea" for merging both values into existing P10 bottle file obtained from WHPO website. Ran wocecvt on merged bottle file. No errors. Ran maskhyd to include date/name stamp. Also made a public version with he/tr and C14 masked out of file (named p10hy.txt). Renamed merged bottle file p10hy_all_params encrypted it and moved old file to 'original' subdirectory with replacement date in filename. 3/28/00 Talley HELIUM Units should be Nanomoles/kg. 3/28/00 Bartolacci He/Tr Update Needed, Following note sent to Jenkins: It was discovered by L. Talley that the current version of p10 bottle file on line, has incorrect helium and tritium data merged into it. Therefore the original helium/tritium data sent by Jenkins, was re-merged into the current bottle file. Please see file README.p10 regarding first merging of these data and documentation. NOTES on merging: Used DMN code mrgsea to merge TRITUM, HELIUM, DELHE3, SIGTRI (which possibly should be TRITER) changed missing data value for TRITUM from -99.00 to -9.0 changed missing data value for SIGTRI from -99.00 to -9.0 changed missing data value for DELHE3 from -9.90 to -999.00 added missing data value for HELIUM -9.0. changed HELIUM units from PMOL/KG to NMOL/KG. ran wocecvt with no bottle file errors. ran read_hyd. Code did not recognize SIGTRI as WOCE accepted parameter. no other errors detected. ran maskhyd to add date/name stamp. Code stopped after not recognizing SIGTRI as WOCE parameter. added date/name stamp by hand edit. ran movehyd to put parameter columns in WOCE order. Final file is called p10_complete_20000328.txt PROBLEMS: Erroneous HELIUM values -4.417 correspond to DELHE3 values of -9.90 and may be the intended missing data value. These values are out of the accepted range for HELIUM in the WOCE Operations Manual 90-1. These values were merged and left as-is until further word from PI. Precision for HELIUM varied from f8.1 to f8.3. WOCE Operations Manual 90- 1 states precision for HELIUM should be f8.4. Therefore precision was "added" to these values when merged into the current bottle file. SIGTRI is not a recognized WOCE parameter and possibly should be TRITER but no course of action had been given by PI. Parameter was merged as is until further word from PI. See email below. This was the second contact for this PI regarding these data problems. Hello Dr. Jenkins, Lynne Talley recently caught an error in the helium/tritium data that was merged into the P10 bottle file, which caused me to delve back into the original data you sent a year or so ago. The error Lynne caught was a result of the merging process, however I cannot seem to find a response from you on the following problems/questions we had regarding the data. Can you please look through the original emails (attached) and reply with a course of action to be taken on these data. Also at this time, may we make the helium and tritium data public? 4/13/00 Bartolacci He/Tr Data Update See note: I have re-merged the helium and tritium values sent by Jenkins into the p10 bottle file. The file now contains: TRITUM, HELIUM, DELHE3, and SIGTRI (which I think should be TRITER but is left as is until word from the PI). There were some questions regarding missing data values for HELIUM, and the PI was notified, however no response has come yet. Data were merged AS-IS. On line bottle file has been replaced and the table has been edited to reflect this change. 4/14/00 Key DELC14 Data are Public As of 3/2000 the 2 year clock expired on the last of the Pacific Ocean C14 data (P10). All Pacific Ocean WOCE C-14 data should be made public. 4/19/00 Bartolacci TRITUM Data Update Header error, See note: SMALL ERROR I know there is a non-WOCE header for P10 TR data, but I haven't yet heard anything from Jenkins on changing it. I cc'd you on a correspondence regarding that problem (and others) since they should be in the information about P10 that is available to users. 