CRUISE REPORT: I05 (Updated JAN 2010) A. HIGHLIGHTS A.1. CRUISE SUMMARY INFORMATION Section designation I05 Expedition designation (ExpoCode) 33RR20090320 Chief Scientists James H. Swift / UCSD/SIO Gregory C. Johnson / NOAA/PMEL Dates 20 MAR 2009 to 15 MAY 2009 Ship R/V Roger Revelle Ports of call Cape Town, South Africa, to Fremantle, Australia 30° 22.8' S Geographic boundaries 30° 19.67' E 114° 50.72' E 34° 48.01' S Stations 195 CTD/rosette stations Floats and drifters deployed 19 Argo floats deployed Moorings deployed or recovered 0 James H. Swift University of California, San Diego • Scripps Institution of Oceanography 9500 Gilman Drive • MS 0214 • La Jolla CA 92093-0214 Tel: 858-534-3387 • Fax: 858-534-7383 • Email: jswift@ucsd.edu Gregory C. Johnson National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Bldg. 3 • Seattle WA 98115-6349 Tel: 206-526-6806 • Fax: 206-526-6744 • Email: Gregory.C.Johnson@noaa.gov US Global Ocean Carbon and Repeat Hydrography Program Cruise I5 Cape Town, South Africa, to Fremantle, Australia 20 March - 15 May 2009 R/V Roger Revelle Preliminary Cruise Report James H. Swift and Gregory C. Johnson 195 CTD/rosette stations 6,724 levels sampled 87 trace metal casts 19 Argo floats deployed 55 days at sea (no port stops or landings) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF INTERAGENCY COOPERATION AND SUPPORT The U.S. Global Ocean Carbon and Repeat Hydrography Program (also known as the U.S. CLIVAR/CO2 Repeat Hydrography Program) has benefited from interagency, multi-institutional, and cross-disciplinary collaboration from its inception. Some of the ship time has been provided by NOAA on the NOAA Ship Ronald H. Brown, and some by NSF on UNOLS ships, such as this cruise on R/V Roger Revelle. The traditional close cooperation among NSF and NOAA funded partners on this very long single-leg cruise was particularly strong. As usual on these cruises, NOAA analysts measured dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), while university teams measured pH and total alkalinity. While NSF-funded SIO-ODF took the lead on CTD/O2, bottle salinity, bottle oxygen, and nutrients data collection and processing, NOAA personnel assisted in each of those areas, allowing for methodological cross-training. Two NOAA CFC/SF6 analysts worked on NSF-funded equipment and with the able assistance of an NSF-funded graduate student. Finally, Jim Swift and Greg Johnson were the NSF-NOAA day-night chief-co-chief scientist tag team using their complementary skills to lead the expedition. We are very grateful to NSF and NOAA, and our program managers, for the support, advice, and encouragement which continues to make this program a success. Officers and Crew Name Position ------------------ -------------- Tom Desjardins Captain Paul Mauricio Chief Engineer Robert Widdrington 1st Mate Joe Ferris 2nd Mate Melissa Turner 3rd Mate John Healy 1st A/E Frank Oathout 2nd A/E Matthew Peer 3rd A/E Jay Erikson 1st Cook Mark Smith 2nd Cook Joe Evers Boatswain Antje Galbraith Electrician Robert Arthur A/B Gary Braden A/B Edmund Warren A/B Phil Hawkins Oiler Phil Hogan Oiler Malcolm Cobb Oiler William Brown, Jr. Oiler Jonathan Alvarez Wiper Kevin Moran OS SCIENCE PROGRAMS AND RESPONSIBLE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS CTDO/rosette/S/O2/nutrients/data processing Jim Swift, Scripps (jswift@ucsd.edu; ph 858-534-3387; fx 858-534-7383) Transmissometer Wilf Gardner, Texas A&M U (wgardner@ocean.tamu.edu; ph 979-845-7211) CDOM Fluorometer Norm Nelson, UCSB (norm@icess.ucsb.edu) Craig Carlson, UCSB (carlson@lifesci.ucsb.edu; 805-893-2541) Research Technician Group Carl Mattson, Scripps (cmattson@ucsd.edu or restech@ucsd.edu; ph 858-543-1632) Shipboard Computer Group Frank Delahoyde, Scripps (fdelahoyde@ucsd.edu; ph 858-534-2751) CO2 (alkalinity and pH) Andrew Dickson, Scripps (adickson@ucsd.edu; ph 858-534-2990) CO2 (DIC and underway pCO2) Rik Wannikhof, AOML/NOAA (Rik.Wanninkhof@noaa.gov; ph 305-361-4379) Richard A. Feely, PMEL/NOAA (Richard.A.Feely@noaa.gov; ph 206-526-6214) DOC/TDN Dennis Hansel, RSMAS/Miami (dhansell@rsmas.miami.edu; ph 305-421-4078) 13C/14C Ann McNichol, WHOI (amcnichol@whoi.edu; ph 508-289-3394) Robert Key, Princeton (key@Princeton.EDU; ph 609-258-3595) CFCs John Bullister, PMEL/NOAA (John.L.Bullister@noaa.gov; ph 206-526-6741) Mark Warner, University of Washington (mwarner@ocean.washington.edu; ph 206-543-0765) He/Tr Peter Schlosser, LDEO (peters@ldeo.columbia.edu; ph 845-365-8816) ADCP/LADCP Eric Firing, U Hawaii (efiring@soest.hawaii.edu; ph 808-956-7894) Trace elements Chris Measures, U Hawaii (chrism@soest.hawaii.edu; ph 808-956-8693) Bill Landing, U Florida (landing@ocean.fsu.edu; ph 850-644-6037) ARGO floats Stephen Riser, U of Washington (riser@ocean.washington.edu; ph 206-543-1187) Aerosols Bill Landing, U Florida (landing@ocean.fsu.edu; ph 850-644-6037) NARRATIVE The R/V Roger Revelle "I5" cruise for the NSF- and NOAA-funded US CLIVAR/CO2 Repeat Hydrography program carried out a transect of boundary-to-boundary full- depth CTDO/LADCP/hydrographic/carbon/tracer stations along ca. 32°S from South Africa to Australia, 20 March - 13 May 2009. The full transect had been carried out twice before, in 1987 (November - December, 36 days, 108 stations) and 2002 (March - April, 46 days, 133 stations plus 13 on a different transect), and in 1995 the east (March-May) and west (June - July) portions were done well. But the remote central portion of the 32°S Indian Ocean transect had not yet been measured to the same standard we have measured the other oceans. Thus we planned a very long cruise (with no mid-cruise port stop): 57 days and 194 stations. All 34 in the science team made it to the ship in Cape Town without undue difficulty. The ship had arrived slightly ahead of schedule after a transit from South America. All hands thoroughly enjoyed Cape Town. SIO arranged docking in the main waterfront tourist area, which was also just a short walk (by day) or cab ride (at night) to the city center. We had time for dinners at some of Cape Town's excellent restaurants, visits to busy pubs, and many of us enjoyed the excellent South African wines. Some toured the Cape Town region, visited wineries, went up Table Mountain (Cape Town's dramatic backdrop), or toured Robben Island (where South Africa kept some of its political prisoners up through 1991). The scientific equipment and lab supplies had been shipped in advance from California, Washington, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, and Florida, much of it in three 20-foot lab vans and two 20-foot shipping containers. Over four days the science party, SIO research technicians, and crew loaded the cargo onto the ship, and craned aboard the lab and storage vans. The science team then outfitted the lab vans and the ship's four main labs, assembled and installed the rosette bottles onto the frame, along with the underwater electronics, and installed the deck equipment. Each measurement group was experienced and got its work done well. Only one item of scientific equipment never arrived: a new version of the lowered ADCP. The older spare downward-looking 150 KHz model was installed, and it worked well the entire cruise, probably better than the newer primary upward and downward-looking 300 KHz models would have. The ship also took on tons of food, including such a large amount of fresh stores that the science walk-in refrigerator was used for some of it for a brief time. R/V Roger Revelle left port ca. 10:00 pm local time Friday, March 20th, after 6- hour delay to complete fueling (some bad fuel was found in the initial delivery that day). The southern tip of Africa is notorious for high seas, but although some choppy ship roll began as soon as we left the harbor, by morning the seas were easier. The weather was excellent. From the very start the science team felt welcome and very well supported onboard the ship. This was the fourth cruise for the CLIVAR/CO2 Repeat Hydrography Program on Revelle, and the fifth on an SIO ship. Thus we enjoyed the fortune of sailing with highly experienced officers and crew, many of whom had sailed on previous cruises for our program. The ship is spacious, well- maintained, and well-outfitted for long cruises such as I5, and makes a pleasant workplace and home at sea. Jay and Mark, the cooks, set the bar high from Day One and kept challenging waistlines and will-power without let-up. (They actually told us, "we try to make things as difficult as we can for you"!) [Seriously, on a voyage such as this, the cooks and the weather make all the difference. Jay and Mark baked bread or rolls nearly every day, served lettuce in the salad bar for 48 days (albeit increasingly mixed with cabbage toward the very end), provided fresh fruit at breakfast through the entire cruise, presented tasty choices for every meal, made caches of bread and treats for the night watch, did well by the vegetarians, and on and on. They made a significant contribution to the positive morale that pervaded this cruise.] As the ship steamed northeast towards the first station, the course stayed over the continental shelf to avoid the strong southward Agulhas Current over the shelf break. The ship was in a designated northbound shipping lane from time to time, as evidenced by cargo ships and empty tankers. En route the science teams successfully carried out three training and familiarization casts, and the ship held safety drills. We reached the start of our 32°S transect early Tuesday morning, March 24th. Our primary task was to carry out nearly 200 CTD/rosette stations. The CTD (deployed amidships from the starboard boom) and other electronics mounted on the rosette frame provided measurements of pressure, temperature, conductivity (salinity), and dissolved oxygen, plus there were light transmission and fluorometric sensors. The lowered Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler measured the velocity relative to the rosette, from which the absolute velocities can be derived. Water samples from the 36 10-liter bottles on the rosette were analyzed on board for salinity, dissolved oxygen, nutrients (nitrate, nitrite, phosphate, and silicate), CFCs (F11, F12), SF6, dissolved inorganic carbon, total alkalinity, and pH. Samples for shore analysis were collected for dissolved organic carbon, total dissolved nitrogen, the carbon isotopes 13C & 14C, tritium, dissolved helium, and helium-3. We also had with us a 5-person team measuring aluminum and iron (from separate "trace metal" casts with their own rosette and synthetic cable deployed on a Kevlar-coated cable using the stern A-frame) and aerosols. We ran a continuously-pumped surface seawater system that measured temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, fluorescence, and pCO2. Other measurements included velocity from the ship's Doppler current profilers, data from a suite of meteorological parameters, multibeam bathymetry, and navigation data. And we deployed 19 Argo floats at predetermined locations along the section for Dr. Stephen Riser, University of Washington. The science program began with a crossing of the Agulhas Current (the western boundary current of the South Indian Ocean). The Agulhas is a strong current, which was of practical as well as scientific interest to participants on this expedition. During our sampling of the Agulhas, the near-surface currents measured by the shipboard ADCP reached speeds of over 2.0 m/s (about 3.7 kts) near the coast. This high velocity made stations challenging, but the officers and crew of the R/V Revelle overcame the impediment competently. On the continental slope, we were aiming to occupy a CTD station at every 500-m increase in bottom depth from the continental shelf break all the way down to the base of the continental rise. Since the current runs mostly parallel to isobaths, we would find our target depth, and then steam a few nm along that isobath upstream (roughly northeast) from the nominal station track. The officer on watch would then orient the ship properly with respect to winds, waves, and currents, after which we would begin our station, with the ship drifting southwest with the current during the station to minimize wire angle. By the time the CTD reached the bottom, the ship was usually close to our target position on the section, and then moved past it as the CTD was brought back to the surface. During these cruises we generally try to sample to within 10 m of the bottom. However, when drifting along at over 3 kt, with far more wire paid out than there was depth below the ship, and uncertain bathymetry ahead, we sometimes settled for a 20-m gap. One oceanographic consequence of this strong velocity is that, with the admittedly very crude (and likely erroneous) assumption of zero velocity at the deepest common level of each station pair, the preliminary data yield and estimated volume transport of the Agulhas across the section was roughly 85 ( 106 m3 s-1 to the southwest (typical of other similarly derived estimates). Another interesting feature associated with the Agulhas is the northeastward flowing Agulhas Undercurrent, a reversal in flow that is usually found deeper than 800 m, adjacent to the continental slope, below the core of the Agulhas. Since we had Eric Firing's trusty (except for a sticky mercury switch used for sensing vertical orientation) old 150-KHz broadband lowered ADCP on the CTD frame, we were able to measure the expression of this current as we crossed the Agulhas starting from near Durban. On this cruise the Agulhas Undercurrent was remarkable by its absence. While our data were very closely spaced (every 500 m of bottom change, and from 2 to 25 km in distance), we did not find any velocity structure that would merit the designation of Undercurrent in the preliminary LADCP data. Taking as much data as we did, it would be peculiar indeed if we did not find interesting and unexpected oceanographic features now and again. For example, Francois Ascani, who is working with PI Eric Firing on the ADCP and LADCP data, found a distinctive high vertical mode signal on the peak of the Madagascar Ridge on a station taken 10-20 km from Walter's Shoal. The signal was clearly captured by both the ship's hull-mounted Hydrographic Doppler Sonar System (an ADCP system unique to the Revelle thanks to SIO PI Robert Pinkel) and the lowered Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler on the rosette. From Francois Ascani: "During station 41 (44°E, 33°S), located just above the 800-m deep Madagascar Ridge, the Lowered Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (LADCP) instrument measured a profile in cross-ridge (east-west) velocity periodic in the vertical with a 200-m wavelength and an amplitude of 10 to 20 cm s-1. This remarkable pattern was also observed by the Hydrographic Doppler Sonar System (HDSS) before, during and after station 41, over a distance reaching nearly 100 km. No apparent vertical propagation of the phase was observed during the 2-4 hours of observations, suggesting that the pattern corresponds to a standing wave in the vertical. This feature has sufficient peculiar characteristics to motivate future investigation. Possible causes are a ridge- trapped internal wave that resonates with the wind or an internal tide created at the ridge or at the nearby Walter's Shoal." On Saturday-Sunday, 11-12 April, at about 34°S, 61°E, Tropical Cyclone Jade hit us directly. We were able to carry out CTD operations as the storm built because the wind and swell were from the same direction, making it possible for the mates to hold the ship remarkably steady during casts. But on station 077 during Saturday afternoon, as the storm built, we didn't count on winds rising as quickly as they did: When we put the CTD into the water for the 5525-meter deep cast, winds were a more or less manageable and fairly steady 35 knots. Four hours later, when we brought the CTD back on deck, average winds were 52 knots. Thanks to the considerable expertise of the Captain, mates, winch operator, and deck crew, the recovery went well, though it was challenging. While we sampled the rosette, winds continued rising into the upper 50s, roaring most impressively over a stormy ocean just feet away from the open hangar doors of the sampling room. During the night the wind shifted direction (and decreased to 40 knots or so), meaning that now swell built from other directions. As these new swells joined in, the high seas became ever more confused. It meant a rough ride, and a tough night for sleep for all but a lucky few. Winds finally dropped to the 25-knot range, the mixed-up seas smoothed to the point where we could resume CTD operations, with loss of about 26 hours to the storm. Aside from some relatively minor flooding in the vans and one entrance on the ship, there was no damage from the storm. We were able to take time to occupy four CTD/LADCP stations just north of the I5 section, near 33.5°S, 57°E, roughly along the axis of the Atlantis II Fracture Zone, a major conduit for deep and bottom water flow northward from the Crozet Basin through the Southwest Indian Ridge into the Madagascar Basin. Data from the four stations plus one along the I5 section itself supported an earlier investigation with further evidence of heightened mixing along the passage. The LADCP data clearly captured the strong northward deep flow along the passage. In addition to the LADCP data, the transmissometer on the CTD revealed an increase in particulates, presumably re-suspended by this strong flow, starting around 3500 db and increasing towards the bottom. In addition, the deep salinity maximum and CFC-12 minimum were both eroded in the station occupied furthest to the north in the fracture zone. The downstream erosion of these extremes could be a result the vertical mixing from above and below. In fact, the CFC-12 data strongly supported this assertion, since CFC-12 levels would be expected to decrease northward with decreasing salinity if the latter were simply a signature of increasing influence of older, fresher, and more CFC-poor North Indian Deep Water relative to the more recently ventilated, saltier, and more CFC-rich North Atlantic Deep Water. Instead the CFC-12 concentration at the minimum increased, quite probably a result of mixing with more CFC-12 rich waters above and below the minimum. From Francois Ascani: "The flow below 2500 m across all Revelle stations along the SW Indian Ocean Ridge shows the dramatically strong northward intrusion through the Atlantis II Fracture Zone, and also some weaker intrusions in the next three fracture zones to the east. Interestingly, the northward intrusion in the fracture zone around 57.5E is blocked further north by the topography and should feed its neighboring fracture zones, in particular the Atlantis II one." The weather was mostly subtropically good-to-excellent, with air temperatures beginning in the mid-upper 70s (degrees Fahrenheit), decreasing to the mid-60s. Winds were mostly moderate to light. We did experience swell from the south during much of the cruise, especially the first half, amplitude modulated on synoptic time-scales, generated by the big Southern Ocean storms that circle Antarctica. The I5 cruise crossed its planned series of boundaries, basins, and ridges on plan and on schedule. Station spacing was nominally 55 km, but closed over steeper bathymetry so that in most cases there was not more than 750-1000 meters depth change between adjacent stations, and the track and spacing was adjusted with an eye to the most significant bathymetric and circulation features. The minimum time between cast starts for the most closely-spaced stations was determined by either the total sampling time for the previous station or the time to download the LADCP data. One might argue that overall, given the entire station plan, the time-limiting factor in carrying it out is the time required to analyze samples for the most time-consuming shipboard analyses, here the total carbon and the alkalinity analyses. (The trace metal casts thus assumed an important logistic role in providing an extra hour each for the sample analyses.) But another point of view is that the overall program has achieved a balance between station spacing, sampling density for the various parameters, ship speed, and the laboratory work that effectively and efficiently meets the science needs that drive the program. SIO Shipboard Technical Support had originally planed to carry out tests of the ship's multibeam system on the final day at sea, during which time the shipboard technicians would carry out laboratory analyses of the water samples from the final group of close-spaced stations. Because the multibeam tests were cancelled by SIO and since the last station was only ca. 5-6 hours from port, we chose to finish the work at the dock rather than at sea. Also, due to remarkably good weather and kind seas during the final month of the cruise, plus extraordinarily well working equipment (see below), we were about one day ahead of the maximum time we allotted for the station work. Hence we came to the dock at 0845 local time, 13 May 2009, after 55 UNOLS days at sea, rather than the planned 57. No one complained. DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT (refers to preliminary shipboard data only) The overall data quality from Level 1 parameters measured shipboard during I5 appears to be very good. There is no parameter whose overall quality of measurement does not appear to meet or exceed requirements and expectations. One SeaBird CTDO instrument, serial 796, was used throughout the cruise. The CTD team changed out the pump one time, replaced the SBE-43 dissolved oxygen sensor once, and replaced the secondary temperature sensor once. The instrument was remarkably stable, and its drifts were small and easily corrected. The stability of the primary temperature sensor is exemplified by the excellent fit of CTD temperatures at bottle closures with the SBE-35 reference thermometer readings from each closure. See figure: This figure is color-contoured at variable intervals which are very fine (smaller than one millidegree) near 0(C difference, and so the lack of color/contours in the low-temperature-gradient water column below ca. 1500 db is indicative of sub-millidegree agreement. It is nearly certain that no post- cruise adjustments greater than 0.001°C will be made to the preliminary shipboard CTD temperatures. The preliminary CTD conductivity data fit to the water sample data (expressed in salinity) shows overall agreement below ca 1500 db better than 0.001 PSS-78, except for differences slightly greater than 0.001 at a few stations. Except for possibly those few stations, it is thus highly unlikely that any post-cruise adjustments greater than 0.001 will be made to the preliminary shipboard CTD salinities. In the figure below bad and questionable bottle salinity values have been purged from the data file before plotting: The preliminary fit of the SBE-43 CTD dissolved oxygen sensor data to the water samples is carried out between down-cast CTD oxygen values matched to up-cast water samples, usually on density surfaces. The overall fit is excellent with differences on the order of 0.5 (M kg-1(see figure, below). What appears at first to be a small non-linear pressure-dependent error may actually be more nearly a small pressure offset: The shape of the dissolved oxygen profiles would likely generate a difference pattern such as this from a single-valued small vertical offset. A possible explanation would be that the frame/bottles are carrying water from deeper with them that is not quite flushed out by a 30- second bottle stop, or that the preliminary shipboard match of the down cast CTD oxygens onto the up cast bottle data is affected by a small pressure error. The dissolved oxygen data, though of very good quality, may change slightly during post-cruise examination and final processing. The shipboard measurements for the bottle data parameters also appear to be of very high quality. For salinity and oxygen, the consistency of the measurements - i.e. the high degree of overall internal precision achieved during the cruise - is readily apparent both from the bottle-minus-CTD plots and from finely- contoured plots of the bottle salinities and oxygens (not shown). If for some reason future bulk adjustments are deemed necessary (for example for comparisons with salinities referenced to a different batch of standard seawater) the I5 data should be straightforward to adjust (e.g. via single offsets for each property). It is unlikely that any significant post-cruise changes to the bottle salinity or bottle oxygen data values will be made, though it is likely that some quality code changes will take place during final post-cruise data processing. Much the same can be said about the nutrient data, which appear to be of very high quality, or at the very least, very high internal consistency. The silicate and nitrate data are clearly ready for scientific work, and no significant changes are expected in data values as a result of post-cruise data processing, although, as with any of the bottle data, quality code changes associated with some data values may change. The phosphate data have a different type of internal consistency in that a very regular, small (maximum range ca. 1.5% full scale) "daily" oscillation in phosphate values was observed nearly continuously throughout the cruise. It shows up clearly on finely- contoured (0.02 µM/l interval here) deep plots: Examinations at sea were unable to get to the root of this fluctuation. There were two nutrient operators - one might guess that each was consistent in the work, but that there was some small difference in technique (which we were unable to uncover) that produced the differences. But noting that the differences are not abrupt, station to station, as would be the case for an operator-generated difference: Another interpretation is that there was some activity that happened daily - whether directly part of the nutrient analyses or some other aspect of the shipboard environment - that influenced the chemical reactions or colorometric output in this fashion. With each run standardized to the same set of standards, and all procedures carefully cross-checked between both analysts, the second explanation appeals to Swift. As a result Swift began examining nutrient data from other SIO CO2/Repeat Hydrography cruises and found the same type of deep phosphate variation on most other cruises, though not as well defined. He observed that the I5 phosphate data are from a zonal transect, have a deep maximum that responds well (visually) to contouring, and are of such outstanding quality and consistency that this small effect was unambiguously observed here. More study will be carried out ashore. CLIVAR I5 R/V Revelle, RR0903 20 March 2009 - 13 May 2009 Cape Town, South Africa - Fremantle, Australia Chief Scientist: Dr. James H. Swift University of California, San Diego; Scripps Institution of Oceanography Co-Chief Scientist: Dr. Gregory C. Johnson NOAA/PMEL Cruise Report 13 May 2009 Data Submitted by: Oceanographic Data Facility, Computing Resources and Electronics Group Shipboard Technical Support/Scripps Institution of Oceanography La Jolla, CA 92093-0214 SUMMARY A hydrographic survey consisting of Rosette/CTD/LADCP sections, trace metals rosette sections, underway shipboard ADCP and float deployments in the southern Indian Ocean was carried out during early 2009. The R/V Revelle departed Cape Town, South Africa on 20 March 2009. A total of 195 stations were occupied. 