4/19/00 Jenkins He/Tr Reply to Bartolocci's notes: My apologies for the silence, but I have been rather busy as of late with adminstrative duties, and have been unable to work with or access the WOCE data with in any convenient format. Based on the information you gave me, I offer the following comments: I regret that the format I sent you was not entirely consistent with the WOCE convention, but my understanding at the time was that this was not a formal submission, but rather a quick response to a personal request by Lynne to look at the data. I have not had the time to work through the data into the final format, as this was to be part of the currently active WOCE-AIMS data mop-up program for tritium-helium. I had hoped that prior to official/final transmission, we could have an opportunity to complete inter-lab comparisons and final data quality control. For the tritium data, -99.00 means no sample, or that the sample analysis failed (e.g., sometimes storage flasks leaked, invalidating the measurement). For helium data, -9.90in the del-3He column means a null value (it's actually -99.00 per mil, but expressed in percent). The corresponding helium concentration value (which for some reason is a negative, but irrelevant number) will be invalid. The reason why the number appears like this is a minor bug in the reporting programme, and should be ignored. No flags were reported for the data at present for the reasons described above. PS: I'm hoping to put together the Pacific tirtium-helium data submission sometime in the next few months, once we get through this year's graduate admissions process and a couple of other deadlines. 9/26/00 Buck LVS Website Updated; Data added to website Added Large Volume Samples file to website. 10/17/00 Jenkins TRITUM Submitted Preliminary WOCE Indian Ocean = WITrit.dat Contains all legs WOCE Pacific P10 = WP10Trit.dat WOCE Pacific P13 = WP13Trit.dat WOCE Pacific P14c = WP14cTrit.dat WOCE Pacific P18 = WP18Trit.dat WOCE Pacific P19 = WP19Trit.dat WOCE Pacific P21 = WP21Trit.dat SAVE South Atlnt = SAVETrit.dat Column Layout as follows: Station, Cast, Bottle, Pressure, Tritium, ErrTritium Units as follows: Tritium and ErrTritium in T.U. All data are unfortunately still preliminary until we have completed the laboratory intercomparision and intercalibration that is still underway. 10/17/00 Jenkins He/He3/Neon Submitted Preliminary WOCE Indian Ocean = WIHe.dat Contains all legs WOCE Pacific P10 = WP10He.dat WOCE Pacific P18 = WP18He.dat WOCE Pacific P19 = WP19He.dat WOCE Pacific P21 = WP21He.dat Column Layout as follows: Station, Cast, Bottle, Pressure, Delta3He, ErrDelta3He, ConcHelium, ErrConcHelium, ConcNeon, ErrConcNeon Units as follows: Delta3He and ErrDelta3He in % ConcHelium, ErrConcHelium, ConcNeon, and ErrConcNeon in nmol/kg Null values (for ConcNeon and ErrConcNeon only ) = -9.000 All data are unfortunately still preliminary until we have completed the laboratory intercomparision and intercalibration that is still underway. 11/1/00 Jenkins He/Tr/Ne Final Data Rcvd @ WHPO The following data were received from Bill Jenkins 2000/11/01 and were reformatted by Sarilee Anderson: P10: tr/he/ne P13: tr P14C:tr P18: tr/he/ne P19: tr/he/ne P21: tr/he/ne SAVE: S. Atlantic tritium data from SAVE program 11/8/00 Anderson HE/NEON Reformatted by WHPO I have put the Jenkins helium and neon in WOCE format. There were no quality codes so I set the HELIUM, DELHE3, and NEON to 2. 11/13/00 Anderson TRITUM Reformatted by WHPO I have put the Jenkins tritium data into WOCE format. There were no quality codes so I set the TRITUM to 2. 1/11/01 Kappa DOC txt version created includes cfc report, nutrients report, ctd & hyd dqe reports and large- and small-volume c14 reports. 1/17/01 Huynh DOC Website Updated, txt version online 1/30/01 Stuart DELC13 Submitted See Note: Enclosed are three text files (and data) for the Pacific. The headers are: Lab ID WHPID Station Cast Niskin Del-C13 C13 flag The files are for P10, P14C, P17E, and P17E/P19S 6/22/01 Uribe CTD/BTL Website Updated; CSV File Added CTD and Bottle files in exchange format have been put online. 6/22/01 Muus He/Tr Shallow Submitted/not on web JENKINS received Oct 17 and NOV1, 2000. NP per table and data history. Not on plain text web file: 20000414WHPOSIODMB but encrypted file exists. Public per Jenkins referenced message above. 8/9/01 Kappa DOC new pdf, txt versions online Files put online by K. Uribe. p10_3250TN026_1.txt (replaces the txt file currently online), p10_3250TN026_1.pdf.bin 8/21/01 Muus CFCs Data into BTl file Notes on P10 CFC merging Aug 21, 2001. D. Muus 1. New CFC-11 and CFC-12 from: /usr/export/html-public/data/onetime/pacific/p10/original/ 20010709_CFC_WISEGARVER_P10/20010709.172120_WISEGARVER_P10_p10_CFC_DQE.dat merged into plain text web SEA file as of Aug 20, 2001 (20000414WHPOSIODMB) and into encrypted web SEA file as of Aug 20, 2001 (20000328WHPOSIODMB) 2. Changed header "SIGTRI" to "TRITER". Header in Jenkins tritium data file was "ErrTritium". 3. Exchange file made for the plain test version and checked using Java Ocean Atlas. 8/24/01 Bartolacci BTL/CFCs Update Needed Updates CFC's will not be online until HE/TR are merged. Although Dave Muus has merged updated CFC's into the current P10 bottle file there was a small flag missmatch in the public version of the data. Because helium and tritium still need merging into this file, this will be done and the final merged bottle file (also with corrected flags) will then be put online. So for now no updated CFC's will be online until the helium and tritium is merged. 8/27/01 Swift He/Tr Status changed to Public Steve - Please make the following changes from non-public to public. All Jenkins Pacific/Indian data are public according to an email he sent 2/26/2001, hence P10 3250TN026_1 The He/Tr data are not in the public data file. Please make them public and available. 8/30/01 Bartolacci BTL Website Updated; BTL file replaced Status changed to public. I have replaced the current P10 bottle file with a file containing updated CFC 11 and 12 values as well as merged helium, delhe3, tritium, and neon data. Data merged by D. Muus. According to Jenkins (by way of J. Swift) all tracer data may be made public, and therefore the entire bottle file has been made publicly available in WOCE and Exchange format. Old files have been moved to original subdirectory and have been renamed to reflect replacement. All tables and references have been updated to reflect this change. 8/28/01 D. Muus He/Tr/Ne/CFC Notes on merging 1. New CFC-11 and CFC-12 from: /usr/export/html-public/data/onetime/pacific/p10/original/ 20010709_CFC_WISEGARVER_P10/20010709.172120_WISEGARVER_P10_p10_CFC_DQE.dat merged into plain text web SEA file as of Aug 20, 2001 (20000414WHPOSIODMB) 2. New HELIUM, DELHE3, NEON, and TRITUM from: /usr/export/html-public/data/onetime/pacific/p10/original/ 2000.11.13_TRIT_HE_REFORMAT_P10_SA merged into plain-text SEA file after CFCs merged (Item 1 above). Encrypted web Sea file (20000328WHPOSIODMB) has 60 more bottles with helium data than the new helium file and a net of 7 more tritium levels than the new tritium file. a. New files have no SAMPNO but BTLNBR appears to be same as SAMPNO in original SEA file while BTLNBR in original SEA file differs from new helium, tritium, neon files BTLNBR (e.g. Sta 1, Cast 1, 8.4db: "WG009" in Sea file, "9" in new file). Matched SAMPNO in SEA file with BTLNBR in new files for this merge. Used original SEA file SAMPNOs and BTLNBRs. No quality codes from data originator so used "2"s used for both QUALT1 and QUALT2. b. New files have Cast 2 for Stations 16, 56, 74 and 90. SUMMARY file and web SEA file have Station 16 Cast 3(ROS) (Cast 2 is BUC) 56 3(ROS) (No tritium, Cast 2 is LVS) 74 3(ROS) (No tritium, Cast 2 is BUC) 90 1(ROS) (No Cast 2) Changed new files to match SUMMARY and SEA file data for ROS. 3. Exchange files made for both the Public and Non-Public versions and checked using Java Ocean Atlas. 10/25/01 Kappa Doc Cruise Report updates Added CFC DQE reports & CFC merging notes; updated Data Processing Notes