195 Rosette/CTD/LADCP casts, and 87 Trace Metals Rosette casts were made, and 19 ARGO floats were deployed from 25 March to 12 May 2009. Water samples (up to 36) and CTD data were collected on each Rosette/CTD/LADCP cast, usually made to within 20 meters of the bottom. Salinity, dissolved oxygen and nutrient samples were analyzed for up to 36 water samples from each cast of the principal Rosette/CTD/LADCP program. Water samples were also measured for DIC, pH, Total Alkalinity, and CFCs and samples were collected for DOC/TDN, Helium/Tritium, and C13/C14. Underway surface pCO2, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, fluorometer, meteorological and acoustical bathymetric measurements were made. The cruise ended in Fremantle, Australia on 13 May 2009. INTRODUCTION A sea-going science team gathered from 8 oceanographic institutions participated on the cruise. The science team and their responsibilities are listed below. Scientific Personnel I5 Duties Name Affiliation email ----------------------- ---------------------- ------------ ------------------------------ Chief Scientist James H. Swift UCSD/SIO jswift@ucsd.edu Co-Chief Scientist Gregory C. Johnson NOAA/PMEL Gregory.C.Johnson@noaa.gov Data Kristin Sanborn UCSD/SIO/STS ksanborn@ucsd.edu ET/Salinity/Deck Leader Rob Palomares UCSD/SIO/STS rpalomares@ucsd.edu Oxygen/Deck Susan Becker UCSD/SIO/STS sbecker@ucsd.edu CTD Data Courtney Schatzman UCSD/SIO/STS cschatzman@ucsd.edu Nutrients/Deck Sue Reynolds UCSD/SIO/STS smreynold@ucsd.edu Salinity/Deck/ET Robert Thombley UCSD/SIO/STS rthomble@ucsd.edu O2/Deck Chuck Featherstone NOAA/AOML charles.featherstone@noaa.gov Nutrients/Deck Peter Proctor NOAA/PMEL peter.proctor@noaa.gov CTD Watch Kristene E. McTaggart NOAA/PMEL Kristene.E.McTaggart@noaa.gov CTD Watch Kelly Kearney Princeton kkearney@princeton.edu CTD Watch/Argo Alison Rogers UW alison@ocean.washington.edu CTD Watch Sarah Purkey UW purkeysg@u.washington.edu CTD Watch Caitlin Whalen UCSD/SIO caitlin.whalen@gmail.com DIC/U-WpCO2 Dana Greeley NOAA/PMEL dana.greenley@noaa.gov DIC/U-WpCO2 Robert Castle NOAA/AOML bob.castle@noaa.gov PH Brendan Rae Carter UCSD/SIO brcarter@ucsd.edu PH John Adam Radich UCSD/SIO jradich@ucsd.edu TALK George Cyril Anderson UCSD/SIO gcanderson@ucsd.edu TALK Jennale Peacock UCSD/SIO jlpeacock@ucsd.edu C14, DOC/TDN Wenhao Chen UM/RSMAS wenchen@rsmas.miami.edu TM Christopher Measures U of Hawaii chrism@soest.hawaii.edu TM William M. Landing FSU wlanding@fsu.edu TM Kathleen Gosnell FSU kjg06c@fsu.edu TM Maxime Marcel Grand U of Hawaiimaxime@hawaii.edu TM Mariko Hatta U of Hawaiimhatta@hawaii.edu He/Tr Anthony Dachille LDEO dachille@ldeo.columbia.edu CFC Dave Wisegarver NOAA/PMEL david.wisegarver@noaa.gov CFC Eric Wisegarver NOAA/PMEL eric.wisegaver@noaa.gov CFC Erin Shields UCSD/SIO erin@gaslab.ucsd.edu ADCP/LADCP Francois Ascani U of Hawaii fascani@hawaii.edu Computer Tech/CTD Data Frank M. Delahoyde UCSD/SIO/STS scg@rv-revelle.ucsd.edu Resident Tech David Langner UCSD/SIO/STS restech@rv-revelle.ucsd.edu DESCRIPTION OF MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES 1. CTD/HYDROGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM A total of 195 Rosette/CTD/LADCP casts were made to within 28m of the bottom. Hydrographic measurements consisted of salinity, dissolved oxygen and nutrient water samples taken from each Rosette cast. Pressure, temperature, conductivity/salinity, dissolved oxygen, transmissometer and fluorometer data was recorded from CTD profiles. Current velocities were measured by the downward facing LADCP. No major problems were encountered during the operation. The distribution of samples is shown in figure 1.0. 1.1. Water Sampling Package Rosette/CTD/LADCP casts were performed with a package consisting of a 36-bottle rosette frame (SIO/STS), a 36-place carousel (SBE32) and 36 10.0L Bullister bottles (SIO/STS) with an absolute volume of 10.4L. Underwater electronic components consisted of a Sea-Bird Electronics SBE9plus CTD (SIO/STS #796) with dual pumps, dual temperature (SBE3plus), dual conductivity (SBE4C), dissolved oxygen (SBE43), transmissometer (Wetlabs), fluorometer (Wetlabs CDOM), altimeter (Simrad) and LADCP (RDI). The CTD was mounted vertically in an SBE CTD cage attached to the bottom of the rosette frame and located to one side of the carousel. The SBE4C conductivity, SBE3plus temperature and SBE43 Dissolved oxygen sensors and their respective pumps and tubing were mounted vertically as recommended by SBE on the CTD cage. Pump exhausts were attached to the sensor bracket on the side opposite from the sensors and directed downward. The transmissometer was mounted horizontally, and the fluorometer was mounted vertically along the bottom of the rosette frame. The altimeter was mounted on the inside of the bottom frame ring. The 150 Khz downward-looking Broadband LADCP (RDI) was mounted vertically on one side of the frame between the bottles and the CTD. Its battery pack was located on the opposite side of the frame, mounted on the bottom of the frame. Table 1.1.0 shows height of the sensor referenced to the bottom of the frame. Table 1.1.0: Heights referenced to bottom of rosette frame __________________________________________ Instrument Height in cm -------------------------- ------------ Temperature sensors 14 SBE35 14 Altimeter 5 Transmissometer 9 CDOM Fluorometer 7 Pressure Sensor 21 Inner bottle midline 109 Outer bottle midline 116 BB LADCP XDCR Face midline 11 Zero tape 300 __________________________________________ The rosette system was suspended from a UNOLS-standard three-conductor 0.322" electro-mechanical sea cable. The sea cable underwent an initial termination at the beginning of I5, a retermination was performed prior to station 13 and an additional mechanical retermination was performed prior to Station 102. The R/V Revelle's forward starboard-side Markey winch was used for all casts. The deck watch prepared the rosette 10-30 minutes prior to each cast. The bottles were cocked and all valves, vents and lanyards were checked for proper orientation. Once stopped on station, the rosette was moved out from the aft hanger to the deployment location under the squirt boom block using an air powered cart and tracks. The CTD was powered-up and the data acquisition system started from the computer lab when directed by the deck watch leader. The rosette was unstrapped from the air-powered cart. Tag lines were threaded through the rosette frame and syringes were removed from CTD intake ports. Winch operator was directed by the deck watch leader to raise the package. Squirt boom and rosette were extended outboard and the package was quickly lowered into the water. Tag lines were removed and the package was lowered to 10 meters, until the console operators determined that the sensor pumps had turned on. The winch operator was then directed to bring the package back to the surface (0 winch wireout) and to begin the descent. Each rosette cast was lowered to within 7-28 meters of the bottom, using the altimeter, winch wireout, CTD depth and echosounder depth to determine the distance. On station 25, the oxygen sensor indicated that the bottom or side of the plateau was touched. One cast was lowered to 6000db, the pressure limit of some of the package instrumentation. For each up cast, the winch operator was directed to stop the winch between 12- 36 standard sampling depths. These standard depths were staggered every station using 3 sampling schemes. To insure package shed wake had dissipated, the CTD console operator waited 30 seconds prior to tripping sample bottles. Before moving to next consecutive trip depth, an additional 8 second pause was observed. Deck watch leader directed the package to the surface for the last bottle trip. Recovering the package at the end of the deployment was essentially the reverse of launching, with the additional use of poles and snap-hooks to attach tag lines. The rosette was secured on the cart and moved into the aft hanger for sampling. The bottles and rosette were examined before samples were taken, and anything unusual noted on the sample log. Each bottle on the rosette had a unique serial number. Bottle serial identification was considered independent of the bottle position on the rosette. Sample identification was outlined on sample logs sheet prior to cast recovery or at the time of collection. Routine CTD maintenance included soaking the conductivity and oxygen sensors in fresh water between casts to maintain sensor stability and occasionally putting dilute Triton-X solution through the conductivity sensors to eliminate any accumulating biofilms. Rosette maintenance was performed on a regular basis. Valves and o-rings were inspected for leaks. No bottle repairs were necessary for this cruise. 1.2. Underwater Electronics Packages CTD data was collected with a SBE9plus CTD (STS/ODF #796). This instrument provided pressure, dual temperature (SBE3), dual conductivity (SBE4), dissolved oxygen (SBE43), CDOM fluorometer (Wetlabs), transmissometer (Wetlabs) and altimeter (Simrad 807) channels. The CTD supplied a standard SBE format data stream at a data rate of 24 frames/second. Table 1.2.0: CLIVAR I5 Rosette Underwater Electronics _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Instrument Serial Number A/D Channel ---------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ---------------- Sea-Bird SBE32 36-place Carousel Water Sampler 3216715-0187 Sea-Bird SBE9plusCTD 0796 Paroscientific Digiquartz Pressure Sensor 98627 Sea-Bird SBE11plus Deck Unit 11P41717-0727 Sea-Bird SBE3plus Temperature Sensor 03P-4907 (Primary) Sea-Bird SBE3plus Temperature Sensor 03P-4532 (Secondary, 1-171) Sea-Bird SBE3plus Temperature Sensor 03P-4476 (Secondary, 172-195) Sea-Bird SBE4C Conductivity Sensor 04-3430 (Primary) Sea-Bird SBE4C Conductivity Sensor 04-3369 (Secondary) Sea-Bird SBE43 DO Sensor 43-0255 Aux 4, Channel 6 Sea-Bird SBE43 DO Sensor 43-0186 (71-195) Aux 4, Channel 6 Sea-Bird SBE5 Pump 05-5124 (Primary) Sea-Bird SBE5 Pump 05-4160 (Primary, 77-195) Sea-Bird SBE5 Pump 05-5011 (Secondary) Sea-Bird SBE35 Reference Temperature Sensor 35-0035 Wetlabs CDOM Fluorometer FLCDRTD-428 Aux 1, Channel 0 Wetlabs CStar Transmissometer CST-327DR Aux 1, Channel 1 Simrad 807 Altimeter 9711091 Aux 3, Channel 4 RDI LADCP, UH BB 150 1546 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ The CTD was outfitted with dual pumps. Primary temperature, conductivity and dissolved oxygen were plumbed into one pump circuit and secondary temperature and conductivity into the other. The sensors were deployed vertically. The Primary temperature and conductivity sensors (#03P-4907 and #04-3430) were used for all reported CTD temperatures and conductivities. The secondary temperature and conductivity sensors were used as calibration checks. A SBE35RT reference temperature sensor was connected to the SBE32 carousel and recorded a temperature for each bottle closure. These temperatures were used as additional CTD calibration checks. The SBE9plus CTD was connected to the SBE32 36-place carousel providing for single-conductor sea cable operation. The sea cable armor was used for ground (return). Power to the SBE9plus CTD (and sensors), SBE32 carousel and Simrad 807 altimeter was provided through the sea cable from the SBE11plus deck unit in the main lab. 1.3. Navigation and Bathymetry Data Acquisition Navigation data was acquired at 1-second intervals from the ship's GP90 GPS receiver by a Linux system beginning March 22. Bathymetric data were logged from the ship's Simrad EM120 multibeam echosounder for stations 1-104 and from the Knudsen 3.5KHz echosounder for stations 105-195. The bottom depths reported in the data transmittal files were calculated with the depth of deepest CTD sampling point and adding the altimeter reading. 1.4. CTD Data Acquisition and Rosette Operation The CTD data acquisition system consisted of an SBE-11plus (V2) deck unit and four networked generic PC workstations running CentOS-5.2 Linux. Each PC work- station was configured with a color graphics display, keyboard, trackball and DVD+RW drive. Two of the systems had a Comtrol Rocketport PCI multiport serial controller providing 8 additional RS-232 ports. The systems were interconnected through the ship's network. These systems were available for real-time operational and CTD data displays, and provided for CTD and hydrographic data management. One of the workstations was designated the CTD console and was connected to the CTD deck unit via RS-232. The CTD console provided an interface and operational displays for controlling and monitoring a CTD deployment and closing bottles on the rosette. Another of the workstations was designated the website and database server and maintained the hydrographic database for I5. Redundant backups were managed automatically. CTD deployments were initiated by the console watch after the ship had stopped on station. The acquisition program was started and the deck unit turned on at least 5 minutes prior to package deployment. The watch maintained a console operations log containing a description of each deployment, a record of every attempt to close a bottle and any relevant comments. The deployment and acquisition software presented a short dialog instructing the operator to turn on the deck unit, to examine the onscreen CTD data displays and to notify the deck watch that this was accomplished. Once the deck watch had deployed the rosette, the winch operator lowered it to 10 meters. The CTD sensor pumps were configured with an 8-second startup delay after detecting seawater conductivities. The console operator checked the CTD data for proper sensor operation, waited an additional 30 seconds for sensors to stabilize, then instructed the winch operator to bring the package to the surface and descend to a specified target depth (wire-out). The profiling rate was no more than 30m/min to 50m, no more than 45m/min to 200m and no more than 60m/min deeper than 200m, depending on sea cable tension and sea state. The progress of the deployment and CTD data quality were monitored through interactive graphics and operational displays. Bottle trip locations were transcribed onto the console and sample logs. The sample log was used later as an inventory of samples drawn from the bottles. The altimeter channel, CTD depth, winch wire-out and bathymetric depth were all monitored to determine the distance of the package from the bottom, allowing a safe approach to 10 meters. Bottles were closed on the up cast by operating an on-screen control. The winch operator was given a target wire-out for the bottle stop, proceeded to that depth and stopped. Bottles were tripped 30-40 seconds after stopping to allow the rosette wake to dissipate and the bottles to flush. The winch operator was instructed to proceed to the next bottle stop at least 8 seconds after closing bottles to ensure that stable CTD data were associated with the trip and to allow the SBE35RT tertiary temperature sensor to make a measurement. After the last bottle was closed, the console operator directed the deck watch to bring the rosette on deck. Once the rosette was on deck, the console operator terminated the data acquisition, turned off the deck unit and assisted with rosette sampling. 1.5. CTD Data Processing Shipboard CTD data processing was performed automatically during each Rosette/CTD/LADCP deployment, and at the end of each Trace Metals rosette deployment using SIO/ODF CTD processing software. The Trace Metals rosette contained its own CTD and carousel. These data were acquired using SBE SeaSave software, then copied to a Linux workstation for further processing. No shipboard calibration was done for Trace Metals rosette CTD data. Processing was performed during data acquisition for Rosette/CTD/LADCP deployments. The raw CTD data were converted to engineering units, filtered, response-corrected, calibrated and decimated to a more manageable 0.5-second time series. The laboratory calibrations for pressure, temperature and conductivity were applied at this time. The 0.5-second time series data were used for real-time graphics during deployments, and were the source for CTD pressure and temperature associated with each rosette bottle. Both the raw 24 Hz data and the 0.5-second time series were stored for subsequent processing. During the deployment, the data were backed up to another Linux workstation. At the completion of a deployment a sequence of processing steps were performed automatically. The 0.5-second time series data were checked for consistency, clean sensor response and calibration shifts. A 2-decibar pressure series was then generated from the down cast. Both the 2-decibar pressure series and 0.5- second time series data were made available for downloading, plotting and reporting on the shipboard cruise website. Rosette/CTD/LADCP data were routinely examined for sensor problems, calibration shifts and deployment or operational problems. The Primary and secondary temperature sensors (SBE3plus) were compared to each other and to the SBE35 temperature sensor. CTD conductivity sensors (SBE4C) were compared to each other, then calibrated by examining differences between CTD and check sample conductivity values. The CTD dissolved oxygen sensor data were calibrated to check sample data. Additional Salinity and O2 comparisons were made with respect to isopycnal surfaces between down and up casts as well as with adjacent deployments. Vertical sections were made of the various properties derived from sensor data and checked for consistency. Few CTD acquisition or data processing problems were encountered during I5. Dur- ing the down cast on 102/02 a software problem required that the cast be restarted at 1200M. The up cast was used for the 2db pressure series in this one case. A total of 195 casts were made using the 36-place CTD/LADCP rosette, and 87 casts using the 12-place Trace Metals rosette. 1.6. CTD Sensor Laboratory Calibrations Laboratory calibrations of the CTD pressure, temperature, conductivity and dissolved oxygen sensors were performed Prior to CLIVAR I5. The calibration dates are listed in table 1.6.0. Table 1.6.0: CLIVAR I5 CTD sensor laboratory calibrations. __________________________________________________________________________ Calibration Calibration Sensor S/N Date Facility ------------------------------------ -------- ----------- ----------- Paroscientific Digiquartz Pressure 98627 07 November 2008 SBE Sea-Bird SBE3plus T1 Temperature 03P-4907 03 February 2009 ODF Sea-Bird SBE3plus T2 Temperature 03P-4532 19 October 2008 SBE Sea-Bird SBE3plus T2 Temperature 03P-4476 23 January 2009 SBE Sea-Bird SBE4C C1 Conductivity 04-3430 28 October 2008 SBE Sea-Bird SBE4C C2 Conductivity 04-3369 28 October 2008 SBE Sea-Bird SBE43 Dissolved Oxygen 43-0255 15 November 2008 SBE Sea-Bird SBE43 Dissolved Oxygen 43-0186 08 November 2008 SBE Sea-Bird SBE35 Reference Temperature 0035 10 February 2009 SBE __________________________________________________________________________ 1.7. CTD Shipboard Calibration Procedures CTD #796 was used for all Rosette/CTD/LADCP casts during I5. The CTD was deployed with all sensors and pumps aligned vertically, as recommended by SBE. The primary temperature and conductivity sensors (T1 & C1) were used for all reported CTD data for casts 1-195, with the secondary sensors (T2, 03-4532 & C2, 04-3369) reported for casts 1-171. Prior to cast 172, the secondary temperature was replaced with 03-4476. The SBE35RT Digital Reversing Thermometer (S/N 3528706-0035) served as an independent calibration check for T1 and T2. In-situ salinity and dissolved O2 check samples collected during each cast were used to calibrate the conductivity and dissolved O2 sensors. 1.7.1. CTD Pressure The Paroscientific Digiquartz pressure transducer (S/N 98627) was calibrated in November 2008 By SeaBird Electronics Calibration Facility. A calibration correction slope and offset was provided by the SBE calibration report and applied to raw pressures during each cast in addition to the calibration coefficients. Initial out of water pressure transducer offsets varied from -0.5 to +0.1db and final offsets from -0.1 to 0.4db during I5. Residual pressure offsets (the difference between the first and last submerged pressures) varied from -0.4 to +0.1db. No additional adjustments were made to the calculated pressures. 1.7.2. CTD Temperature A single Primary temperature sensor, S/N 03P-4907, was used for all casts and for all reported temperatures. Two secondary temperature sensors were used. T2, S/N 03P-4532, was used for casts 1/1-171/1, and T2, S/N 03P-4476, for casts 172/1-195/1. Calibration coefficients derived from the precruise calibrations plus shipboard temperature corrections determined during the cruise were applied to raw Primary and secondary sensor data during each cast. A single SBE35RT was used as a tertiary temperature check. It was located equidistant between T1 and T2 with the sensing element aligned in a plane with the T1 and T2 sensing elements. The SBE35RT Digital Reversing Thermometer is an internally-recording temperature sensor that operates independently of the CTD. It is triggered by the SBE32 carousel in response to a bottle closure. According to the Manufacturer's specifications the typical stability is 0.001°C/y ear. The SBE35RT on I5 was set to internally average over an 8 second period. Two independent metrics of calibration accuracy were examined. At each bottle closure, the Primary and secondary temperature were compared with each other and with the SBE35RT temperatures. Very few temperature corrections were applied during I5. The Primary and both of the secondary sensors exhibited a secondary pressure response compared to the SBE35. The first secondary (4532) also had a temperature slope. All corrections made to temperatures had the form: T(cor) = T + D(1)P^2 + D(2)P + D(3)T^2 + D(4)T + Offset The final corrections for all three sensors used on I5 are summarized in table 1.7.2.0. Note that a temperature slope of 0.00024 was applied to all three sensors to convert from the ITS-90 calibration to IPTS-68. Reported sensor data have been converted to ITS-90. Table 1.7.2.0: Shipboard temperature sensor corrections. _____________________________________________________________________ Sensor P2 P T2 T Offset ------- ------------ ------------ --- ----------- ------------ T1 4907 6.68781e-11 -5.10399e-07 0.0 0.00024 0.000621425 T2 4532 -2.17351e-11 -1.06497e-07 0.0 0.000303921 -0.000252577 T2 4476 3.91322e-11 -5.29884e-07 0.0 0.00024 0.000128564 _____________________________________________________________________ The residual differences after correction are shown in figures 1.7.2.0 and 1.7.2.1. Figure 1.7.2.0: T1-T2 by station (P 3 2000db). Figure 1.7.2.1: SBE35RT-T1 by station (P 3 2000db). Figure 1.7.3.0: Coherence of conductivity differences as a function of temperature differences. The 95% confidence limits for the mean low-gradient differences are ±0.0010°C for T1-T2, and ±0.0019°C for SBE35RT-T1. 1.7.3. CTD Conductivity A single Primary conductivity sensor, C1 S/N 04-3430, was used for all casts and for all reported conductivities. A single secondary conductivity sensor, C2 S/N 04-3369, was used. Calibration coefficients derived from the pre-cruise calibrations plus shipboard conductivity corrections determined during the cruise were applied to raw Primary and secondary sensor data during each cast. Two independent metrics of calibration accuracy were examined. At each bottle closure, the Primary and secondary conductivity were compared with each other. Each sensor was also compared to conductivity calculated from check sample salinities. The differences between Primary and secondary temperature sensors were used as filtering criteria to reduce the contamination of conductivity comparisons by package wake. The coherence of this relationship is shown in figure 1.7.3.0. The uncorrected conductivity comparisons are shown in figures 1.7.3.1 through 1.7.3.3. Figure 1.7.3.1: Uncorrected C1 -C2 by station (-0.002°C ≤T1-T2≤0.002°C). Figure 1.7.3.2: Uncorrected CBottle -C1 by station (-0.002°C ≤T1-T2≤0.002°C). Figure 1.7.3.3: Uncorrected CBottle -C2 by station (-0.002°C ≤T1-T2≤0.002°C). Based on C1-C2, two first-order time-dependent drift corrections (changing conductivity offset with time) were applied to C2: one for stations 1-71 and another for stations 72-195. Both conductivity sensors exhibited secondary pressure responses as well as second-order conductivity responses. The residual differences after correction are shown in figures 1.7.3.4 through 1.7.3.9. Figure 1.7.3.4: Corrected C1 -C2 by station (-0.002°C ≤T1-T2≤0.002°C). Figure 1.7.3.5: Corrected CBottle -C1 by station (-0.002°C ≤T1-T2≤0.002°C). Figure 1.7.3.6: Corrected C1 -C2 by pressure (-0.01°C ≤T1-T2≤0.01°C). Figure 1.7.3.7: Corrected CBottle -C1 by pressure (-0.01°C ≤T1-T2≤0.01°C). Figure 1.7.3.8: Corrected C1 -C2 by conductivity (-0.01°C ≤T1-T2≤0.01°C). Figure 1.7.3.9: Corrected CBottle -C1 by conductivity (-0.01°C ≤T1-T2≤0.01°C). All corrections made to conductivity had the form: C(cor) = C + D(1)P^2 + D(2)P + D(3)C^2 + D(4)C + Offset The final corrections for both sensors used on I5 are summarized in table 1.7.3.0. Table 1.7.3.0 Shipboard conductivity sensor corrections. ____________________________________________________________________________ Sensor P2 P T2 T Offset ------- ----------- ------------ ------------ ----------- ----------- C1 3430 5.60178e-11 -4.13345e-07 -7.08965e-06 0.000542455 -0.00823852 C2 3369 5.57295e-11 -4.90364e-07 -1.01074e-05 0.000822047 Varies ____________________________________________________________________________ Figure 1.7.3.10: Salinity residuals by station (Pressure>2000db) Figure 1.7.3.11: Salinity residuals by station (-0.002°C ≤T1-T2≤0.002°C). Figures 1.7.3.10 and 1.7.3.11 represent estimates of the deep salinity accuracy of CLIVAR I5. The 95% confidence limits are ±0.0011 PSU relative to the bottle salinities for deep salinities, and ±0.0017 PSU relative to the bottle salinities for all salinities. 1.7.4. CTD Dissolved Oxygen Two SBE43 dissolved O2 (DO) sensors were used during this cruise. Sensor S/N 43- 0255 was used on Stations 1-70 and 43-0186 was used for 71-195. The sensors were plumbed into the Primary T1/C1 pump circuit after C1. The DO sensors were calibrated to dissolved O2 check samples taken at bottle stops by matching the down cast CTD data to the up cast trip locations on isopycnal surfaces, then calculating CTD dissolved O2 using a DO sensor response model and minimizing the residual differences from the check samples. A non- linear least-squares fitting procedure was used to minimize the residuals and to determine sensor model coefficients, and was accomplished in three stages. The time constants for the lagged terms in the model were first determined for each sensor. These time constants are sensor-specific but applicable to an entire cruise. Next, casts were fit individually to check sample data. The resulting calibration coefficients were then smoothed and held constant during a refit to determine sensor slope and offset. Standard and blank values for check sample oxygen titration data were smoothed and the oxygen recalculated prior to the final fitting of CTD oxygen. Figure 1.7.4.0: O2 residuals by station (-0.01°C ≤T1-T2≤0.01°C). Figure 1.7.4.1: O2 residuals by pressure (-0.01°C ≤T1-T2≤0.01°C). Figure 1.7.4.1: O2 residuals by pressure (-0.01°C ≤T1-T2≤0.01°C). The standard deviations of 1.605 m mol/kg for all oxygens and 0.532 m mol/kg for deep oxygens are only presented as general indicators of goodness of fit. ODF makes no claims regarding the precision or accuracy of CTD dissolved O2 data. The general form of the ODF DO sensor response model equation for Clark cells follows Brown and Morrison [Brow78], and Millard [Mill82], [Owen85]. ODF models DO sensor secondary responses with lagged CTD data. In-situ pressure and temperature are filtered to match the sensor responses. Time constants for the pressure response tp, a slow (tTf) and fast (tTs) thermal response, package velocity (tdP), thermal diffusion (tdT) and pressure hysteresis (th) are fitting parameters. Once determined for a given sensor, these time constants typically remain constant for a cruise. The thermal diffusion term is derived by low-pass filtering the difference between the fast response (Ts) and slow response (Tl) temperatures. This term is intended to correct non-linearities in sensor response introduced by inappropriate analog thermal compensation. Package velocity is approximated by low-pass filtering 1st-order pressure differences, and is intended to correct flow-dependent response. Dissolved O2 concentration is then calculated: dP Ph (C4Tl+C5Ts+C6Pl+C7--+C8dT) O2ml/l = [C1VDOe(C2----)+C3] • fsat(T,P) • e dt (1.7.4.0) 5000 where: O2ml/l Dissolved O2 concentration in ml/l; VDO Raw sensor output; C1 Sensor slope C2 Hysteresis response coefficient C3 Sensor offset fsat(T,P) O2 saturation at T,P (ml/l); T insitu temperature (°C); P insitu pressure (decibars); Ph Low-pass filtered hysteresis pressure (decibars); Pl Low-pass filtered pressure (decibars); Tl Long-response low-pass filtered temperature (°C); Ts Short-response low-pass filtered temperature (°C); dP/dt Filtered package velocity (db/sec); dT low-pass filtered thermal diffusion estimate (Tf - Ts). C4-C8 Response coefficients. 1.8. BOTTLE SAMPLING At the end of each rosette deployment water samples were drawn from the bottles in the following order: • CFC-11, CFC-12, SF6 • 3He • O2 • Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC) • pH • Total Alkalinity • 13C and 14C • Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN) • Nutrients • Tritium • Salinity The correspondence between individual sample containers and the rosette bottle position (1-36) from which the sample was drawn was recorded on the sample log for the cast. This log also included any comments or anomalous conditions noted about the rosette and bottles. One member of the sampling team was designated the sample cop, whose sole responsibility was to maintain this log and insure that sampling progressed in the proper drawing order. Normal sampling practice included opening the drain valve and then the air vent on the bottle, indicating an air leak if water escaped. This observation together with other diagnostic comments (e.g., "lanyard caught in lid", "valve left open") that might later prove useful in determining sample integrity were routinely noted on the sample log. Drawing oxygen samples also involved taking the sample draw temperature from the bottle. The temperature was noted on the sample log and was sometimes useful in determining leaking or miss-tripped bottles. Once individual samples had been drawn and properly prepared, they were distributed for analysis. Oxygen, nutrient and salinity analyses were per- formed on computer-assisted (PC) analytical equipment networked to the data processing computer for centralized data management. 1.9. BOTTLE DATA PROCESSING Water samples collected and properties analyzed shipboard were centrally managed in a relational database (PostgreSQL 8.1.11) running on a Linux system. A web service (OpenACS 5.3.2 and AOLServer 4.5.0) front-end provided ship-wide access to CTD and water sample data. Web-based facilities included on-demand arbitrary property-property plots and Vertical sections as well as data uploads and downloads. The sample log (and any diagnostic comments) was entered into the database once sampling was completed. Quality flags associated with sampled properties were set to indicate that the property had been sampled, and sample container identifications were noted where applicable (e.g., oxygen flask number). Analytical results were provided on a regular basis by the various analytical groups and incorporated into the database. These results included a quality code associated with each measured value and followed the coding scheme developed for the World Ocean Circulation Experiment Hydrographic Programme (WHP) [Joyc94]. Table 1.9.0 shows the number of samples drawn and the number of times each WHP sample quality flag was assigned for each basic hydrographic property: Table 1.9.0: Frequency of WHP quality flag assignments. __________________________________________________ Rosette Samples Stations 1- 195 Reported WHP Quality Codes levels 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 ---------- - ---- -- -- -- - --- Bottle 6724 0 6715 2 5 0 0 2 CTD Salt 6724 0 6693 0 31 0 0 0 CTD Oxy 6699 0 6699 0 0 22 0 3 Salinity 6598 0 6540 41 17 4 0 122 Oxygen 6700 0 6689 2 9 6 0 18 Silicate 6710 0 6704 1 5 1 0 13 Nitrate 6710 0 6703 2 5 1 0 13 Nitrite 6710 0 6704 1 5 1 0 13 Phosphate 6710 0 6702 1 7 1 0 13 __________________________________________________ Additionally, all WHP water bottle/sample quality code comments are presented in Appendix A. Various consistency checks and detailed examination of the data continued throughout the cruise. 1.10. SALINITY Equipment and Techniques A single Guildline Autosal 8400B salinometer (S/N 69-180) located in Revelle's hydro lab, was used for all salinity measurements. This salinometer had been modified to include a communication interface for computer-aided measurement, a higher capacity pump and three temperature sensors. Two of these sensors were used to measure air and bath temperatures. The third was used to check sample bottle temperature. Samples were analyzed after they had equilibrated to laboratory temperature, usually within 16-20 hours after collection. The salinometer was standardized for each group of analyses (usually 1-2 casts, up to ~48 samples) using at least two fresh vials of standard seawater per group. Salinometer measurements were aided by computer using software developed by SIO/STS. The software maintained A log of each salinometer run which included salinometer settings and air and bath temperatures. It also guided the operator through the standardization procedure and making sample measurements. The analyst was prompted to change samples and flush the cells between readings. Special standardization procedures included flushing the cell at least 4 times with a fresh vial of Standard Seawater (SSW), setting the flow rate as low as possible during the last fill, and monitoring the STD dial setting. If the STD dial changed by 10 units or more since the last salinometer run (or during standardization), another vial of SSW was opened and the standardization procedure repeated to verify the setting. Samples were run using 3 flushes before the final fill. The computer determined the stability of a measurement and prompted for additional readings if there appeared to be drift. The operator could annotate the salinometer log, and would routinely add comments about cracked sample bottles, loose thimbles, salt crystals or anything unusual in the amount of sample in the bottle. A system of fans and heaters set up to expedite equilibrating salinity samples usually worked. Sampling and Data Processing A total of 6598 salinity measurements were made (1016 for Trace Metals) and approximately 210 vials of standard seawater (IAPSO SSW) were used. Salinity samples were drawn into 200 ml Kimax high-alumina borosilicate bottles, which were rinsed three times with the sample prior to filling. The bottles were sealed with custom-made plastic insert thimbles and kept closed with Nalgene screw caps. This assembly provides very low container dissolution and sample evaporation. Prior to sample collection, inserts were inspected for proper fit and loose inserts replaced to insure an airtight seal. The draw and equilibration times were logged for all casts. Laboratory temperatures were logged at the beginning and end of each run. PSS-78 salinity [UNES81] was calculated for each sample from the measured conductivity ratios. The difference (usually none) between the initial vial of standard water and the next one run as an unknown was applied as a linear function of elapsed run time to the measured ratios. The corrected salinity data were then incorporated into the cruise database. Data processing included double checking that the station, sample and box number had been correctly assigned, and reviewing the data and log files for operator comments. The salinity data were compared to CTD salinities and were used for shipboard sensor calibration. Laboratory Temperature The salinometer water bath temperature was maintained slightly higher than ambient laboratory air temperature. It was set to 27°C for the first 3 stations and to 24°C f or the rest of the cruise. The ambient air temperature varied from 21 to 27°C during the cruise, and from -1.5 to 4.3°C during an y particular run. Standards IAPSO Standard Seawater Batch P-149 was used to standardize all casts. It was noticed that some of the vials did not have uniform volumes of standard, labels were not put on the vial straight and many of the crimp seals did not release properly, the tab breaking away instead of pulling the sealed section away. These observations raise quality control questions about this batch of Standard Seawater. The recent batch to batch comparison conducted by Dr. Kawano [Kawa09] claims in a draft that P-149 has an offset of 0.8 *10-3. Analytical Problems A few of the analyses had sample temperature issues. Stations 166 through 168 required adjusting the analytical temperature to match the sample temperatures which hadn't equilibrated. The resulting agreement with adjacent cast data stresses the importance of sample temperature to the accuracy of the salinity measurement. Minimal sampling was done for stations 10-13, concentrating on the deep profile to insure the availability of sample bottles for future casts. Results The estimated accuracy of bottle salinities run at sea is usually better than ±0.002 PSU relative to the particular standard seawater batch used. The 95% confidence limit for residual differences between the bottle salinities and calibrated CTD salinity relative to SSW batch P-149 was ±0.0017 PSU for all salinities, and ±0.00011 PSU for salinities deeper than 2000db. 1.11. OXYGEN ANALYSIS Equipment and Techniques Dissolved oxygen analyses were performed with an SIO/ODF-designed automated oxygen titrator using photometric end-point detection based on the absorption of 365nm wavelength ultra-violet light. The titration of the samples and the data logging were controlled by PC LabView software. Thiosulfate was dispensed by a Dosimat 665 buret driver fitted with a 1.0 mL buret. ODF used a whole- bottle modified- Winkler titration following the technique of Carpenter [Carp65] with modifications by Culberson et al. [Culb91], but with higher concentrations of potassium iodate standard (~0.012N) and thiosulfate solution (~55 gm/l). Pre- made liquid potassium iodate standards were run daily (approximately every 2-4 stations), unless changes were made to the system or reagents. Reagent/distilled water blanks were also determined daily or more often if a change in reagents required it to account for presence of oxidizing or reducing agents. Sampling and Data Processing 6700 oxygen measurements were made. Samples were collected for dissolved oxygen analyses soon after the rosette was brought on board. Four different cases of 36 flasks each were rotated by station to minimize flask calibration issues, if any. Using a Tygon and silicone drawing tube, nominal 125ml volume calibrated iodine flasks were rinsed 3 times with minimal agitation, then filled and allowed to overflow for at least 3 flask volumes. The sample drawing temperatures were measured with an electronic resistance temperature detector (RTD) embedded in the drawing tube. These temperatures were used to calculate µmol/kg concentrations, and as a diagnostic check of bottle integrity. Reagents (MnCl2 then NaI/NaOH) were added to fix the oxygen before stoppering. The flasks were shaken twice (10-12 inversions each time) to assure thorough dispersion of the precipitate, once immediately after drawing, and then again after about 20 minutes. The samples were analyzed within 1-4 hours of collection, and the data incorporated into the cruise database. Thiosulfate normalities were calculated from each standardization and corrected to 20°C. The thiosulfate normalities and blanks were monitored for possible drifting or possible problems when new reagents were used. There was no indication of drifting blanks or thiosulfate normalities over the course of the cruise. The blanks and thiosulfate normalities for each batch of thiosulfate were smoothed (averaged) in two groups during the cruise and the oxygen values recalculated. The difference between the original and "smoothed" data was less than 0.1%. Bottle oxygens data was reviewed insuring proper station, cast, bottle number, flask, and draw temperature were entered properly. Any comments made during analysis was also reviewed making certain that any anomalous actions were investigated and resolved. Occasionally, an incorrect end point was encountered. The analyst has the provisions available through the software to check the raw data and have the program recalculated a correct end point. This happened very few times on this data set. The occurrence is usually attributed to debris in the water bath. After the data is uploaded to the database, oxygen is graphically compared with CTD oxygen and adjoining stations. Any erroneous looking points are reviewed and comments are made regarding the final outcome of the investigation. These investigations and final data coding are reported in Appendix A. Volumetric Calibration Oxygen flask volumes were determined gravimetrically with degassed deionized water to determine flask volumes at ODF's chemistry laboratory. This was done once before using flasks for the first time and periodically thereafter when a suspect volume is detected. The volumetric flasks used in preparing standards were volume-calibrated by the same method, as was the 10 ml Dosimat buret used to dispense standard iodate solution. Standards Liquid potassium iodate standards were prepared in 6 liter batches and bottled in sterile glass bottles at ODF's chemistry laboratory Prior to the expedition. The normality of the liquid standard was determined by calculation from weight. The standard was supplied by Alfa Aesar (lot B05N35) and has a reported purity of 99.4-100.4%. All other reagents were "reagent grade" and were tested for levels of oxidizing and reducing impurities prior to use. 1.12. NUTRIENT ANALYSIS Equipment and Techniques Nutrient analyses (phosphate, silicate, nitrate plus nitrite, and nitrite) were performed on an SIO/STS/ODF-modified 4 channel Technicon AutoAnalyzer II. Modifications to the system include STS/ODF developed data acquisition and processing software using the LabView utility and an interface from the detectors to the computer. The analytical methods used are described by Gordon et al. [Gord92] Hager et al. [Hage68] and Atlas et al. [Atla71] Silicate Silicate was analyzed using the technique of Armstrong et al. [Arms67]. An acidic solution of ammonium molybdate was added to a seawater sample to produce silicomolybdic acid which was then reduced to silicomolybdous acid (a blue compound) following the addition of stannous chloride. Tartaric acid was also added to impede PO4 color development. The sample was passed through a 15mm flow cell and the absorbance measured at 660nm. Reagents Tartaric Acid (ACS Reagent Grade) 200g tartaric acid dissolved in DW and diluted to 1 liter volume. Stored at room temperature in a polypropylene bottle. Ammonium Molybdate 10.8g Ammonium Molybdate Tetrahydrate dissolved in 1000ml dilute H2SO4*. *(Dilute H2SO4 = 2.8ml conc H2SO4 to a liter DW). Added 3 drops 15% ultra pure SDS per liter of solution. Stannous Chloride (ACS Reagent Grade) Stock solution: 40g of stannous chloride dissolved in 100 ml 5N HCl. Refrigerated in a polypropylene bottle. Working solution: 5 ml of stannous chloride stock diluted to 200 ml final volume with 1.2N HCl. Made up daily and stored at room temperature when not in use in a dark polypropylene bottle. NOTE: Oxygen introduction was minimized by swirling rather than shaking the stock solution. Nitrate + Nitrate A modification of the Armstrong et al. [Arms67] procedure was used for the analysis of nitrate and nitrite. For the nitrate analysis, the seawater sample was passed through a cadmium reduction column where nitrate was quantitatively reduced to nitrite. Sulfanilamide was introduced to the sample stream followed by N-(1-naphthyl)ethylenediamine dihydrochloride which coupled to form a red azo dye. The stream was then passed through a 15mm flow cell and the absorbance measured at 540nm. The same technique was employed for nitrite analysis, except the cadmium column was not present, and a 50mm flow cell was used for measurement. Reagents Sulfanilamide (ACS Reagent Grade) 10g sulfanilamide dissolved in 1.2N HCl and brought to 1 liter volume. Added 5 drops of 40% surfynol 465/485 surfactant. Stored at room temperature in a dark polypropylene bottle. N-(1-Naphthyl)-ethylenediamine dihydrochloride (N-1-N) (ACS Reagent Grade) 1g N-1-N in DIW, dissolved in DW and brought to 1 liter volume. Added 2 drops 40% surfynol 465/485 surfactant. Stored at room temperature in a dark polypropylene bottle. Discarded if the solution turned dark reddish brown. Imidazole Buffer (ACS Reagent Grade) 13.6g imidazole dissolved in ~3.8 liters DIW. Stirred for at least 30 minutes until completely dissolved. Added 60 ml of CuSO4 + NH4Cl mix (see below). Added 4 drops 40% Surfynol 465/485 surfactant. Using a calibrated pH meter, adjusted to pH of 7.83-7.85 with 10% (1.2N)HCl(about 20-30ml of acid, depending on exact strength). Final solution brought to 4L with DIW. Stored at room temperature. NH4Cl + CuSO4 mix: 2g cupric sulfate dissolved in DIW, brought to 100 ml volume (2%) 250g ammonium chloride dissolved in DIW, brought to 1 liter volume. Added 5ml of 2% CuSO4 solution to the NH4Cl stock. Note: 40% Surfynol 465/485 is 20% 465 plus 20% 485 in DIW. Prepared solution at least one day before use to stabilize. Phosphate Phosphate was analyzed using a modification of the Bernhardt and Wilhelms [Bern67] technique. An acidic solution of ammonium molybdate was added to the sample to produce phosphomolybdic acid, then reduced to phosphomolybdous acid (a blue compound) following the addition of dihydrazine sulfate. The reaction product was heated to ~55°C to enhance color development, then passed through a 50mm flow cell and the absorbance measured at 820nm. Reagents Ammonium Molybdate (ACS Reagent Grade) H2SO4 solution: 420 ml of DIW poured into a 2 liter Ehrlenmeyer flask or beaker, this flask or beaker was placed into an ice bath. SLOWLY added 330 ml of conc H2SO4. This solution gets VERY HOT!! 27g ammonium molybdate dissolved in 250ml of DIW. Brought to 1 liter volume with the cooled sulfuric acid solution. Added 5 drops of 15% ultra pure SDS surfactant. Stored in a dark polypropylene bottle. Dihydrazine Sulfate (ACS Reagent Grade) 6.4g dihydazine sulfate dissolved in DIW, brought to 1 liter volume and refrigerated. Sampling and Data Processing 6710 nutrient samples were analyzed and 1016 were analyzed for Trace Metal casts. Duplicates for 24 stations were drawn and analyzed on the Technicon AA3 system. The cruise started with new pump tubes and then they were changed five times during the cruise, after Stations 025, 068, 099, 141 and 180. Ten Beer's Law calibration checks were run throughout the cruise. Six sets of Primary/ Secondary standard were made up over the course of the cruise. Primary and secondary standards were compared to the "old" standard before they were used to insure continuity between standards. The cadmium column efficiency was check per- iodically. Initially column efficiencies were 93%, however, after replacing the original column, efficiencies were 100% for the remainder of the cruise. Nutrient samples were drawn into 40 ml polypropylene screw-capped centrifuge tubes. The tubes and caps were cleaned with 10% HCl and rinsed once with de- ionized water and 2-3 times with sample before filling. Samples were analyzed within two hours after sample collection, allowing sufficient time for all samples to reach room temperature. The centrifuge tubes fit directly onto the sampler. The analog outputs from each of the channels were digitized and logged automatically by computer (PC) at 2-second intervals. After each group of samples was analyzed, the raw data file was processed to produce another file of response factors, baseline values, and absorbances. Computer-produced absorbance readings were checked for accuracy against values taken from a strip chart recording which is produced simultaneously with the computer. Refractive Index blanks were determined periodically by measuring the absorbance of low nutri- ents seawater with one reagent from each of the chemistries offline. The difference between the distilled water baseline and the seawater absorbance was recorded. Sample concentrations were then calculated, refractive index blanks and any non-linear corrections applied, and data merged with other hydrographic measurements. Carryover was minimized by running the samples from low to high concentration. Nutrients, reported in micromoles per kilogram, were converted from micromoles per liter by dividing by sample density calculated at 1 atm pressure (0 db), insitu salinity, and the lab temperature measured when individual samples were drawn into the AA. Standards and Glassware Standardizations were performed at the beginning and end of each group of analyses with an intermediate concentration mixed nutrient standard prepared prior to each run from a secondary standard in a low-nutrient seawater matrix. A group usually consisted of one station/cast or two trace metal stations/casts (up to 36 samples). The secondary standards were prepared aboard ship by dilution from the pre-weighed Primary standards. A set of 7 different standard concentrations, Table 1.12.0, were analyzed periodically to determine the deviation from linearity, if any, as a function of absorbance for each nutri- ent. Residuals were determined and fit to a 3rd order polynomial, which was then used to calculate the non-linear corrections applied to the nutrient concentrations. An aliquot from a large volume of stable deep seawater was also run with each set of samples as a substandard and as an additional check. Table 1.12.0: CLIVAR I5 Standard Concentrations ______________________________ std N+N PO4 SiO3 NO2 --- ----- --- ----- ---- 1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2) 7.75 0.6 30 0.25 3) 15.50 1.2 60 0.50 4) 23.25 1.8 90 0.75 5) 31.00 2.4 120 1.00 6) 38.75 3.0 150 1.25 7) 46.50 3.6 180 1.50 ______________________________ All glass volumetric flasks and pipettes were gravimetrically calibrated prior to the cruise. The Primary standards were dried and weighed prior to the cruise. The exact weight was noted for future reference. When Primary standards were made, the flask volume at 20°C, the weight of the powder, and the temperature of the solution were used to buoyancy correct the weight, calculate the exact concentration of the solution, and determine how much of the Primary was needed for the desired concentrations of secondary standard. All the reagent solutions, Primary and secondary standards were made with fresh distilled deionized water (DIW). Working standards were made up in low nutrient seawater (LNSW). The first 40L carboy of water used was collected off shore of coastal California and treated in the lab. The water was first filtered through a 0.45 micron filter then re- circulated for ~8 hours through a 0.2 micron filter, passed a UV lamp and through a second 0.2 micron filter. Subsequent LNSW used was collected at var- ious stations in clean 40L carboys from the ship's underway system, which provided uncontaminated low nutrient surface water. The actual concentration of nutrients in this water was empirically determined during the calculation of the non-linear corrections that were applied to the nutrient concentrations. The Nitrate (KNO3 lot# 042263) and Phosphate (KH2PO4 lot# 991608) Primary standards were obtained from Fisher Scientific with reported purities of 100% and 99.8%, respectively. The Silicate standards were from both Alfa Aesar (Na2SiF6 lot# J25E26) and Fluka (Na2SiF6 lot# 449247/1) with reported purities of >98%. Nitrite standards were obtained from Alfa Aesar (NaNO2 lot# K19D12 and lot# B065013) with reported purities of 97%. Quality Control As is standard ODF practice, a deep calibration check sample was run with each set of sample. Table 1.12.1 is a summary of those calibration check samples. Table 1.12.1: Calibration check samples _______________________________ Parameter AAII concentration --------- ------------------ NO3 30.54 uM ±0.27 PO4 2.17 uM ±0.02 SIL 71.6 uM ±0.69 NO2 0.01 uM ±0.005 _______________________________ Analytical problems The pump for the Silicate channel was changed out after station 028 due to mechanical problems causing it to stop pumping periodically. The Nitrite SCIC was changed out after station 077 which improved the stability of the baseline. The standard cal was adjusted for Nitrate after station 010, and all Beer's Law checks run after this could only be used for smoothing the final Nitrate data after this station. Two of the ten Beer's Law check runs were not acceptable and thus not used in the nutrient calculations. There were observed small Phosphate variations in the deep water, however, these variations are close to or at the limits of the methods for both sample collection and sample analysis. The temperature of the laboratory used for the analyses ranged from 23.0°C to 24.5°C. During the nutrient analysis of Station 141 cast 1, the air-conditioning unit was switched off and the lab temperature increase. This caused a drift in nitrate values at the end of the analysis. However, a correction was applied to the nitrate raw data, it was reprocessed and is acceptable. Nutrient instrument comparison Duplicate samples were drawn from 25 stations for comparison with results of the AAII, the current equipment, with the AA3. Data will be reviewed in the office and sent to the CLIVAR community for review and comments before incorporating the autoanalyzer into the STS/ODF CLIVAR time-series data. 1.13. HISTORICAL COMPARISON James Swift, Chief Scientist and CTDO2/rosette/S/O2/nutrients/data processing PI The I5 cruise track crossed the 2007 I8S cruise track at about 34°S, 95°E. The bottle cast data for I5 stations 144-146 were compared with those from I8S stations 76-78. The comparisons indicated close cruise-to-cruise agreement between temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, silicate, CFC-12, and total carbon, except for variations which appeared likely to be due more to oceanography than standardization. Possible small cruise-to-cruise offsets (standardization differences) were observed for nitrate, phosphate, and alkalinity. REFERENCES: Arms67. Armstrong, F. A. J., Stearns, C. R., and Strickland, J. D. H., "The measurement of upwelling and subsequent biological processes by means of the Technicon Autoanalyzer and associated equipment," Deep-Sea Research, 14, pp. 381-389 (1967). Atla71. Atlas, E. L., Hager, S. W., Gordon, L. I., and Par k, P. K., "A Practical Manual for Use of the Technicon AutoAnalyzer(r) in Seawater Nutrient Analyses Revised," Technical Report 215, Reference 71-22, p. 49, Oregon State University, Department of Oceanography (1971). Bern67. Bernhardt, H. and Wilhelms, A., "The continuous determination of low level iron, soluble phosphate and total phosphate with the AutoAnalyzer," Technicon Symposia, I, pp. 385-389 (1967). Brow78. Brown, N. L. and Morrison, G. K., "WHOI/Brown conductivity, temperature and depth microprofiler," Technical Report No. 78-23, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (1978). Carp65. Carpenter, J. H., "The Chesapeake Bay Institute technique for the Winkler dissolved oxygen method," Limnology and Oceanography, 10, pp. 141-143 (1965). Culb91. Culberson, C. H., Knapp, G., Stalcup, M., Williams, R. T., and Zemlyak, F., "A comparison of methods for the determination of dissolved oxygen in seawater," Report WHPO 91-2, WOCE Hydrographic Programme Office (Aug 1991). Gord92. Gordon, L. I., Jennings, J. C., Jr., Ross, A. A., and Krest, J. M., "A suggested Protocol for Continuous Flow Automated Analysis of Seawater Nutrients in the WOCE Hydrographic Program and the Joint Global Ocean Fluxes Study," Grp. Tech Rpt 92-1, OSU College of Oceanography Descr. Chem Oc. (1992). Hage68. Hager, S. W., Gordon, L. I., and Par k, P. K., "A Practical Manual for Use of the Technicon AutoAnalyzer(r) in Seawater Nutrient Analyses.," Final report to Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Contract 14-17-0001-1759., p. 31pp, Oregon State University, Department of Oceanography, Reference No. 68-33. (1968). Joyc94. Joyce, T., ed. and Corry, C., ed., "Requirements for WOCE Hydrographic Programme Data Reporting," Report WHPO 90-1, WOCE Report No. 67/91, pp. 52-55, WOCE Hydrographic Programme Office, Woods Hole, MA, USA (May 1994, Rev. 2). UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT. Kawa09. Kawano, T. (2009). Personal communication with M. C. Johnson, SIO/STS/ODF. Mill82. Millard, R. C., Jr., "CTD calibration and data processing techniques at WHOI using the practical salinity scale," Proc. Int. STD Conference and Workshop, p. 19, Mar. Tech. Soc., La Jolla, Ca. (1982). Owen85. Owens, W. B. and Millard, R. C., Jr., "A new algorithm for CTD oxygen calibration," Jour n. of Am. Meteorological Soc., 15, p. 621 (1985). UNES81. UNESCO, "Background papers and supporting data on the Practical Salinity Scale, 1978," UNESCO Technical Papers in Marine Science, No. 37, p. 144 (1981). CHLOROFLUOROCARBON AND SULFUR HEXAFLUORIDE MEASUREMENTS PIs: John Bullister Mark Warner Analysts: David Wisegarver Eric Wisegarver Erin Shields Approximately 3500 samples were analyzed for two dissolved chlorofluorocarbons (CFC-11 and CFC-12) and for sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) on the CLIVAR I5 expedition, using methods described by Bullister and Wisegarver (2008).In general the analytical system performed well on the cruise. Routine measurements of dissolved SF6 in seawater remain extremely challenging. Typical dissolved SF6 concentrations in modern surface water are ~1-2 fmol kg-1 seawater (1 fmol= femtomole = 10-15 moles), approximately 1000 times lower than dissolved CFC-11 and CFC-12 concentrations. The limits of detection for SF6 on CLIVAR I5 were approximately 0.02 fmol kg-1. SF6. Improvements in the analytical sensitivity to this compound at low concentrations are essential to make these measurements more routine on future CLIVAR cruises. Water samples on CLIVAR I5 were collected in bottles designed with a modified end-cap to minimize the contact of the water sample with the end-cap O-rings after closing. Stainless steel springs covered with a nylon powder coat were substituted for the internal elastic tubing provided with standard Niskin bottles. When taken, water samples collected for dissolved CFC-11, CFC-12 and SF6 ('CFC/SF6') analysis were the first samples drawn from the bottles. Care was taken to coordinate the sampling of CFC/SF6 with other samples to minimize the time between the initial opening of each bottle and the completion of sample drawing. Samples most easily impacted by gas exchange (dissolved oxygen, 3He, DIC and pH) were collected within several minutes of the initial opening of each bottle. To minimize contact with air, the CFC/SF6 samples were drawn directly through the stopcocks of the bottles into 250 ml precision glass syringes equipped with three-way plastic stopcocks. The syringes were immersed in a holding tank of clean surface seawater held at ~10OC until ~20 minutes before being analyzed. At that time, the syringe was place in a bath of surface seawater heated to ~30°C. For atmospheric sampling, a ~75 m length of 3/8" OD Dekaron tubing was run from the CFC van located on the fantail to the bow of the ship. A flow of air was drawn through this line into the main laboratory using an Air Cadet pump. The air was compressed in the pump, with the downstream pressure held at ~1.5 atm. using a backpressure regulator. A tee allowed a flow of ~100 ml min-1 of the compressed air to be directed to the gas sample valves of the CFC/SF6 analytical systems, while the bulk flow of the air (>7 l min-1) was vented through the back-pressure regulator. Air samples were analyzed only when the relative wind direction was within 60 degrees of the bow of the ship to reduce the possibility of shipboard contamination. Analysis of bow air was performed at 14 locations along the cruise track. At each location, at least five air measurements were made to increase the precision of the measurements. Air measurements are listed at the end of this report. Concentrations of CFC-11, CFC-12 and SF6 in air samples, seawater, and gas standards were measured by shipboard electron capture gas chromatography (EC-GC) using techniques modified from those described by Bullister and Weiss (1988) and Bullister and Wisegarver (2008) as outlined below. For seawater analyses, water was transferred from a glass syringe to a glass-sparging chamber (volume ~200 ml). The dissolved gases in the seawater sample were extracted by passing a supply of CFC/SF6 free purge gas through the sparging chamber for a period of 6 minutes at ~150 ml min-1. Water vapor was removed from the purge gas during passage through an 18 cm long, 3/8" diameter glass tube packed with the desiccant magnesium perchlorate. The sample gases were concentrated on a cold- trap consisting of a 1/16" OD stainless steel tube with a 5 cm section packed tightly with Porapak Q (60-80 mesh) and a 22 cm section packed with Carboxen 1000. A Neslab Cryocool CC-100 was used to cool the trap to ~-70°C. After 6 minutes of purging, the trap was isolated, and it was heated electrically to ~200°C. The sample gases held in the trap were then injected onto a precolumn (~60 cm of 1/8" O.D. stainless steel tubing packed with 80-100 mesh Porasil B, held at 80°C) for the initial separation of CFC-12, CFC-11, SF6 and CCl4 from later eluting peaks. After the SF6 and CFC-12 had passed from the pre-column and into the second precolumn (5 cm of 1/8" O.D. stainless steel tubing packed with MS5A, 80°C) and into the analytical column #1 (240 cm of 1/8" OD stainless steel tubing packed with MS5A and held at 80°C), the outflow from the first precolumn was diverted to the second analytical column (150 cm 1/8" OD stainless steel tubing packed with Carbograph 1AC, 80-100 mesh, held at 80°C). After CFC-11 had passed through the first pre-column, the flow was diverted to a third analytical column (1.7 m of Carbograph 1AC, 80°C). The gases remaining after CCl4 had passed through the first pre-column, were backflushed from the pre column and vented. Column #1 and the second pre-column were held in a Shimadzu GC8 gas chromatograph with an electron capture detector (ECD) held at 340°C. Column #2 and the first precolumn were in another Shimadzu GC8 gas chromatograph with ECD. Column #3 was held in a Shimadzu Mini2 gas chromatograph (90 C) with the ECD held at 250°C. The analytical system was calibrated frequently using a standard gas of known CFC/SF6 composition. Gas sample loops of known volume were thoroughly flushed with standard gas and injected into the system. The temperature and pressure was recorded so that the amount of gas injected could be calculated. The procedures used to transfer the standard gas to the trap, precolumn, main chromatographic column, and ECD were similar to those used for analyzing water samples. Four sizes of gas sample loops were used. Multiple injections of these loop volumes could be made to allow the system to be calibrated over a relatively wide range of concentrations. Air samples and system blanks (injections of loops of CFC/SF6 free gas) were injected and analyzed in a similar manner. The typical analysis time for seawater, air, standard or blank samples was ~11 minutes. Concentrations of the CFC-11 and CFC-12 in air, seawater samples, and gas standards are reported relative to the SIO98 calibration scale (Cunnold et al., 2000). Concentrations of SF6 in air, seawater samples, and gas standards are reported relative to the SIO-05 calibration scale. Concentrations in air and standard gas are reported in units of mole fraction CFC in dry gas, and are typically in the parts per trillion (ppt) range. Dissolved CFC concentrations are given in units of picomoles per kilogram seawater (pmol kg-1) and SF6 concentrations in fmol kg-1. CFC/SF6 concentrations in air and seawater samples were determined by fitting their chromatographic peak areas to multi-point calibration curves, generated by injecting multiple sample loops of gas from a working standard (PMEL cylinder 45174) into the analytical instrument. The response of the detector to the range of moles of CFC/SF6 passing through the detector remained relatively constant during the cruise. Full-range calibration curves were run at intervals of 4-5 days during the cruise. Single injections of a fixed volume of standard gas at approximately one atm pressure were run much more frequently (at intervals of ~90 minutes) to monitor short-term changes in detector sensitivity. The purging efficiency was estimated by re-purging a high-concentration water sample and measuring this residual signal. At a flow rate of 150 cc min-1 for 6 minutes, the purging efficiency for all 3 gases was >99%. On this expedition, based on the analysis of ~250 pairs of duplicate samples, we estimate precisions (1 standard deviation) of about 1% or 0.002 pmol kg-1 (whichever is greater) for both dissolved CFC-11 and CFC-12 measurements. The estimated precision for SF6 was 2% or 0.02 fmol kg-1, (whichever is greater). Overall accuracy of the measurements (a function of the absolute accuracy of the calibration gases, volumetric calibrations of the sample gas loops and purge chamber, errors in fits to the calibration curves and other factors) is estimated to be about 2% or 0.004 pmol kg-1 for CFC11 and CFC-12 and 4% or 0.04 fmol kg-1 for SF6). A small number of water samples had anomalously high CFC/SF6 concentrations relative to adjacent samples. These samples occurred sporadically during the cruise and were not clearly associated with other features in the water column (e.g., anomalous dissolved oxygen, salinity, or temperature features). This suggests that these samples were probably contaminated with CFCs/SF6 during the sampling or analysis processes. Measured concentrations for these anomalous samples are included in the data file, but are given a quality flag value of either 3 (questionable measurement) or 4 (bad measurement). Less than 2% of samples were flagged as bad or questionable during this voyage. A quality flag of 5 was assigned to water samples which were drawn from the rosette but lost during storage or due to errors in the multi-step analytical process. REFERENCES Bullister, J.L., and R.F. Weiss, 1988: Determination of CC13F and CC12F2 in seawater and air. Deep-Sea Res., v. 25, pp. 839-853. Bullister, J.L., and D.P. Wisegarver (2008): The shipboard analysis of trace levels of sulfur hexafluoride, chlorofluorocarbon-11 and chlorofluorocarbon- 12 in seawater. Deep-Sea Res. I, 55, 1063-1074. 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, 2000: A history of chemically and radiatively important gases in air deduced from ALE/GAGE/AGAGE. J. Geophys. Res., 105, pp. 17,751-17,792. Air Measurements on I05_2009 Concentrations are in pats-per-trillion (PPT) Date Time CFC12 CFC11 SF6 Date Time CFC12 CFC11 SF6 YYMMDD HHMM PPT PPT PPT YYMMDD HHMM PPT PPT PPT ------ ---- ----- ----- ---- ------ ---- ----- ----- ---- 090321 2335 532.7 239.3 6.39 090409 1915 240.2 6.64 090321 2342 534.0 090414 2145 532.6 239.9 6.45 090321 2349 532.0 240.2 6.49 090414 2155 533.5 239.0 6.72 090321 2356 531.8 241.9 6.45 090414 2205 534.7 240.0 6.67 090322 0003 531.3 244.2 6.52 090414 2215 531.8 238.7 6.58 090322 0010 531.7 243.5 6.55 090414 2225 531.8 239.5 6.68 090322 1412 238.4 6.52 090414 2235 532.4 239.2 6.67 090322 1419 532.3 237.2 6.49 090418 0524 529.2 237.0 6.56 090322 1426 536.4 237.3 6.45 090418 0534 529.8 235.3 6.65 090322 1433 536.1 237.8 6.37 090418 0544 531.5 233.9 6.72 090322 1440 534.1 238.0 6.37 090418 0554 533.5 232.0 6.72 090326 1003 536.4 240.6 090418 0604 529.3 231.0 6.75 090326 1010 536.2 240.5 090422 1143 533.8 244.3 6.43 090326 1017 532.3 240.0 090422 1153 535.2 245.4 6.40 090326 1024 532.8 240.5 090422 1203 534.4 244.8 6.44 090326 1031 533.2 241.2 090422 1213 535.0 245.2 6.51 090330 0135 535.6 240.8 6.70 090423 2057 533.5 242.3 090330 0145 530.5 240.4 6.77 090423 2107 534.5 242.7 6.38 090330 0155 531.5 239.9 6.69 090423 2117 532.5 243.3 6.34 090330 0205 529.1 240.1 6.69 090423 2127 533.6 244.2 6.38 090330 0215 532.2 239.9 6.56 090427 0335 531.6 240.1 6.81 090330 0225 532.0 240.4 6.70 090427 0346 533.2 238.7 6.74 090331 0706 528.6 239.5 6.34 090427 0357 527.7 239.0 6.66 090331 0713 525.2 239.5 6.37 090427 0408 530.9 239.0 6.51 090331 0720 535.7 240.2 6.61 090427 0419 531.4 241.4 6.39 090331 0727 528.1 239.9 6.52 090504 0450 539.0 238.7 6.46 090331 0734 530.9 240.6 6.50 090504 0501 537.7 236.0 6.65 090331 0741 534.1 239.8 6.51 090504 0512 537.3 236.6 6.61 090406 0050 532.2 240.6 6.46 090504 0523 539.3 238.1 6.68 090406 0057 530.8 240.2 6.43 090504 0534 543.4 239.1 6.72 090406 0104 531.6 240.9 6.51 090507 0559 532.4 240.1 6.69 090406 0111 531.1 240.2 6.67 090507 0611 530.4 240.4 6.76 090406 0118 534.2 240.5 6.63 090507 0623 529.9 239.9 6.71 090406 0125 535.4 240.3 6.53 090507 0635 532.1 241.2 6.68 090409 1825 531.0 240.3 6.63 090507 0647 532.2 239.5 6.70 090409 1835 531.7 239.3 6.53 090409 1845 535.2 239.4 6.59 Mean 532.8 239.8 6.57 090409 1855 530.1 239.7 6.64 STDEV 2.9 2.5 0.13 090409 1905 532.2 239.7 6.68 %STDEV 0.5 1.1 1.9 TOTAL DISSOLVED CARBON (Dana Greeley) "A total of over 500 pure (99.995%) CO2 gas calibrations were run on both SOMMA systems during I5. The precision and accuracy obtained from these calibrations can be described as follows; 1. The precision is displayed by the greater than 450 replicate samples drawn. The absolute average difference from the mean of these replicates are less than 0.85 µmol/kg. No significant systematic differences were noted. 2. The accuracy can be described by the greater than 250 Certified Reference Materials (batch 94) that were analyzed. The average difference from the certified value for these is 0.65 µmol/kg with a standard deviation of 1.5 µmol/kg. The overall accuracy and precision as described above, though excellent for the Somma systems, does not mean there will not be small corrections to the data made shore side after a more thorough examination and post cruise calibrations are performed. These final corrections may change the data by as much as 2-3 µmol/kg but in the majority the correction will be less than 1 µmol/kg. In addition, it is likely there will be a few changes made to the quality control flags. Alkalinity (George C. Anderson and Jennale Peacock, laboratory of Andrew G. Dickson, Marine Physical Laboratory, Scripps Institution of Oceanography) As part of the overall sampling program, alkalinity sampling was included. Samples were taken from all Niskin bottles on every other stations; intermediate stations were partially sampled with as few as one and as many as 24 of the levels being sampled. During the 195 stations approximately 5000 samples were collected and analyzed. After thorough rinsing, samples were collected in 250 ml Pyrex serum bottles. Approximately 0.06 milliliters of a saturated mercuric chloride solution were added to each sample. Samples were analyzed using an open beaker titration procedure using two thermostated beakers, one sample being titrated while the second was being prepared and equilibrating to the system temperature of 20 degrees C. After an initial aliquot of approximately 1.3 mls of standardized hydrochloric acid (~0.1Molar HCl in ~0.6M NaCl solution) was added, the sample was stirred for approximately 5 minutes to remove liberated carbon dioxide. The stir time has been minimized by bubbling carbon dioxide free air into the sample. After the ~5 minute equilibration time, 19 aliquots of ~0.02 mls were added. The data within the pH range of 3.5 to 3.0 were processed using a non- linear least squares fit from which the alkalinity value of the sample was calculated (Dickson, et.al., editors, 2007). A sample volume of 50 mls was titrated. Sample temperatures were measured using a calibrated YSI thermister thermometer accurate to 0.05 degrees Celsius. Dickson laboratory Certified Reference Materials (CRM) Batch B94 was used to determine the accuracy of the analysis. On a 36 bottle cast 3 duplicate samples were collected typically from Niskins 1 (the bottom of the cast), 18 (mid depth of the cast) and 36 (the surface bottle). Over the course of the cruise, approximately 450 duplicates were analyzed. The pooled standard deviation was approximately 1 micromole-per- kilogram. The data should be considered preliminary since the correction to be applied for the difference between the CRMs stated and measured values has yet to be finalized and applied. Also the correction for the mercuric chloride addition has yet to be applied. As part of the data evaluation, a determination was made for the possible contribution of the mercuric chloride to the alkalinity. The data indicate no contribution, either positive or negative, from the mercuric chloride. REFERENCE: Dickson, Andrew G., Chris Sabine and James R. Christian, editors, "Guide to Best Practices for Ocean CO2 Measurements", Pices Special Publication 3, IOCCP Report No. 8, October 2007, SOP 3b, "Determination of total alkalinity in sea water using an open-cell titration" 14C SAMPLING 14C samples were taken at ~ every 5 stations. 880 samples were taken in total. Bottles were cleaned at WHOI before the cruise. Samples were taken and sealed for storage according to the instructions provided by WHOI (1). Samples will be shipped back to WHOI for 13C and C14 analyses. (1) Measuring 14C in seawater total CO2 by accelerator mass spectrometry, WHP Operation and Methods, July, 2003. DOC sampling DOC samples were taken from every Niskin bottles at every other station. 3350 samples were taken from 52 stations in total, including duplicate sets from 5 stations. Samples from up 250 m were filtered through GF/F filters using in-line filtration. Samples from deeper depths were not filtered. High density polyethylene 60 ml sample bottles were 10% HCl cleaned and Mili-Q water rinsed. Filters were combusted at 450 C for overnight. Filter holders were 10% HCl cleaned and Mili-Q water rinsed. Samples were introduced into the sample bottles by a pre-cleaned silicone tubing. Bottles were rinsed by sample for 3 times before filling. 40-50 ml of water were taken for each sample. Samples were kept frozen in the ship's freezer room. Frozen samples will be shipped back by express shipping to RSMAS for DOC analysis. pH (Brendan Carter and Adam Radich) On this CLIVAR leg, over 7500 measurements of pH were made on water sampled from rosette casts at 195 regular stations, 2 test stations, and 1 reoccupation of a station from the I6S line. Analyses were made with an Agilent 8453 spectrophotometer equipped with a 10 cm jacketted flow cell using m-cresol purple indicator dye. Results are reported on the total hydrogen ion scale. Sample introduction to the cell and dye addition were automated with a Kloehn V6 Syringe Pump. The plan for water sampling included coverage of every bottle sampled for alkalinity or total carbon for a complete characterization of the carbon system. This scheme typically alternated between full and partial coverage of tripped bottles. Samples were obtained from rosette bottles into 300 mL Pyrex glass serum bottles. Serum bottles were rinsed three times and allowed to overflow by one additional bottle volume. The bottles were poisoned with 0.02% saturated HgCl2 solution and capped with a rubber stopper without allowing for headspace. Analyses were completed within three hours of sampling. Prior to measurement, samples were brought to 20°C by partially submerging the serum bottles in a temperature bath for 16 minutes. Data precision was evaluated by analysis of duplicate samples (multiple samples from the same bottle on the rosette). The pooled standard deviation of the ~650 duplicate analyses is 0.0004 pH units. Accuracy of spectrophotometric pH measurements is difficult to constrain with no agreed upon calibration procedure. For this cruise two approaches were made. First, since the same bottles that were sampled for alkalinity and total carbon were sampled for pH, an independent estimate of pH can be obtained from equilibrium equations. Second, pH analyses of Certified Reference Materials (currently only certified for DIC and alkalinity) were performed. A review of the accuracy of the pH measurements is underway, and large changes (~0.01) in the final reported values are likely. Confidence in the precision of the measurements remains high, and likely changes would be a simple offset or an offset that is a simple function of reported pH. No correction for HgCl2 addition has been made for the reported preliminary pH values. Testing aboard ship suggested that a very small correction (~0.0003 pH unit increase) might be appropriate for all measured values. REFERENCE: Dickson, A.G., Sabine, C.L. and Christian, J.R. (Eds.), (2007): Guide to Best Practices for Ocean C O2 Measurements. I5 (2009) CROSSOVER WITH I8S (2007) The I5 cruise track crossed the 2007 I8S cruise track at about 34°S, 95°E. The bottle cast data for I5 stations 144-146 were compared with those from I8S stations 76-78. The comparisons indicated: temperature versus pressure - slightly warmer in 2009 above 400 db; slightly colder in 2009 500-1000 db; nearly the same 1100-3200 db; possibly very slightly warmer in 2009 below 3400 db. salinity versus pressure - salinity differences 600-1600 db look very much like salinity minimum was a bit shallower and maybe slightly saltier in 2009; very good agreement below 1800 db; dissolved oxygen versus pressure - slightly lower in 2009 200-1500 db; agrees well below 1600 db. dissolved oxygen versus sigma-0 - nearly the same from sigma-0 26.85-27.20; slightly lower in 2009 sigma-0 27.20- 27.55; nearly the same for sigma-0 > 27.55. silicate versus pressure - slightly higher in 2009 700-1800 db; nearly the same 1800-2500 db; slightly higher in 2009 2500-3100 db; nearly the same > 3200 db. silicate versus sigma-0 - nearly the same for sigma-0 < 27.20 or maybe < 27.40; slightly higher in 2009 sigma-0 27.45-27.60; nearly the same for sigma-0 > 27.60. nitrate versus pressure - slightly lower in 2009 above 400 db; a small amount higher in 2009 400- 1500 db; nearly the same 1500-2500 db; slightly higher in 2009 from 2500-3500 db; and very nearly the same below 3500 db. nitrate versus sigma-0 - NO3 slightly higher in 2009 for all sigma-0 > 27.10; this suggests a small NO3 offset between the cruises. phosphate versus pressure - PO4 slightly higher in 2009 for most pressures > 500 db. phosphate versus sigma-0 - PO4 higher in 2009 (by. ca. 0.06-0.07 µmol/kg) for all sigma-0 > 27.10. nitrate versus phosphate - agrees very well for NO3 < 26 µmol/kg and PO4 < 1.8 µmol/kg; for NO3 26-36 µmol/kg PO4 is a little higher for a given NO3 concentration. CFC-12 versus pressure - deep values (below 1500 db) nearly the same except that 2009 is slightly higher 2000-2800 db. total carbon versus pressure - higher in 2009 from 400-1600 db, nearly the same below 1800 db. alkalinity versus pressure - in general values are higher in 2009 at all pressures, though nearly the same near 2000 db and only slightly higher below 4000 db. These cruise-to-cruise crossover comparisons suggest that standardization for most parameters may have been about the same in 2007 and 2009. Of the parameters examined, the case for possible small cruise-to-cruise offsets was strongest for nitrate, phosphate and alkalinity. PROBLEMS AND TIME LOST The cruise went exceptionally well. For example, there was only need for one CTD electrical retermination, to solve a problem in the early going. The fault occurred on landing the rosette and so we lost no data and little time in the process. At other times the techs also performed one CTD mechanical retermination as preventative maintenance near the cruise midpoint, and carried out maintenance on the winch slip rings. There were few problems or delays with CTD cast operations: Station 14 was delayed 2.5 hours for the CTD retermination noted above; on station 36 there was a firmware glitch in the deck unit; a winch problem on station 44 caused a 2 hour delay (see below); on station 77 all bottles were closed on the fly due to storm sea conditions associated with Tropical Cyclone Jade; at station 102 the winch stopped at 158 meters on the down cast for a problem and the data acquisition system froze at 1112 db for total loss of abut 25 minutes; on stations 138 and 180 (and maybe one other time) the cast start was delayed ca. 20-25 minutes each due to data acquisition system problems; wire payout speed was slowed at some stations, especially during approximately the second quarter of the cruise, due to low-tensions during ship roll; haul-in was slowed to 30 m/min on the deepest portions (generally below 5000-5300 meters) of the deepest casts to keep wire tension from exceeding maximum limits; and there were short coming-tostation delays for some stations where specific depths were being sought. The cruise was planned to allow for such events, and no adjustments to the station plan were necessary to compensate for these. The only significant weather event was the passage of Tropical Cyclone Jade (see above), which resulted in the loss of slightly more than one day of ship time. During CTD/rosette recovery on station 44, just as the package was being raised out of the water, a retaining spring on the winch failed, resulting in loss of control. The winch operator alertly hit the emergency stop, at which point the wire started free-wheeling, with the package falling toward the ocean floor. However, the operator quickly engaged the emergency brake, stopping the package after only 18 meters of descent. His quick and professional actions impressively averted disaster. The chief engineer and his team were able to diagnose and fix the unusual equipment failure in less than two hours, competently minimizing loss of time to the program. The Revelle's multibeam sonar failed (for the remainder of the cruise) on 17 April. The multibeam sonar is an ancillary instrument for the I5 science program; the multibeam data are not processed. But the loss of real-time use of the multibeam sonar to guide station placement near bathymetric features and for stations being occupied at specified bottom depths was felt from time to time, though without significant harm to the measurement program or loss of time. Algal blooms were noted in some of the salinity sample bottles in late April, and so all salinity sample bottles were thoroughly scrubbed and rinsed by the science team on 26-27 April. The salinometers were also cleaned at this time. The performance of key portions of the helium extraction system progressively worsened during the expedition. It finally became unsatisfactory for further work and so the final two planned helium profiles were cancelled as a result. There were no significant injuries or illnesses suffered during the cruise. A gastro-intestinal virus (perhaps akin to a norovirus) made it's way through many of the officers, crew, and science team in the early going, but caused no problem other than being highly unpleasant for its victims. ARGO FLOATS (Alison Rogers) During the CLIVAR/CO2 2009 repeat of I05, 19 autonomous CTD profiling floats were deployed along the cruise track in waters deeper than 3000 db. These floats are part of the Argo Program (www.argo.ucsd.edu) and were provided by Dr. Steve Riser from the University of Washington. All floats were deployed at CTD stations after all casts were completed, from the starboard stern of the ship, with the ship moving forward at about 1 knot. Depending on the sea conditions, deployment was carried out by either lowering the float on a line or by releasing the float manually. All 19 floats successfully self activated via pressure activation and began executing their programmed mission. Data from all Argo floats are publicly available in real-time via the two global servers at www.usgodae.org and www.coriolis.eu.org. The following are the approximate positions where the 19 floats were deployed. Float ID Latitude Longitude -------- ---------- ---------- 6280 31 10.76'S 30 37.85'E 6383 32 32.57'S 33 24.11'E 0067 32 59.78'S 36 57.33'E 6099 32 59.86'S 39 15.40'E 6285 32 59.83'S 42 08.46'E 6279 33 18.44'S 46 50.20'E 6222 33 41.44'S 49 47.48'E 5409 34 20.04'S 52 09.96'E 6300 33 59.86'S 54 53.14'E 6299 33 59.82'S 56 59.19'E 6219 33 59.89'S 59 19.24'E 6220 34 00.00'S 61 41.68'E 5183 33 59.79'S 63 58.95'E 6278 34 00.05'S 66 50.26'E 6286 34 00.12'S 69 07.49'E 6223 34 00.14'S 71 24.78'E 6224 33 36.58'S 74 09.08'E 6212 31 59.89'S 76 00.04'E 6218 30 50.43'S 78 19.73'E SHIPBOARD ACOUSTIC DOPPLER CURRENT PROFILER (Julia Hummon/University of Hawaii) The Revelle has three Doppler sonars for measuring ocean velocity. One of these, a commercial 150kHz narrowband instrument "NB150" (made by Teledyne R.D. Instruments), is considered to be the primary shipboard current profiler for CLIVAR cruises. The other two "High-resolution Doppler Sonar System" (HDSS, 50kHz and 140kHz) were designed at Scripps Institute of Oceanography specifically for installation on the Revelle. Their design characteristics were optimized for high-quality ocean shear measurements, and the ability to provide high-quality ocean velocity is under evaluation. The HDSS instruments are not considered part of the CLIVAR sonar velocity data. The acquisition system used on the NB150 ("UHDAS", University of Hawaii Data Acquisition System) is an Open Sources suite, written in C and Python; processing software is in C, Python, and Matlab. UHDAS acquires data from the OS75NB150 instrument, gyro heading (for reliability), Ashtech heading (for increased accuracy), and GPS positions. Single-ping data are converted from beam to earth coordinates using known transducer angles and gyro heading, and are corrected by the average ashtech-gyro difference over the duration of the 5- minute profile. Groups of single-ping ocean velocity estimates must be averaged to decrease measurement noise. These groups commonly comprise 5 minutes. Bad pings must be edited out prior to averaging. This is done by UHDAS using a collection of criteria tailored to the instrument type and frequency, and to the specific installation. UHDAS uses a CODAS (Common Oceanographic Data Access System) database for storage and retrieval of averaged data. Various post-processing steps can be administered to the database after a cruise is over, but the at-sea data should be acceptable for preliminary work. Documentation is available at http://currents.soest.hawaii.edu. UHDAS provides access to regularly-updated figures and data over the ship's network via samba share and nfs export, as well as through the web interface. The web site has regularly-updated figures showing the last 5-minute ocean velocity profile with signal return strength, and hourly contour and vector plots of the last 3 days of ocean velocity. The Clivar Shipboard Ocean Velocity Component Data quality This instrument's range was typically about 200-250m in the western part of the cruise, deepening slightly as the cruise continued east. Diurnal migration accounted for about 50 of range (better range during the local daylight when the scatterers migrated down for safety). Data were lost during one heavy weather event, but aside from that, the instrument acquired high quality data for the entire cruise. The Ashtech, critical for accurate heading, had only a few short dropouts. Undoubtedly the vigilence of the CTD watchstanders contributed to the brevity of Ashtech data gaps. Data Access: The data have been released to the NODC Joint Archive for Shipboard ADCP (http://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/sadcp). A graphical summary of the data is available at: http://currents.soest.hawaii.edu/clivar_co2/I5S/index.html LOWERED ACOUSTIC DOPPLER CURRENT PROFILER A single RD Instruments Broadband 150-kHz (BB-150) Lowered Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (LADCP) was used throughout the cruise. A new 300-kHz Workhorse (WH-300) LADCP was lost in transit until after the ship's departure. The only instrument problem occurred at the beginning of the cruise. The first test casts showed that vertical orientation sensor was stuck in the wrong position. Fortunately, thanks to the savoir-faire of the resident technicians, the LADCP was fixed before the first regular station. LADCP instrument setup and data downloading were done on a notebook computer running Linux, using graphical user interface software from the University of Hawaii (UH). The instrument was configured with 16-m pulse length, 8-m depth cell size, and a 16-m blanking interval. Data were recorded in beam coordinates for each ping. The command file is given in Table 1. Table 1: Command file use for the 150-kHz LADCP. ________________ Command file -------------- CR1 RA RS WV330 WN32 EZ0011101 EC1500 EX00100 WP1 WF1600 WS800 WT1600 WM1 WB1 WC056 BP0 CP255 CL0 TP 00:00:00 TE 00:00:01.00 TB 00:00:02.60 TC 2 CF11101 ________________ The data were processed using two independent software packages: the older UH package calculates the vertical integral of the vertical shear and uses the ship's displacement to determine the constant of integration (Fisher and Visbeck, 1993), while the newer Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) package, originally written by Martin Visbeck and now maintained by Andreas Thurnherr, uses an inverse method to include additional constraints such as the shipboard ADCP data and bottom tracking from the LADCP (Visbeck, 2002). The two methods typically agree to within a few cm/s, but the inverse method is expected to have lower rms error, and will be used for final processing to yield the official data set. With both software packages, LADCP depth is derived from the CTD data. Figure 1: Zonal (U) and meridional (V) velocity depth-longitudinal section. Letters mark features highlighted in the text: (A) the Agulhas Current; (B) deep eddies in the Mozambique Basin; (C) high-vertical- wavenumber oscillation over the Madagascar Ridge; (D) northward intrusion of deep and bottom water in the Atlantis II Fracture Zone; (E) subsurface eddies near the Ninety east Ridge, and (F) deep eddies and the Leeuwin Current near the eastern boundary. Sections of velocity shown in Fig. 1 are from the LDEO processing. Several interesting features are apparent. First, the strong southwestward Agulhas current was observed along the African coast (shown by letter A in Fig. 1). The Mozambique Basin centered at 40°E was filled with energetic large-vertical scale motions (B in Fig. 1); in some profiles, horizontal velocities were largest in the middle of the water column with speed up to 30 cm/s and decreasing only down to 20 cm/s near the 5000-m ocean bottom. At the top of the meridionally-oriented Madagascar ridge (C in Fig. 1), a motion highly periodic with depth with a vertical wavelength of about 200 m was observed mostly in zonal velocity. The signal was shallow enough (less than 800 m deep) to be also captured by the Hydrographic Doppler Sonar System (HDSS) during the 2-hour-long cast. Preliminary analysis suggests that the motion has a period of about 22-hour, close to the local inertial period; the excess of zonal over meridional amplitude, however, is inconsistent with a single vertically- propagating near-inertial plane wave. Figure 2: Profiles of meridional velocity (blue; smoothed in red) observed at the 5 stations covering the southern entry of the Atlantis II Fracture Zone. The topography is that of the lowest level across the fracture zone from Smith and Sandwell's (1997) topographic dataset. The transport per unit width below 2500 m is shown in white below each profile. Another important feature was the northward intrusion of deep and bottom water from the Crozet to the Madagascar basins through the Atlantis II Fracture Zone (D in Fig. 1, Fig. 2). Northward velocities up to 30 cm/s with a core near 4000 m depth were observed across all 5 stations; the associated transport was comparable to previous observations (MacKinnon et al. 2008). High values from the CTD transmissometer from 3500 m to the bottom suggest large amounts of particulates are being re-suspended by this strong flow. Salinity and CFC-12 observations are also consistent with intense vertical mixing at these locations. Northward intrusions in neighboring fracture zones were also observed (not shown). Hard work of students, crew and PIs, efficiency of acquisition and processing of LADCP data as well as sufficient internet bandwidth enabled an outside investigator in the USA to present the data on the Atlantis II Fracture Zone during the cruise. Further east, one subsurface feature located near 1500 m depth was observed at the eastern edge of the Ninety-east Ridge (E in Fig. 1); although the motion was the most energetic in the direction parallel to the cruise course, the perpendicular motion appeared to be consistent with a geostrophic eddy. Finally, the cruise finished in the eastern basin with its energetic large-vertical-scale eddies and southward intense Leeuwin current along the eastern boundary (F in Fig. 1). Figure 2: Profiles of meridional velocity (blue; smoothed in red) observed at the 5 stations covering the southern entry of the Atlantis II Fracture Zone. The topography is that of the lowest level across the fracture zone from Smith and Sandwell's (1997) topographic dataset. The transport per unit width below 2500 m is shown in white below each profile. REFERENCES: Fisher, J. and M. Visbeck, 1993: Deep velocity profiling with self-contained ADCPs, J. Atmos. and Oceanic Tech., 10, 764-773. MacKinnon, J. A., T. M. S. Johnston and R. Pinkel, 2008: Strong transport and mixing of deep water through the Southwest Indian Ridge, Nature Geo., 1, 755-758. Smith, W. H. F., and D. T. Sandwell, 1997: Global seafloor topography from satellite altimetry and ship depth soundings, Science, 277, 1957-1962. Visbeck, M., 2002: Deep velocity profiling using lowered acoustic Doppler current profilers: bottom track and inverse solution, J. Atmos. and Oceanic Tech., 19, 795-807. APPENDIX A BOTTLE QUALITY COMMENTS Comments from the Sample Logs and the results of STS/ODF's data investigations are included in this report. Units stated in these comments are degrees Celsius for temperature, unless otherwise noted, milliliters per liter for oxygen and micromoles per liter for Silicate, Nitrate, Nitrite, and Phosphate. The sample number is the cast number times 100 plus the bottle number. Investigation of data may include comparison of bottle salinity and oxygen data with CTD data, review of data plots of the station profile and adjoining stations, and re- reading of charts (i.e. nutrients). Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 1/1 105 bottle 4 Water pouring out at bottom end cap, bottle reseated, only alkalinity drawn. 1/1 105 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 2/1 109 ctds 4 Variation in CTD trace at bottle trip, CTD spiky. Code CTD salinity bad. 2/1 109 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees with adjoining stations. Much variation at the bottle stop, water following the CTD. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 2/1 117 no3 2 Nitrate value appears to be 5 units too low on profile. However, there is a similar drop in value for both silicate and phosphate. The peak is real and no analytical problems noted. 2/1 117 o2 2 High oxygen and salinity, low nutrients. Salinity and oxygen agree with CTD data. Data is acceptable. 3/2 201 salt 2 Lab temperature changing, analyst halted salinity analysis after this run until temperature stabilized. 3/2 214 po4 4 PO4 high compared with station profile and adjoining stations. Nutrient analyst rechecked and found no analytical errors. Code PO4 bad. 3/2 218 salt 2 Bottle 18 top chipped, removed bottle from service. First time this bottle was used. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 4/1 101 salt 2 Lab temperature changing prior to this run, analyst halted salinity analysis before this run until temperature stabilized. 4/1 127 bottle 2 Bottles 28-34 were not tripped per sampling schedule. 5/2 223 bottle 2 Feature seen in salinity, low oxygen and high nutrients. Salinity agrees with CTD up cast. Data are acceptable. 5/2 231 bottle 2 Bottles 32-34 were not tripped per sampling schedule. 6/1 108 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 6/1 108 o2 5 Oxygen sample lost during analysis, aborted. 6/1 110 bottle 2 Ran out of water, no salinity sample, minimal sampling, 4 liters. Salinity as well as nutrients are acceptable. Although minimal sampling, suspect that analysts did not watch water budget. 6/1 110 sio3 2 SiO3 appears a little high. Analyst: "Silicate value appears high on the profile. However, adjacent stations exhibit similar spikes in silicate around the same depth. The peak is real and no analytical problems were noted." Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 7/1 101 sio3 2 SiO3 8 units high. Analyst: "Silicate value appears to be 8 units too high. However, adjoining stations have a similar bottom silicate increase. The peak is real and no analytical problems were noted." SiO3 as well as other nutrients, salinity and oxygen. 1/1 105 bottle 4 Water pouring out at bottom end cap, bottle reseated, only alkalinity drawn. 1/1 105 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 2/1 109 ctds 4 Variation in CTD trace at bottle trip, CTD spiky. Code CTD salinity bad. 2/1 109 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees with adjoining stations. Much variation at the bottle stop, water following the CTD. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 2/1 117 no3 2 Nitrate value appears to be 5 units too low on profile. However, there is a similar drop in value for both silicate and phosphate. The peak is real and no analytical problems noted. 2/1 117 o2 2 High oxygen and salinity, low nutrients. Salinity and oxygen agree with CTD data. Data is acceptable. 3/2 201 salt 2 Lab temperature changing, analyst halted salinity analysis after this run until temperature stabilized. 3/2 214 po4 4 PO4 high compared with station profile and adjoining stations. Nutrient analyst rechecked and found no analytical errors. Code PO4 bad. 3/2 218 salt 2 Bottle 18 top chipped, removed bottle from service. First time this bottle was used. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 4/1 101 salt 2 Lab temperature changing prior to this run, analyst halted salinity analysis before this run until temperature stabilized. 4/1 127 bottle 2 Bottles 28-34 were not tripped per sampling schedule. 5/2 223 bottle 2 Feature seen in salinity, low oxygen and high nutrients. Salinity agrees with CTD up cast. Data are acceptable. 5/2 231 bottle 2 Bottles 32-34 were not tripped per sampling schedule. 6/1 108 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 6/1 108 o2 5 Oxygen sample lost during analysis, aborted. 6/1 110 bottle 2 Ran out of water, no salinity sample, minimal sampling, 4 liters. Salinity as well as nutrients are acceptable. Although minimal sampling, suspect that analysts did not watch water budget. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 6/1 110 sio3 2 SiO3 appears a little high. Analyst: "Silicate value appears high on the profile. However, adjacent stations exhibit similar spikes in silicate around the same depth. The peak is real and no analytical problems were noted." 7/1 101 sio3 2 SiO3 8 units high. Analyst: "Silicate value appears to be 8 units too high. However, adjoining stations have a similar bottom silicate increase. The peak is real and no analytical problems were noted." SiO3 as well as other nutrients, salinity and oxygen. 8/1 110 o2 2 Ran o2check put in new titer value. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 8/1 118 o2 2 Sample was over titrated and back titrated. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 8/1 132 salt 2 Feature seen in salinity and oxygen which corresponds to CTD up trace. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 9/2 201 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and lo2 compared with adjoining stations. Salinity is within specifications and acceptable as are oxygen and nutrients. 9/2 202 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, low compared with adjoining stations. Salinity is within specifications and acceptable as are oxygen and nutrients. 9/2 204 salt 2 Salinity thimble popped off when cap was removed. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 9/2 207 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Salinity is within specifications and acceptable as are oxygen and nutrients. 9/2 209 salt 2 Salinity thimble popped off when cap was removed. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 9/2 224 o2 2 Sample was over titrated and back titrated. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 9/2 231 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD. Salinity thimble popped off when cap was removed. Salinity agrees with adjoining stations. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 10/1 109 salt 3 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and adjoining stations. No analytical problems noted. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients acceptable. 10/1 117 bottle 2 Lanyard was snagged during recovery. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 11/1 106 salt 2 Bottle salinity thimble popped off when opened. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 11/1 110 salt 2 Bottle salinity thimble popped off when opened. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 11/1 134 bottle 2 Leaking at air vent when spigot opened. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 12/1 103 salt 2 Bottle salinity thimble popped when opened. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 12/1 109 salt 2 Bottle salinity thimble popped when opened. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 12/1 128 o2 2 Ran o2check changed endpoint titer. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 12/1 132 no3 3 NO3 2 units high. Analyst: "Nitrate value appears to be 2 units too high. However, this feature is also seen in both phosphate and silicate, and in the upper profile of adjoining stations. The peak is real and no analytical problems were noted." JHS: This is the only data value so far this cruise at this location on the NO3 vs PO4 diagram. NO3 is at least 2 units high for NO3 vs PO4. Code NO3 questionable. 13/2 225 salt 2 Sampled and analyzed-not on sample log sheet. Sample was from Station 5 and had been analyzed. No salinity sample drawn. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 14/1 101 salt 2 Salinity standard seawater high at end of run. Ran three SSW at end all read the same high value took last bottle. Suspect initial SSW may have been low. Processor : "Salinity differences with CTD and comparison with adjoining station acceptable." 15/1 111 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 15/1 112 salt 2 Bottle salinity thimble came off in cap. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable 15/1 119 salt 2 Bottle salinity thimble popped when cap removed. Bottle salinity is within specifications. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable 15/1 131 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 15/1 135 ctds 4 Variations in CTD salinity at bottle trip, CTD spiky. Code CTD salinity bad. 15/1 135 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD; appears as entrained water. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 16/1 121 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 16/1 127 salt 2 Bottle salinity thimble came off in the cap. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 17/1 118 salt 5 Salinity computer froze, suspect it needed to be rebooted. Salinity sample lost. 18/1 101 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 18/1 101 o2 5 Oxygen sample lost, aborted sample. 18/1 106 sio3 2 SiO3 ˜3um/l high compared with adjoining stations. Corresponding low oxygen and high Po4 and NO3 and salinity. Analyst: "There were no analytical problems and the peaks look great." Data are acceptable. 18/1 121 salt 2 Salinity thimble came out with cap. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 18/1 136 o2 2 Forgot to put tip in the oxygen flask, retitrated and data appears acceptable. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 19/2 208 salt 2 Salinity bottle has minor chip on rim. Does not affect seal. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 19/2 217 o2 2 Sample may be bad, endpoint different. Black particles seen mixing with the sample. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 19/2 221 o2 2 Sample was over titrated and back titrated. Ran over- titrate find endpoint. Sample may be bad. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 19/2 223 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 19/2 223 o2 5 Ran over-titrate but did not change still formed exact straight line to determine the endpoint. Oxygen sample lost. 19/2 224 o2 2 Thio volume added underestimated, had to restart the sample. Sample may be bad. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 20/1 115 o2 2 Oxygen appears high compared to adjoining stations. Oxygen follow s CTD trace and there is a feature in the nutrients. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 20/1 116 bottle 9 Bottom end cap open, lanyard caught on hose clamp, no water samples. 20/1 116 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 20/1 117 bottle 3 Appears to have closed late. 20/1 117 no2 3 Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 20/1 117 no3 3 16 had a lanyard hangup, bottle 17 may have been effected. Salinity for 17 is a little high as is oxygen. JHS: "It does appear to be a late closing bottle, closed slightly higher in the water column, between that of 19 or 20. The bottle salt and oxygen fit that idea fairly well, and the nutrients are close to working that way. Neither no3 versus po4 nor sio3 versus o2 support the idea that this is a unique water mass." Code bottle and samples 3. 20/1 117 o2 3 20/1 117 po4 3 20/1 117 salt 3 20/1 117 sio3 3 20/1 124 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 22/1 104 salt 2 Salinity thimble popped off when cap was removed. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 22/1 112 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 22/1 131 bottle 2 Bottles 32-34 were not tripped per sampling schedule. 23/2 202 o2 2 Redraw on oxygen, NaOH dispenser changed. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 23/2 212 o2 2 Oxygen low does not compare to adjoining stations. Feature seen in SiO3. Oxygen up and down shows this feature. Oxygen, salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 23/2 212 sio3 2 sio3 high ˜4 units. Analyst: "Silicate value appears to be approx. 4 units too high. However, adjoining stations have a similar silicate spike around the same depth. The peak is real and no analytical problems were noted." 24/1 110 salt 4 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. No analytical problem noted, could be drawing error, left over from Station 16. Code salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients acceptable. 24/1 127 salt 2 Salinity insert came off when cap was removed. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 24/1 128 salt 2 Low initial salinity sample fill. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 25/1 101 bottle 2 Hit bottom. 25/1 101 salt 3 0.003PSU low. Does not agree with adjacent casts. 25/1 106 salt 2 Salinity bottle chip on outer rim, does not affect seal. Bad sampling technique. Salinity agrees with CTD and adjoining stations and is acceptable as are oxygen and nutrients. 25/1 113 salt 2 Salinity bottle thimble came off with cap. Salinity agrees with CTD and adjoining stations and is acceptable as are oxygen and nutrients. 25/1 117 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. There is a lot of structure in the CTD up/down trace. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 25/1 132 salt 2 Salinity bottle thimble came off with cap. Salinity agrees with CTD and adjoining stations and is acceptable as are oxygen and nutrients. 26/1 118 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD agrees with adjoining stations. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 26/1 119 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD agrees with adjoining stations. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 26/1 130 o2 2 Oxygen appears high compared with CTD up/down trace. No analytical problems noted. Salinity and nutrients do not show this feature. Analyst: "No analytical problem, endpoint/titration looks good." Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 27/1 101 o2 2 Oxygen appears low compared with CTD up/down trace. sio3 a little high compared with adjoining stations. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 27/1 105 o2 2 Oxygen appears high compared with CTD up/down trace and adjoining stations. sio3 also a little high compared with adjoining stations. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 27/1 111 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD. Different features seen in CTD up/dn trace. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 27/1 118 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Gradient, other reading do not resolve difference. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 27/1 134 bottle 2 Vent open, only nutrients and salinity drawn. Salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 27/1 134 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 28/1 104 salt 2 Salinity thimble came off when cap was removed. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 28/1 109 salt 2 Salinity bottle rim chipped, seal not affected, bad sampling technique. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 28/1 111 sio3 2 sio3 ˜2um/l high compared with adjoining stations. Analyst: "No analytical problems. Adjoining stations do appear to exhibit a similar profile around the same depth." 28/1 117 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 28/1 124 salt 2 Salinity bottle rim chipped, seal not affected, bad sampling technique. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 29/1 111 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, gradient. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 29/1 117 o2 2 Oxygen 4um/kg high compare with CTD down cast, agrees with up cast and adjoining stations. 30/1 108 salt 2 Salinity thimble popped off when cap was removed. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 30/1 118 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. 30/1 136 salt 2 Salinity thimble came off in the cap. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 31/1 107 o2 2 Oxygen appears high compared with adjoining stations, CTD trace shows higher oxygen. NO3, PO4, sio3 have a lower signal and salinity a little higher. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 31/1 108 bottle 2 Vent open. Oxygen may be a little high, but is acceptable as are salinity and nutrients. 31/1 108 o2 2 Oxygen appears high compared with adjoining stations, CTD trace shows higher oxygen. NO3, PO4, sio3 have a lower signal and salinity a little higher. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 31/1 109 sio3 2 sio3 ˜9 units high. Analyst: "Silicate values appear to be approx. 9 units too high. However, values fit the profile and are similar to adjoining stations. The peaks are real and no analytical problems were noted." 31/1 110 sio3 2 sio3 ˜9 units high. Analyst: "Silicate values appear to be approx. 9 units too high. However, values fit the profile and are similar to adjoining stations. The peaks are real and no analytical problems were noted." 31/1 111 sio3 2 sio3 ˜9 units high. Analyst: "Silicate values appear to be approx. 9 units too high. However, values fit the profile and are similar to adjoining stations. The peaks are real and no analytical problems were noted." Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 31/1 112 sio3 2 sio3 ˜9 units high. Analyst: "Silicate values appear to be approx. 9 units too high. However, values fit the profile and are similar to adjoining stations. The peaks are real and no analytical problems were noted." 31/1 117 salt 2 Salinity thimble popped off in the cap when removed. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 31/1 131 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, bottle salinity agrees with adjoining stations. Both the CTD up and down trace agree with each other, CTD is not spiky at bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 31/1 132 bottle 2 Vent open. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 32/1 112 o2 4 Oxygen 0. 2 ml/l high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. No analytical problems noted, appears that the sample was drawn from bottle 11. Code oxygen bad, salinity and nutrients acceptable. 33/1 106 po4 2 po4 is slightly high without obvious oceanographic causes. Analyst: "No analytical problems noted." po4 is acceptable. 33/1 107 po4 2 po4 is slightly high without obvious oceanographic causes. Analyst: "No analytical problems noted." po4 is acceptable. 33/1 108 po4 2 po4 is slightly high without obvious oceanographic causes. Analyst: "No analytical problems noted." po4 is acceptable. 33/1 109 po4 2 po4 is slightly high without obvious oceanographic causes. Analyst: "No analytical problems noted." po4 is acceptable. 33/1 109 salt 2 Salinity bottle had a chipped rim; replace with spare bottles after running sample. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 33/1 110 po4 2 po4 is slightly high without obvious oceanographic causes. Analyst: "No analytical problems noted." po4 is acceptable. 33/1 117 salt 2 Salinity thimble popped off when cap was removed. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 33/1 130 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD. Salinity agrees with adjoining stations and is acceptable as are oxygen and nutrients. 34/2 217 salt 2 Salinity bottle rim chipped, seal not affected. Bad sampling technique. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 34/2 219 o2 2 Oxygen appears low compared with adjoining stations. Corresponding feature not seen in nutrients or salinity. Analyst: "No analytical problem, endpoint/ titration looks good." 35/1 109 salt 2 Salinity thimble popped off when cap was removed. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 35/1 121 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Salinity agrees with adjoining stations, and is acceptable as are oxygen and nutrients. 36/1 110 salt 2 Salinities bottles 10 & 11 were reversed in box. Last used on Station 31 and that station data is acceptable. 36/1 127 bottle 4 Bottle appears to have mistripped and then leaked on the way up. Code bottle, did not trip as scheduled, and samples bad. 36/1 127 no2 4 36/1 127 no3 4 36/1 127 o2 4 Oxygen appears reasonable, but the draw temperature is 1. 4-2. 3 degrees lower than adjoining bottles. DIC analyst reports data also shows an anomaly. 36/1 127 po4 4 Nutrients look high as though they came from deeper in the water column. Oxygen looks reasonable, but the draw temperature is 1. 4-2. 3 degrees lower than adjoining bottles. DIC analyst reports data also shows an anomaly. 36/1 127 sio3 4 Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 37/1 104 salt 2 Salinity thimble came out with the cap. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 39/1 127 o2 4 Left tip out, stopped titration, started over. Oxygen does not agree with adjoining stations or CTD. Code oxygen bad. 40/1 117 o2 2 Began to form curve at voltage made a straight line at end of titration. Oxygen is acceptable. 41/1 111 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity thimble came off with cap. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 41/1 113 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity thimble came off with cap. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 42/1 104 salt 2 Salinity thimble came off when cap was removed. Salinity, although a little low compared with CTD, is acceptable as well as oxygen and nutrients. 42/1 119 bottle 2 Bottles 20-35 were not tripped per sampling schedule. 43/2 222 bottle 2 Bottles 23-35 were not tripped per sampling schedule. 44/1 101 bottle 2 Winch problems delayed recovery nearly two hours. Package held at 18 meters while winch repair was performed. Oxygen and well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 44/1 109 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 44/1 118 no2 5 44/1 118 no3 5 44/1 118 po4 5 Nutrient tube was found empty, sampling error. 44/1 118 sio3 5 47/1 106 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Used first reading which made salinity agree with CTD and adjoining stations. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 47/1 127 po4 2 N:P ratio low , suspect po4 is high. Analyst: "no analytical problems noted, Analyst: "No analytical problems noted." JHS: "No problems on sections of po4 on PRES, NO3/PO4 on PRES, or NO/PO on PRES. Data are acceptable." 49/1 101 bottle 2 DOC sampled 1-8 after salinity. 49/1 103 bottle 2 Bottom endcap wrapped by recovery line, likely okay. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 49/1 107 sio3 2 sio3 appears low in relation to Oxygen. Features seen in adjoining stations. No analytical problems noted. Nutrients as well as salinity and oxygen are acceptable. 49/1 112 salt 4 Salinity low appears to have been drawn from bottle 11. Oxygen and nutrients do not show a feature. Code salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients acceptable. 49/1 117 bottle 2 Bottom lanyard caught on recovery hook, leaker. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 49/1 129 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 49/1 129 o2 5 Oxygen may have skipped 29, 30 or 31. On bottle 32 when discovery of missed sample was made. Appears that sample 29 was missed. 49/1 130 o2 2 Oxygen may have skipped 29, 30 or 31. On bottle 32 when discovery of missed sample was made. 49/1 131 o2 2 Oxygen may have skipped 29, 30 or 31. On bottle 32 when discovery of missed sample was made. 50/1 113 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading results in better value, may have had a salt crystal for the third reading. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 50/1 134 ctds 4 Spike in CTD up trace at bottle trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 50/1 134 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Feature seen in both the down and up trace, Spike in CTD up trace. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 51/2 201 o2 2 Oxygen NaI/NaOH dispenser not primed before fixing, proper amount possibly not added, result maybe no good. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 51/2 206 bottle 2 Special bottle tripped with 5 for CFC in growth/ incubation experiment. 51/2 220 salt 4 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. Salinity appears to be a drawing error and sample is from last time salt was drawn from this box. Code salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients acceptable. 51/2 231 bottle 2 End cap was bumped during recovery and a little water leaked out. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 51/2 235 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 51/2 235 o2 5 Oxygen flask 1365 broke in box in the lab. 52/1 123 no3 2 Nutrient samples appear to be switched. Evidence in oxygen low erat490db and higher at 571 which agrees with CTD. Changed the sample number and the data is acceptable. 52/1 123 po4 2 Nutrient samples appear to be switched. Evidence in oxygen low erat490db and higher at 571 which agrees with CTD. Changed the sample number and the data is acceptable. 52/1 124 no3 2 Nutrient samples appear to be switched. Evidence in oxygen low erat490db and higher at 571 which agrees with CTD. Changed the sample number and the data is acceptable. 52/1 124 po4 2 Nutrient samples appear to be switched. Evidence in oxygen low erat490db and higher at 571 which agrees with CTD. Changed the sample number and the data is acceptable. 53/2 226 o2 2 CHECK: Oxygen appears high compared with adjoining stations and CTD. 53/2 234 bottle 3 Bottle leaking, vent not fully closed. Oxygen not drawn, salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 53/2 234 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 54/1 105 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading gave good agreement with CTD and station profile. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 54/1 116 no2 4 54/1 116 no3 4 54/1 116 o2 4 54/1 116 po4 4 54/1 116 salt 4 54/1 116 sio3 4 55/2 204 o2 2 Oxygen appears low compared with adjoining stations and in relationship with SiO3, agrees with CTD, some spiking in CTDO. No analytical problems. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 55/2 209 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, gradient. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 56/1 135 ctds 4 CTD was responding to changes while the CTD was equilibrating at the bottle trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 56/1 135 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD. CTD was responding to changes while the CTD was equilibrating at the bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 57/2 201 o2 2 Oxygen appears low compared with CTDO. Nutrients are slightly low compared with adjoining stations and salinity a little high. No analytical problems found. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 57/2 201 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. Insert came off in cap when opened for analysis. First reading resolved initial salinity discrepancy, suspect salinity crystal for additional readings. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 57/2 236 salt 2 Salinity thimble popped off when cap was removed. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved initial salinity discrepancy, suspect salinity crystal for additional readings. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 58/1 134 bottle 2 Bottle leaks from spigot when vent opened. Checked o- rings and bottle after the cast, refilled the bottle, could not find a problem. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 59/1 127 salt 2 Salinity bottle rim chip, seal compromised. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 60/1 101 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and adjoining stations. No analytical problem noted, and does not appear to be a rinsing issue. Within accuracy of the measurement, salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. JHS: "This station is on top of a ridge so may be expected to be a bit different." 60/1 113 bottle 2 Bottle was knocked on recovery, may have leaked. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 62/2 203 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading did not resolve low salinity value. Salinity is within accuracy of the measurement, oxygen and nutrients are also acceptable. 62/2 206 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 62/2 226 bottle 2 Vent open - not sampled for oxygen. 63/1 104 salt 2 Salinity thimble popped off when cap was removed. Salinity is a little low , within accuracy of the measurement. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 63/1 126 o2 2 Oxygen appears low compared with adjoining stations. po4 has a little high feature, do not see corresponding feature in other properties. No analytical problem noted. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 64/1 114 salt 5 Salinity bottle split open when placed on autosal- sample lost. 64/1 122 o2 2 Oxygen appears high compared with CTDO, agrees reasonably well with adjoining stations. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 66/1 110 bottle 2 Special bottle tripped with 11 for CFC in growth/ incubation experiment. 66/1 110 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 66/1 133 o2 2 Sample was over titrated and back titrated. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 68/1 114 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy, must have been a salinity crystal. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable 68/1 121 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy, must have been a salinity crystal. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable 68/1 123 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Variation in CTD salinity at the bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 68/1 134 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD down trace and adjoining stations as are 35 and 36, but agree with the CTD up trace. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 69/1 104 salt 2 Duplicate draw, originally reported as bottle 5. Salinity with reassignment of sample numbers are acceptable. 69/1 115 salt 5 Salinity samples 105-115 actually from 104-114, sample 15 not lost. Salinity with reassignment of sample numbers are acceptable. 70/1 101 po4 2 po4 appears low , could be oceanography. Analyst: "Rechecked analytical data and could find no problems." 70/1 102 po4 2 po4 appears low , could be oceanography. Analyst: "Rechecked analytical data and could find no problems." 70/1 103 po4 2 po4 appears low , could be oceanography. Analyst: "Rechecked analytical data and could find no problems." 70/1 104 po4 2 po4 appears low , could be oceanography. Analyst: "Rechecked analytical data and could find no problems." 70/1 104 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble came out with cap. Readings kept increasing - took first reading only. Salinity is within accuracy of measurement. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 70/1 105 po4 2 po4 appears low , could be oceanography. Analyst: "Rechecked analytical data and could find no problems." 70/1 109 po4 2 po4 appears low , could be oceanography. Analyst: "Rechecked analytical data and could find no problems." 70/1 110 po4 2 po4 appears low , could be oceanography. Analyst: "Rechecked analytical data and could find no problems." 70/1 111 po4 2 po4 appears low , could be oceanography. Analyst: "Rechecked analytical data and could find no problems." 70/1 112 po4 2 po4 appears low , could be oceanography. Analyst: "Rechecked analytical data and could find no problems." 70/1 118 bottle 2 Vent open - not sampled for oxygen. Salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 70/1 118 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 70/1 126 bottle 2 Vent open - not sampled for oxygen. Salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 70/1 126 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 71/2 202 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading did not resolve small salinity discrepancy, within specifications of the measurement. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 71/2 236 salt 2 5 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 73/2 231 o2 2 Oxygen had bad endpoint; new titer entered. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 74/1 117 bottle 9 Bottle did not trip. Lanyard caught on hose clamp. Not sampled. 74/1 117 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 77/1 101 bottle 2 Bottles were tripped on-the-fly for the entire cast. 77/1 101 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and with Station 75, within accuracy of measurement. Bottles tripped on-the-fly, salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 77/1 102 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and with Station 75, within accuracy of measurement. Bottles tripped on-the-fly, salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 77/1 103 salt 4 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and Station 75. Bottle salinity thimble came out with cap. Bottles tripped on-the-fly, code salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 77/1 112 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. po4 and no3 are appropriately low oxygen a little higher, sio3 does not show this feature. Bottles were tripped on-the-fly, salinity appears to show the water from lower in the water column. 78/1 108 sio3 2 sio3 appears 3 uM/kg low. No analytical problems noted. JHS: o2 vs. sio3 relationship is good. Signal is oceanographic and acceptable. 78/1 114 o2 2 Endpoint curve started at 2. 1 and ended at 2. 3 making a straight line. Oxygen low compared with CTDO and adjoining stations. Rechecked endpoint, resolved issue. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 78/1 136 bottle 2 Bottle was tripped on-the-fly. 79/1 112 salt 2 Salinity thimble came out with cap. Salinity a little high, within accuracy of measurement. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 79/1 124 salt 4 Salinity appears to have been drawn from bottles 29. Code salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients acceptable. 79/1 132 o2 2 Oxygen appears high compared with the CTDO down trace, agrees with the up trace and the adjoining stations. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. Analyst: "No analytical problem, endpoint/titration looks good." 79/1 133 o2 2 Oxygen appears high compared with the CTDO down trace, agrees with the up trace and the adjoining stations. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. Analyst: "No analytical problem, endpoint/titration looks good." 80/1 102 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 80/1 122 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 80/1 133 o2 2 Bad endpoint on oxygen, recalculated and entered new titer. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 82/1 105 o2 2 Oxygen slightly high compared with CTDO, agrees with adjoining stations. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. Analyst: "No analytical problem, endpoint/titration looks good." 82/1 113 bottle 2 Bottle tripped without the 30 second wait. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 82/1 123 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 82/1 132 no3 2 po4 and no3 look high compared with adjoining stations, low feature in oxygen. No corresponding feature seen in salinity or silicate. Analyst: "The peaks are great, there were no analytical problems." Nutrients as well as salinity and oxygen are acceptable. 84/1 105 sio3 2 sio3 high, no corresponding feature in NO3, PO4, o2 or salinity. Analyst: "CheckedSiO3 peaks, no analytical problems found." 84/1 106 sio3 2 sio3 high, no corresponding feature in NO3, PO4, o2 or salinity. Analyst: "CheckedSiO3 peaks, no analytical problems found." 84/1 125 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First treading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 85/2 213 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 85/2 221 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 85/2 225 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 85/2 229 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading did not completely resolve salinity discrepancy, within accuracy of measurement. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 85/2 231 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 85/2 235 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 86/1 126 salt 2 Salinity thimble came out when cap was removed. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 87/2 201 o2 2 Oxygen appears low compared with CTDO, agrees with adjoining stations. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. Analyst: "Rechecked end points, no analytical problems found." 88/1 102 o2 2 Oxygen appears high compared with adjoining stations, 0. 02ml/l. No corresponding feature seen in salinity or nutrients. Analyst: "No analytical problem, endpoint/ titration looks good." 88/1 119 o2 2 Oxygen appears high compared with adjoining stations, and o2 vs. sio3 relationship, but agrees with CTDO. No corresponding feature seen in salinity or nutrients. Analyst: "No analytical problem, endpoint/titration looks good." 88/1 121 o2 4 Oxygen flask 1377 was used with stopper from Flask 1601 o2 value maybe incorrect. Code oxygen bad. 91/2 201 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable 91/2 202 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable 91/2 209 po4 4 po4 ˜0. 04um/l high compared with adjoining stations. Salinity, oxygen and other nutrients are acceptable. Analyst: "CheckedPO4 peak, peak manually read due to bubble, possibly too high, code data as bad." 91/2 215 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 91/2 221 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Gradient, salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 91/2 232 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD. Variation in CTD, salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 91/2 233 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, does appear slightly higher than station 90 salinity, but acceptable. Variation in CTD, but still not "in-line" with bottle salinity, leave as is. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 93/1 134 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees reasonably well with adjoining stations. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 93/1 136 no2 4 93/1 136 no3 4 93/1 136 o2 4 93/1 136 po4 4 93/1 136 salt 4 93/1 136 sio3 4 94/1 101 bottle 2 Special bottle tripped with 2 for CFC in growth/ incubation experiment. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 94/1 101 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 94/1 108 salt 4 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. Could not resolve salinity discrepancy. Code salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 94/1 133 o2 2 Oxygen bad endpoint, recalculated new titer. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 95/2 210 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and adjoining stations. Appears to have been drawn from bottle 12, is not a bottle problem. Code salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 95/2 211 po4 2 Nutrients as well as salinity and oxygen are acceptable. 95/2 233 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, agrees with adjoining stations. Spike in CTD trace at bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 96/1 101 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy within accuracy of measurement. po4 and sio3 appeared a little low , but within accuracy of the measurement. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 96/1 115 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. No analytical problems noted, gradient area. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 96/1 134 ctds 4 CTD spike at trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 96/1 134 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD. CTD spike at trip. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 97/1 121 o2 2 Oxygen bad end point, recalculated new titer. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 97/1 125 o2 2 Oxygen bad end point, recalculated new titer. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 98/1 103 bottle 2 Special bottle tripped with 4 for CFC in growth/ incubation experiment. 98/1 103 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 99/2 230 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved the salinity discrepancy within accuracy of the measurement. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 101/1 110 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 102/2 202 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 102/2 217 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees with adjoining stations. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 103/1 103 salt 2 Salinity bottle 1 and 3 were reversed in the sampling crate. Salinity for bottle 3does appear slightly high, but certainly not from bottle 1. Salinity within measurement accuracy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 103/1 104 o2 2 Oxygen appears high compared with CTDO, but agrees with Station 102. sio3 relationship also acceptable. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 103/1 104 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 103/1 107 o2 2 Oxygen appears high compared with CTDO, but agrees with Station 102. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 103/1 109 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 103/1 117 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD agrees with adjoining stations. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 103/1 130 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 104/1 101 bottle 2 Only equilibrated the sensor for 18 seconds, bottom was changing rapidly per altimeter. 104/1 109 o2 2 Oxygen drawn twice, first flask 1136 broke. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 104/1 136 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble came out with cap. Liquid appeared to run back down inside bottle. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 105/1 112 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble came out with cap. Readings increased in the classic contamination fashion. Took first reading only. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 105/1 123 bottle 2 Bottle loose on frame. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 106/2 205 bottle 2 Special bottle tripped with 4 for CFC incubation/incubation experiment. 106/2 205 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 107/1 101 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved most of the discrepancy, still appears slightly high, within accuracy of measurement. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 107/1 123 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 107/1 127 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 107/1 133 ctds 4 CTD is spiky at bottle trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 107/1 133 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD. CTD is spiky at bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 108/1 130 ctds 4 CTD spiky at trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 108/1 130 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. CTD spiky at trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 108/1 131 ctds 4 CTD spiky at trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 108/1 131 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. CTD spiky at trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 108/1 132 ctds 4 CTD spiky at trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 108/1 132 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD. CTD spiky at trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 108/1 133 ctds 4 CTD spiky at trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 108/1 133 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. CTD spiky at trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 109/1 114 o2 4 Overshot oxygen endpoint over titrate did not work, lost sample. Code oxygen bad. 109/1 118 bottle 4 Anomalous features in oxygen and nutrients, could be real, will wait for salinity to be analyzed before making a determination. Bottle mistripped, code bottle 4, salinity, oxygen and nutrients bad. 109/1 118 no2 4 109/1 118 no3 4 109/1 118 o2 4 Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 109/1 118 po4 4 109/1 118 salt 4 109/1 118 sio3 4 109/1 133 o2 2 Bad o2 endpoint, recalculated new titer. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 110/2 201 bottle 2 Bottom endcap knocked on recovery, small amount of water leaked. Salinity is high, but within accuracy of the measurement. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 110/2 203 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 110/2 225 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 111/1 107 no2 4 111/1 107 no3 4 111/1 107 po4 4 po4 and no3 high, sio3 low compared with adjoining stations. No corresponding feature seen in salinity and oxygen. Looks like a drawing error. Analyst: "No analytical problems. "Code nutrients bad, oxygen and salinity acceptable. 111/1 107 sio3 4 111/1 115 salt 2 8 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity agrees with CTD and adjoining stations. First reading results in a high reading as much as last readings were low. Salinity agrees with CTD and adjoining stations within accuracy of the measurement. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 111/1 119 o2 2 Oxygen titration curve for choosing and endpoint was not reasonable, value may not be good. Oxygen high compared with CTDO, but agrees with Station 110. Analyst: "Recalculated and updated titer." 111/1 121 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity agrees with CTD and adjoining stations. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 111/1 125 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading would result in a low reading as much as the second and third reading was high. Salinity agrees with CTD and adjoining stations and within accuracy of the measurement. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 111/1 133 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees with adjoining stations, full sampling station. Variation at bottle trip, but none of the sampling points are with the bottle. The CTD up and down agree fairly well. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 112/1 101 salt 2 Salinity ending SSW gave a large drift, suspect initial standard was low. Salinity values agree with adjoining stations and CTD, lab temperature was almost 1 degree lower than 4 hours early. Salinity is acceptable. 113/1 119 salt 2 5 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional readings do not resolve the salinity discrepancy. Gradient, salinity agrees with adjoining stations. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 113/1 127 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional readings do not resolve the slight salinity discrepancy. Salinity agrees with adjoining stations. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 114/2 201 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 114/2 214 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 5 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 114/2 217 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 5 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 114/2 218 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 114/2 231 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 114/2 232 ctds 4 CTD spiky at bottle trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 114/2 232 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD. CTD spiky at bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 114/2 236 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 115/1 104 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. Salinity operator error, removed the sample bottle too early and starting analyzing 5, corrected error. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 115/1 115 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 115/1 126 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional readings did not make a significant difference in salinity value. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 115/1 130 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 115/1 133 ctds 4 CTD spiky at bottle trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 115/1 133 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and adjoining stations. CTD spiky at bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 116/1 110 sio3 2 sio3 high, does not agree with adjoining stations or station profile and high in relationship to oxygen. Station 114 and 115 did exhibit a higher sio3 at this density level. JHS: This may be a boundary between two water masses, with all sio3 data good in this depth range at these stations, 114-119. 117/1 129 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First salinity reading resolve discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 118/2 201 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 118/2 202 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Although still a little high, it is within the accuracy of the measurement. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 118/2 230 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading was a little realistic, within accuracy of measurement. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 118/2 232 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 118/2 236 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 119/1 136 bottle 2 Surface bottle was tripped at 12m, console operator asked to bring up to 5 meters instead of the surface. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 119/1 136 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional readings did not resolve salinity discrepancy, salinity within accuracy of the measurement. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 120/1 121 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble came out with cap. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients. 120/1 130 ctds 4 CTD spiky at trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 120/1 130 salt 2 Salinity thimble came out with cap. Salinity agrees with adjoining stations, CTD spiky at trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 120/1 131 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional reading did not resolve salinity discrepancy, within accuracy of the measurement. CTD spiky at trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 121/1 118 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Operator error, removed bottle before finished analyzing second set of readings, corrected. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 121/1 132 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 121/1 134 ctds 4 CTD spiky at trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 121/1 134 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. CTD spiky at trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 123/1 131 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. May have not flushed well before starting the readings, second reading gives better results. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 123/1 132 ctds 4 CTD is spiky at bottle trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 123/1 132 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. CTD is spiky at bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 124/1 105 salt 4 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees with Station 123. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading, could not resolve salinity discrepancy with additional readings. Code salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 124/1 107 sio3 2 sio3 appears low on the station profile. Agrees with Station 123 and oxygen has a higher feature. po4 and no3 also exhibit lower feature. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 124/1 130 ctds 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD. CTD spiky at bottle trip. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 124/1 130 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD. CTD spiky at bottle trip. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 125/1 132 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 125/1 136 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 126/2 207 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 126/2 234 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Variation also seen in the up and down trace. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 126/2 235 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Variation also seen in the up and down trace. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 127/1 101 bottle 2 CFC and Helium sample 1-7 then waited ˜10 minutes for oxygen to start. 127/1 108 salt 2 Salinity thimble popped off when cap was removed. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 127/1 119 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved small salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 127/1 126 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble jarred loose by cap - liquid almost certainly ran inside bottle. Took first reading only. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 127/1 129 ctds 4 CTD spiky at bottle trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 127/1 129 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD. CTD spiky at bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 128/1 134 bottle 2 Vent was open. Oxygen is a little high compared with CTD, agrees with adjoining stations. Oxygen, salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 129/1 104 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 129/1 110 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 129/1 114 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 129/1 115 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 129/1 122 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 129/1 125 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 130/1 101 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 5 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resoled salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 130/1 102 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resoled salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 130/1 103 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resoled salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 130/1 104 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 130/1 105 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 130/1 109 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 130/1 113 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 130/1 114 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 130/1 119 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 130/1 120 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 130/1 123 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 130/1 125 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional reading did not resolve discrepancy, leave as is. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 130/1 128 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional reading did not resolve discrepancy, leave as is. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 130/1 130 bottle 2 Bottles 31-35 were not tripped per sampling schedule. 131/2 222 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading would result in a higher salinity, second and third are reasonable. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 131/2 224 ctds 4 CTD spiky at bottle trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 131/2 224 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and adjoining stations, but CTD trace shows lower salinity. CTD spiky at bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 132/1 102 salt 4 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD on station profile. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Second reading did not resolve salinity discrepancy, contamination. Code salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 132/1 103 bottle 2 Special bottle tripped with 4 for pH only. 132/1 103 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 132/1 124 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 132/1 129 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. Spiky CTD at bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 133/1 103 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees with adjoining stations. Bottle 2 appears low compared with adjoining stations, although the agreement with the CTD was better. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 133/1 106 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 133/1 116 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 134/1 102 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 5 attempts for a good salinity reading. Rim chip, does not affect sample. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 134/1 105 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 134/1 125 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 135/2 201 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 135/2 210 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 135/2 211 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 135/2 222 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading did not resolve small salinity discrepancy, but reasonable value. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 135/2 234 ctds 4 Variation in CTD at bottle trip, CTD spiky. Code CTD salinity bad. 135/2 234 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Variation in CTD at bottle trip, CTD spiky. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 136/1 101 salt 2 Salinity bottles were cleaned prior to this cast. 136/1 103 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Thimble came out with cap. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 136/1 124 salt 3 Salinity Thimble came out with cap. Salinity although a high compared to CTD is acceptable as are oxygen and nutrients. 138/1 101 salt 2 Room temperature increased 4. 3 degrees in one hour. Analyst had been away from the salinometer for that long, samples 1-8 had been run. A new salinity run was started one hour later, the room temperature decreased 3.4 degrees. Salinity agreement with adjoining stations and CTD seems reasonable. 138/1 119 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 138/1 120 o2 2 Oxygen bad endpoint, recalculated, entered new titer. Oxygen agrees with CTD and adjoining stations. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 138/1 123 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 138/1 134 ctds 4 Large CTD spike at bottle trip, code CTD salinity bad. 138/1 134 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD. Large CTD spike at bottle trip. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 139/2 201 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 5 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 139/2 206 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 139/2 207 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 139/2 208 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 139/2 212 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 139/2 216 salt 5 Sampling error, salinity not collected. 139/2 233 ctds 4 Variation in CTD trace, CTD spiky. Code CTD salinity bad. 139/2 233 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Variation in CTD trace, CTD spiky. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 139/2 234 ctds 4 Variation in CTD trace, CTD spiky. Code CTD salinity bad. 140/1 109 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Second reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 140/1 110 salt 2 Salinity thimble came out with cap. Salinity is a little low compared with CTD. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 140/1 112 sio3 2 sio3 looks high, fits well with stations >140, sio3 is acceptable. Analyst: "Peak slightly higher than 11, looks valid." 140/1 120 salt 2 Salinity severe rim chip, seal affected, bottle discarded. Salinity agreement with CTD is acceptable. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 140/1 127 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Cap jarred thimble loose, apparent contamination. Took first reading only. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 141/1 101 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations, appears to have been a drawing error with bottle 2. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 141/1 124 o2 2 Oxygen bad endpoint, recalculated and entered new titer. Oxygen appears slightly high compared with adjoining stations, but is acceptable as are salinity and nutrients. 141/1 134 ctds 4 Variation in CTD at bottle trip, CTD spiky. Code CTD salinity bad. 141/1 134 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD. Variation in CTD at bottle trip, CTD spiky. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 142/1 101 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 5 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional readings did not resolve salinity discrepancy. Lab temperature change, suspect that salinity was affected. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients acceptable. 142/1 102 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD agrees with 141 and ˜0. 001 higher than 140, both 141 and 142 are higher than 143. Lab temperature change, suspect that salinity was affected. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients acceptable. 142/1 103 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD agrees with 141 and ˜0. 001 higher than 140, both 141 and 142 are higher than 143. Lab temperature change, suspect that salinity was affected. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients acceptable. 142/1 107 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. No analytical problem noted. Code salinity questionable, oxygen is acceptable. 142/1 110 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen are acceptable. 142/1 116 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen are acceptable. 142/1 130 sio3 2 sio3 low ˜1unit. Oxygen slightly higher on the station profile, do not see the feature in salinity, po4 or NO3. 142/1 134 ctds 4 Variation in CTD traces, CTD spiky at bottle trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 142/1 134 o2 2 Oxygen bad endpoint, recalculated and entered new titer. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 142/1 134 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Variation in CTD traces, CTD spiky at bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen are acceptable. 143/2 210 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble came out with cap. Classic contamination pattern. Took first reading only. Second reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 143/2 224 salt 2 Salinity thimble came out with cap. Salinity appears a little high compared with CTD, agrees with adjoining stations. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 143/2 234 ctds 4 Variation in CTD trace at bottle trip, CTD spiky. Code CTD salinity bad. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 143/2 234 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Variation in CTD trace at bottle trip, CTD spiky. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 144/1 104 salt 2 m 145/2 201 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. There was a air temperature difference for some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 145/2 202 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. There was a air temperature difference for some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 145/2 203 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. There was a air temperature difference for some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 145/2 204 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. There was a air temperature difference for some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 145/2 205 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. There was a air temperature difference for some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 145/2 206 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. There was a air temperature difference for some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 145/2 207 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. There was a air temperature difference for some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 145/2 208 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. There was a air temperature difference for some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 145/2 209 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. There was a air temperature difference for some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 145/2 210 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. There was a air temperature difference for some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 145/2 211 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. There was a air temperature difference for some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 145/2 212 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. There was a air temperature difference for some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 146/1 102 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 6 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 146/1 103 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 146/1 112 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 147/2 216 o2 5 Oxygen sampling 16-22 were off by one bottle. Sample 16 was drawn from 17 and 22 was sampled twice. Salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 148/1 115 salt 4 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. Initial sample fill low. Code salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 148/1 133 ctds 4 148/1 133 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Variation in CTD salinity at bottle trip, CTD spiky. Code CTD salinity bad, salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 150/1 110 sio3 2 sio3 high compared with adjoining stations and in relationship to oxygen. Analyst: "The peak is real and good, there were no analytical problems noted and the dpcal value is good. Adjoining stations have a similar spikeinSiO3 around the same depth." 151/1 135 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Variation at trip, CTD as well as Bottle salinity are reasonable. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 152/1 111 sio3 2 sio3 high, there is also a high sio3 for Station 150. The signal is not seen in other nutrients or oxygen. 154/1 102 bottle 2 Special bottle tripped with 3 for CFC incubation/incubation experiment. 154/1 102 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 155/1 101 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and on station profile. Salinity appears 0. 001 high on the station profile and almost 0. 003 compared with the CTD, within accuracy of the measurement. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 156/1 101 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD reasonable agreement with adjoining stations. Oxygen and no3 are low , SiO and po4 are high. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 156/1 106 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 156/1 127 salt 2 Salinity thimble came off with cap. Salinity agrees with adjoining stations and within accuracy with the CTD considering the size of the package. Some water entrainment noticeable in the CTD up cast at bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 156/1 131 ctds 4 Variation at the bottle trip from entrained water, code CTD salinity bad. 156/1 131 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Variation at the bottle trip, Bottle salinity is acceptable as are oxygen and nutrients. 156/1 133 ctds 4 Variation at the bottle trip from entrained water, code CTD salinity bad. 157/1 102 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. Suspect that salinity was too warm for the bath temperature, most deep samples 1-5 are just outside of the accuracy of the measurement. Code salinity as questionable 1-5, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 158/1 131 ctds 4 Variation at bottle trip, code CTD salinity bad. 158/1 131 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Variation in CTD at bottle trip, code CTD salinity bad. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 160/1 101 salt 2 Required 2 SSW at end of run-first read high, had higher than normal fill level before opening. 160/1 103 bottle 2 Special bottle tripped with 2 for pH. 160/1 103 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 160/1 117 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees with adjoining stations. Variation in CTD at bottle trip could have caused a larger difference. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 160/1 124 salt 2 Salinity thimble came out with cap. Salinity high compared with CTD, agrees with adjoining stations. 161/1 101 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees with adjoining stations. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 161/1 113 bottle 2 Endcap knocked open during recovery. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 161/1 132 bottle 2 Bottles 33-35 were not tripped per sampling schedule. 162/1 133 ctds 4 Variation in CTD up trace at bottle trip, code CTD salinity bad. 162/1 133 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees with adjoining stations. Variation in CTD up trace at bottle trip, code CTD salinity bad. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 163/2 201 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. No analytical problems noted may not have been flushed after the beginning SSW. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 164/1 133 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Variations in CTD up trace at bottle trip. Code CTD salinity bad. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 165/1 101 salt 4 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. Suspect cells in salinometer were not flushed adequately after SSW. Code salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 166/1 110 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, agrees with adjoining stations in the gradient. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 166/1 132 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD. Variations in the CTD up trace responding to less saline water from below. Code CTD salinity questionable. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 167/1 127 o2 2 Oxygen appears high compared with adjoining stations, agrees with CTD up trace. Nutrients do not show this same feature. Salinity is a little high compared with CTD and acceptable. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 168/1 119 salt 4 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Slightly low compared with CTD. Operator pulled 19 early. Took first reading and keyboard entered it for reading 3, reading 2 is from sample 20. Code salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 170/2 201 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Station 168 is the deepest adjoining station and is within accuracy of measurement. Suspect cells on salinometer were not flushed enough after the higher SSW. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients acceptable. 170/2 209 bottle 2 Vent was open. Oxygen looks reasonable. There was minimal sampling on this bottle, salinity, oxygen and nutrients. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 170/2 234 bottle 2 Vent was open. Oxygen a little high compared with CTD, but higher features on adjoining stations. There was minimal sampling on this bottle, salinity, oxygen and nutrients. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 171/1 112 bottle 2 Bottle fired with 13, missed firing the bottle depth of 1635, operator error. Does not effect the samples, bottle was properly equilibrated when tripped. 171/1 128 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD. Appears to be the difference in physical location of the CTD versus the bottle. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 171/1 131 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, agrees with Station 170 and 173. Appears to be the difference in physical location of the CTD versus the bottle. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 173/1 131 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, agrees with adjoining stations. CTD has a spike at the bottle trip, code CTD salinity bad. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 174/1 102 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. At the salinity run for Station 176, the analyst found that the heater lamp had burnt out. Salinities on this station are all a little high with this sample being out of measurement accuracy. The lab temperature, although it did not change but by a few tenths, was also a degree lower than 5 hours before this run. sio3 is high on the station profile, agrees with adjoining stations. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 175/2 201 salt 3 The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning on Station 176. It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code salinities questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 175/2 202 salt 3 The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning on Station 176. It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code salinities questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 175/2 203 salt 3 The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning on Station 176. It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code salinities questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 175/2 204 salt 3 The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning on Station 176. It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code salinities questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 175/2 205 salt 3 The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning on Station 176. It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code salinities questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 175/2 206 salt 3 The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning on Station 176. It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code salinities questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 175/2 208 salt 3 The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning on Station 176. It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code salinities questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 175/2 210 salt 3 The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning on Station 176. It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code salinities questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 175/2 211 salt 3 The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning on Station 176. It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code salinities questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 175/2 225 o2 2 Oxygen temp sensor malfunction. Oxygen draw temp estimated from bottles above and below. Oxygen um/kg appears reasonable. 176/1 101 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning. It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code salinities questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 176/1 103 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning. It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code salinities bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 176/1 132 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD. CTD is spiky at bottle trip. Code CTD salinity bad. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 178/1 101 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. Suspect salinometer cell not properly flushed after higher SSW. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 178/1 106 bottle 2 Special bottle tripped with 5 for CFC incubation/incubation experiment. 178/1 106 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 178/1 125 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Second and third reading resolved slight salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 178/1 129 ctds 4 CTD spiky from water entrainment. 178/1 129 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and adjoining stations. CTD spiky from water entrainment below , code CTD salinity bad. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 179/2 222 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and adjoining stations. Salinity appears to have drawn from 21. Code salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 180/1 102 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 182/1 108 bottle 2 Special bottle tripped with 7 for CFC incubation/incubation experiment. Stn/ Samp Qual. Cast No. Prop. Code Comment ----- ---- ----- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 182/1 108 CTDOXY 5 CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 182/1 133 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD. Variation in CTD at bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 183/2 218 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD. Feature in CTD up trace. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 184/1 114 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble came out with cap; suspect some contamination. Additional readings did not resolve the small salinity difference, within accuracy of the measurement. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 186/1 103 salt 2 Salinity 3 and 4 were in the wrong spots in the case. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 186/1 104 salt 2 Salinity 3 and 4 were in the wrong spots in the case. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 186/1 105 salt 3 Bottle salinity high compared with CTD, and adjoining stations. No analytical problems noted. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 186/1 118 o2 3 Oxygen sample was cloudy added additional acid to get it to clear and finish titrating. Slightly high compared with adjoining stations and CTDO. Code oxygen questionable, salinity and nutrients acceptable. 187/1 101 o2 4 Black particles in the sample which may have resulted in a bad endpoint and result. End point reviewed and recalculated, did not resolve oxygen discrepancy. Code oxygen bad. 187/1 128 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 188/1 110 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. Second reading resolved salinity discrepancy. salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 189/2 216 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees with adjoining stations, gradient. Oxygen shows a low feature, nutrients higher. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 190/1 118 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional readings did not resolve small salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 190/1 122 salt 2 5 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional readings did not resolve small salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 192/1 110 salt 3 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional reading did not resolve salinity difference. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 194/1 103 salt 3 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional readings did not resolve salinity discrepancy. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 194/1 114 salt 3 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional readings did not resolve salinity discrepancy. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. APPENDIX B BOTTLE DEPTH SCHEMES The bottle depths followed the 3-scheme plan originally developed by Paul Robbins, adapted and refined by Greg Johnson for this cruise. The I5 version was more easily adjusted for bottom depth than the versions used in the past cruises for the program. Stations rotated through the three schemes, so samples collected principally on alternate stations received the same pattern, but every six stations. The tables show the three schemes used during I5. Scheme 1: 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 3 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 4 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 5 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 6 135 135 135 135 135 135 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 7 185 185 185 185 185 185 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 8 235 235 235 235 235 235 185 185 185 185 185 165 165 165 9 285 285 285 285 285 285 235 235 235 235 235 190 190 190 10 335 335 335 335 335 335 285 285 285 285 285 235 215 215 11 385 385 385 385 385 385 335 335 335 335 335 285 240 240 12 465 465 465 465 465 435 385 385 385 385 385 335 285 285 13 565 565 565 565 565 485 435 435 435 435 435 385 335 335 14 665 665 665 665 665 565 485 485 485 485 485 435 385 385 15 765 765 765 765 765 665 565 565 565 565 565 485 435 435 16 865 865 865 865 865 765 665 665 665 665 665 565 485 485 17 965 965 965 965 965 865 765 765 765 765 765 665 565 565 18 1065 1065 1065 1065 1065 965 865 865 865 865 865 765 665 665 19 1165 1165 1165 1165 1165 1065 965 965 965 965 965 865 765 765 20 1265 1265 1265 1265 1265 1165 1065 1065 1065 1065 1065 965 865 865 21 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1265 1165 1165 1165 1165 1165 1065 965 965 22 1535 1535 1535 1535 1465 1365 1265 1265 1265 1265 1265 1165 1065 1065 23 1735 1735 1735 1735 1565 1465 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1265 1165 1165 24 1935 1935 1935 1935 1735 1565 1465 1465 1465 1465 1465 1365 1265 1265 25 2165 2165 2165 2165 1935 1735 1565 1565 1565 1565 1565 1465 1365 1365 26 2415 2415 2415 2415 2165 1935 1735 1665 1665 1665 1665 1565 1465 1465 27 2665 2665 2665 2665 2415 2165 1935 1765 1765 1765 1765 1665 1565 1565 28 2915 2915 2915 2915 2665 2415 2165 1935 1935 1935 1935 1765 1665 1665 29 3200 3200 3200 3200 2915 2665 2415 2165 2165 2135 2135 1935 1765 1765 30 3500 3500 3500 3500 3200 2915 2665 2415 2415 2335 2335 2135 1935 1865 31 3865 3800 3800 3800 3500 3200 2915 2665 2665 2535 2535 2335 2135 1965 32 4265 4165 4100 4100 3800 3500 3200 2915 2915 2735 2735 2535 2335 2135 33 4665 4565 4400 4400 4100 3800 3500 3200 3165 2935 2935 2735 2535 2335 34 5065 4965 4765 4700 4400 4100 3800 3500 3415 3200 3135 2935 2735 2535 35 split spacing with bottle above 36 8 to 10 meters above the bottom Scheme 2: 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 3 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 4 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 5 115 115 115 115 115 115 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 6 165 165 165 165 165 165 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 7 215 215 215 215 215 215 165 165 165 165 165 160 160 160 8 265 265 265 265 265 265 215 215 215 215 215 185 185 185 9 315 315 315 315 315 315 265 265 265 265 265 215 210 210 10 365 365 365 365 365 365 315 315 315 315 315 265 235 235 11 435 435 435 435 435 415 365 365 365 365 365 315 265 265 12 535 535 535 535 535 465 415 415 415 415 415 365 315 315 13 635 635 635 635 635 535 465 465 465 465 465 415 365 365 14 735 735 735 735 735 635 535 535 535 535 535 465 415 415 15 835 835 835 835 835 735 635 635 635 635 635 535 465 465 16 935 935 935 935 935 835 735 735 735 735 735 635 535 535 17 1035 1035 1035 1035 1035 935 835 835 835 835 835 735 635 635 18 1135 1135 1135 1135 1135 1035 935 935 935 935 935 835 735 735 19 1235 1235 1235 1235 1235 1135 1035 1035 1035 1035 1035 935 835 835 20 1335 1335 1335 1335 1335 1235 1135 1135 1135 1135 1135 1035 935 935 21 1465 1465 1465 1465 1435 1335 1235 1235 1235 1235 1235 1135 1035 1035 22 1665 1665 1665 1665 1535 1435 1335 1335 1335 1335 1335 1235 1135 1135 23 1865 1865 1865 1865 1665 1535 1435 1435 1435 1435 1435 1335 1235 1235 24 2085 2085 2085 2085 1865 1665 1535 1535 1535 1535 1535 1435 1335 1335 25 2335 2335 2335 2335 2085 1865 1665 1635 1635 1635 1635 1535 1435 1435 26 2585 2585 2585 2585 2335 2085 1865 1735 1735 1735 1735 1635 1535 1535 27 2835 2835 2835 2835 2585 2335 2085 1865 1865 1865 1865 1735 1635 1635 28 3100 3100 3100 3100 2835 2585 2335 2085 2085 2065 2065 1865 1735 1735 29 3400 3400 3400 3400 3100 2835 2585 2335 2335 2265 2265 2065 1865 1835 30 3735 3700 3700 3700 3400 3100 2835 2585 2585 2465 2465 2265 2065 1935 31 4135 4035 4000 4000 3700 3400 3100 2835 2835 2665 2665 2465 2265 2065 32 4535 4435 4300 4300 4000 3700 3400 3100 3085 2865 2865 2665 2465 2265 33 4935 4835 4635 4600 4300 4000 3700 3400 3335 3100 3065 2865 2665 2465 34 5335 5235 5035 4900 4600 4300 4000 3700 3585 3400 3265 3065 2865 2665 35 split spacing with bottle above 36 8 to 10 meters above the bottom Scheme 3: 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 3 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 4 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 5 115 115 115 115 115 115 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 6 165 165 165 165 165 165 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 7 215 215 215 215 215 215 165 165 165 165 165 160 160 160 8 265 265 265 265 265 265 215 215 215 215 215 185 185 185 9 315 315 315 315 315 315 265 265 265 265 265 215 210 210 10 365 365 365 365 365 365 315 315 315 315 315 265 235 235 11 435 435 435 435 435 415 365 365 365 365 365 315 265 265 12 535 535 535 535 535 465 415 415 415 415 415 365 315 315 13 635 635 635 635 635 535 465 465 465 465 465 415 365 365 14 735 735 735 735 735 635 535 535 535 535 535 465 415 415 15 835 835 835 835 835 735 635 635 635 635 635 535 465 465 16 935 935 935 935 935 835 735 735 735 735 735 635 535 535 17 1035 1035 1035 1035 1035 935 835 835 835 835 835 735 635 635 18 1135 1135 1135 1135 1135 1035 935 935 935 935 935 835 735 735 19 1235 1235 1235 1235 1235 1135 1035 1035 1035 1035 1035 935 835 835 20 1335 1335 1335 1335 1335 1235 1135 1135 1135 1135 1135 1035 935 935 21 1465 1465 1465 1465 1435 1335 1235 1235 1235 1235 1235 1135 1035 1035 22 1665 1665 1665 1665 1535 1435 1335 1335 1335 1335 1335 1235 1135 1135 23 1865 1865 1865 1865 1665 1535 1435 1435 1435 1435 1435 1335 1235 1235 24 2085 2085 2085 2085 1865 1665 1535 1535 1535 1535 1535 1435 1335 1335 25 2335 2335 2335 2335 2085 1865 1665 1635 1635 1635 1635 1535 1435 1435 26 2585 2585 2585 2585 2335 2085 1865 1735 1735 1735 1735 1635 1535 1535 27 2835 2835 2835 2835 2585 2335 2085 1865 1865 1865 1865 1735 1635 1635 28 3100 3100 3100 3100 2835 2585 2335 2085 2085 2065 2065 1865 1735 1735 29 3400 3400 3400 3400 3100 2835 2585 2335 2335 2265 2265 2065 1865 1835 30 3735 3700 3700 3700 3400 3100 2835 2585 2585 2465 2465 2265 2065 1935 31 4135 4035 4000 4000 3700 3400 3100 2835 2835 2665 2665 2465 2265 2065 32 4535 4435 4300 4300 4000 3700 3400 3100 3085 2865 2865 2665 2465 2265 33 4935 4835 4635 4600 4300 4000 3700 3400 3335 3100 3065 2865 2665 2465 34 5335 5235 5035 4900 4600 4300 4000 3700 3585 3400 3265 3065 2865 2665 35 split spacing with bottle above 36 8 to 10 meters above the bottom GRADUATE STUDENT EXPERIENCE AT SEA The National Science Foundation grant which supports the chief scientist's and co-chief scientist's participation also includes support for graduate students to participate at sea. At least two students work on the physical oceanography team on each cruise, and any savings from other program expenses are used to support up to two additional students, berths and other considerations allowing. Plus one graduate student is supported to work with the CFC group at sea. We had five students from this program on the I5 cruise. Below are short statements and a photo from each. Sarah Purkey, University of Washington: "Going to sea is always an enjoyable and educational experience for me, and I5 has been no exception. It is more satisfying to work with data that you helped to collect. In my graduate studies, I have worked primarily with data from CLIVAR/CO2 repeats of WOCE section, and the data collected on this trip will certainly be an important contribution to my future research. I have enjoyed comparing the water properties of this cruise to previous occupations of I5 as we made our way across the Indian Ocean. My area of research is temperature changes in the abyss, so seeing basin wide temperature trends compared to those of previous occupations was particularly exciting. While this wasn't my first cruise, it was my first cruise in the subtropics and my first cruise on the Revelle. I quickly learned the perks of not being in the Southern Ocean and took full advantage of the seemingly endless good weather. The crew of the Revelle, especially the cooks, have also made this trip especially easy. One of my favorite parts of going to sea is meeting new people, and it is an excellent opportunity to get to know faculty and other students outside of the classroom environment." Kelly Kearney My current research focuses on modeling oceanic food webs, so I have spent my three years as a graduate student in front of a computer. However, I missed the hands-on experience of going to sea (I had several months worth of sea time from a previous job with the Navy), and was curious about the methods used to collect the biogeochemical data I use in my models, so I applied to work on one of the CLIVAR cruises. Overall, I've had a great time on this cruise. As part of the CTD team, I helped with launching and recovering the CTD out on deck, monitoring the decent and ascent of the CTD in the lab, and sampling the nutrients and salts. Although tedious, there's a feeling of accomplishment that comes with the repetitive process, knowing how valuable well-measured datasets like this one can be to countless researchers. I also had a chance to step outside my area of expertise and do some research with the cochief scientist, Greg Johnson, based on the CTD data we were collecting, analyzing some of the changes in temperature and salinity and their contribution to density compared to previous cruises in the same area. This short project allowed me to learn a bit more about the water mass properties of the Indian Ocean and brush up my physical oceanography. We have written a draft of the analysis that will be submitted for publication shortly; it was pretty rewarding to see work move so quickly from data gathering to an article draft. Finally, I enjoyed getting to know the other members of both the scientific party and the crew; it was a very diverse group, both in research focus and personality, and I hope I will run into many of them at conferences and such in the future. Alison Rogers (University of Washington) My participation in the I05 cruise has been one of the highlights of my graduate education thus far. Although, at 55 days at sea, this cruise was quite long, it served as a wonderful introduction to the fieldwork side of oceanography. As a CTD watchstander, I was involved in all aspects of the CTD casts, including cocking the 36 Niskin bottles, helping on deck to deploy and recover the rosette, operating the computer console and tripping the bottles, drawing nutrient and salt samples, and monitoring the sampling as "sample cop". I also helped to deploy a number of autonomous profiling floats that are part of the Argo program. This experience has been beneficial in several ways. I have gained in-depth knowledge of how high- quality hydrographic data are collected. Since I use these datasets in my research, it is very helpful to have an understanding of the practical aspects involved in their generation, as well as the time and effort that are required. My research primarily involves data collected by the Argo global array of floats, and thus deploying some of these instruments has been a valuable experience. After 195 stations across the southern Indian Ocean, I have learned about the water properties and currents of this part of the ocean, knowledge which will serve me well as I extend my research to this region. Lastly, I have benefited immensely from my experiences working at sea as a part of a team and from my interactions with all of the scientists on board. Caitlin Whalen (headed to UCSD/SIO) Shock was the typical response whenever I mentioned my participation on the I5 cruise with 57 days of scheduled time at sea. "57 days!" I would often hear, "you know that's quite a long time, right?" The accumulation of shocked looks, however, failed to deter me from participation, and I shortly found myself at sea as a CTD watchstander. I thankfully did not encounter anything during the duration of the cruise that would merit the these reactions. While the monotonous work most certainly breeds boredom, I found that this ailment is easily mitigated by a healthy dose of creativity. This simple cure was triggered Argo float boxes to morph into zombie coffins, and picket lines to materialize around the rosette during sampling. I originally hoped to not just to survive being at sea for 57 days, but for a hands-on introduction to oceanography since I have not yet begun my graduate studies. This goal was certainly realized. I assisted with watch-standing, sampling, and rosette work while learning basic oceanography concepts. I also worked on a data analysis project considering changes in temperature and salinity using the data we were collecting combined with historical data. Additionally I was able to observe how each water sample is dealt with by an army of chemical analysts. What I didn't predict was the benefit of being introduced to these facets of oceanography in parallel. I will enter my first year of graduate study, not traumatized from my 57 days, but with an appreciation for the larger picture. Erin Shields (UCSD/SIO) Before setting off on this cruise, I didn't know if I would end up with a lifelong addiction or never want to see a ship again. I'm happy to report that, even after a maiden voyage of a mere 54 days, I would be all too happy to sail again. The hours are long and the work can feel repetitive, but I was never bored. There was such a variety of people to get to know, wildlife to see, sunrises and meteor showers to enjoy, that no two days were truly the same. I have been incredibly impressed with the quality (and sheer quantity) of data we managed to collect, and with the amazing attitude of everyone aboard. My job was to help with CFC sampling, and our lab space was in a van strapped to the fantail. I found myself really enjoying the van on my night shift, because I was just a few steps away from stargazing and sunrises whenever I had a moment. Drawing water samples from the rosette was always entertaining, as we all clustered around 'Rosy' and teased each other about anything and everything. And our cooks have been amazing, which was a huge bonus. I don't think the trip would have been nearly as enjoyable without good food and plentiful snacks. All in all, it has been an amazing experience. I'm very grateful for the opportunity to participate, and I hope I was able to make a meaningful contribution. It left me inspired, excited, and proud to be a part of this field. CCHDO DATA PROCESSING NOTES Date Contact Data Type Summary ---------- ---------- ------------- -------------------------------------- 2009-05-19 Swift, Jim CTD/BTL/SUM Data are Public Action: Place Online Notes: Data DVD contents from J. Swift on May 19, 2009. These are *most* of the data files from the i05_33RR20090320 cruise except for WOCE formatted CTD files and of course, NetCDF. This tarball contains: 1 Alkalinity Report for Clivar Cruise I.doc 2 I05_1_Hydrographic_DRAFT.pdf 3 I05_3_CFC.pdf 4 I05_6_pH.pdf 5 I05_CTDO_SON_DRAFT.pdf 6 I5_CTD_001_195_ct1.zip 7 I5_cruise_summary.doc 8 i5.sea.txt 9 i5.sum.txt 10 i5_hy1.csv 2009-05-29 Swift, Jim CTD/BTL/SUM PRELIMINARY data online Changes will be forthcoming: (1) the WHP-Exchange bottle data file will soon be updated to include the PI contact and data citation information, and (2) the preliminary documentation file is currently being modified to more closely fit the CCHDO standard. The CTDO, salinity, oxygen, and nutrient data are very close to final form and are likely suitable as is for research purposes. As is always the case, the shipboard ocean carbon parameter data (TCARBN, TALK, pH) now on line must be considered strictly preliminary. These data will be examined by Alex Kozyr at CDIAC, and he and the carbon PIs will later (6-12 months from now?) provide an updated file to the CCHDO to replace the present ocean carbon parameter data. It is very strongly urged that any research use of the shipboard ocean carbon parameters include close collaboration with the data originators (Feely, Wanninkhof, and Dickson). The present CFC (F-11 and F-12) and SF6 data are preliminary and subject to update (within a year?), and should be used for research purposes only in close collaboration with the data originators (Bullister and Warner). 2009-06-01 Schatzman, CTD NetCDF format resubmission Name: schatzman Institute: odf Country: usa Expo: 33RR20090320 Line: i5 Date: 2009-03-20 Action: Place Online Notes: resubmit NetCDF data 2009-06-01 Diggs Cruise Report PDF doc current, more complete Action: new PDF documentation file from J. Kappa 2009-06-01 Diggs CTD/BTL Data Citations in Exchange files added Action: data citations added to hy1 and ct1.zip files Date Contact Data Type Summary ---------- ---------- ------------- -------------------------------------- 2009-06-12 Kappa Cruise Report Website Updated; text file online Both the PDF and text versions of the complete cruise report are now online. 2009-06-17 Kappa Cruise Report Website Updated; Added ADCP report 2009-07-12 Talley NUTs Update Needed; Stns. 193-195 missing NUTs Looking at the version of the I5 bottle data that is online at the WHPO, there are no nutrient data for stations 193, 194, 195. Based on the sum file, this is accurate for 195, but the sum file indicates that there should be nutrient data for 193 and 194, also CFC, carbon, etc etc. It looks like only salts and oxygens were merged for those stations. 2009-07-16 Schatzman CTD Submitted; Quality code updates Quality code updates made to station 102 cast 02. 2009-07-27 Schatzman BTL Submitted; Ready to go online Place Online. Previous submissions from J.Swift did not have the complete bottle data set which included end of cruise data set. 2009-07-29 Schatzman CTD Submitted; updated quality coding Place Online. CTD WHP exchange data in the WOSE format. This data has updated quality coding. 2009-08-10 Schatzman BTL Submitted; updates depths & alk data This file should replace existing hy1 file with missing depths and alkalinity data. 2009-11-03 Schatzman CTD Submitted; Data Updates Updated transmissometer and fluorometer quality codes for all CTD station casts. 2009-11-03 Schatzma O2/NUTs/Thio Submitted; Data Updates Updates made to the following bottle data: O2, Thio normality smoothing applied to stations 166-195. Additional evaluations applied to the following nutrient sample stations. Comments in third column. 4401 1 ??? Sta 45 instead 6901 2 "new pump tubes, sw-dw low, correct end po4 baseline for jump at end of run" 7001 1 "sw-dw low, adjust baselines down and recalc" 7102 "adjust N+N, po4 end baselines for jumps after reagents added, adjust po4 baselines for low sw-dw" 7201 1 ??? Not seen sta 07102? 7401 2 "std-sw values possibly low, reprocess with avg factors from the previous run" 7701 2 reprocess ignoring last dw 7801 1 end std-dw high use beginning factor for begin and end 7901 1 reprocess ignoring 3rd std at end 8001 2 std-sw low use avg factor from 08102 10001 1 std-sw possibly too high/new pump tubes reprocess using avg factor from 10101 10501 2 reprocessed ignore last dw 13701 1 end std-sw high use beginning factor 14502 2 std-sw low use avg factor from 14401 14601 2 beginning std-sw low use end factor 15101 1 use beginning factor 15901 1 std-sw high use avg factor from 15801 16601 2 ignore 2nd sw at end of run 16801 1 ignore 2nd std at end of run Date Contact Data Type Summary ---------- ---------- ------------- -------------------------------------- 2009-11-06 Schatzman BTL Submitted; Data are Public Action: Place Online 2009-12-10 Bullister CFCs Submitted; To replace older data set Please replace all shipboard CFC-11, CFC-12 and SF6 data values and flags with these data 2010-01-05 Kozyr DOC/TDN Submitted; To go Online Action: Merge Data, Place Online Notes: The final and public DOC and TDN data from Dennis Hansell/RSMAS.