TO VIEW PROPERLY YOU MAY NEED TO SET YOUR BROWSER'S CHARACTER ENCODING TO UNICODE 8 OR 16 AND USE YOUR BACK BUTTON TO RE-LOAD CRUISE REPORT: A22 (Updated JUN 2012) HIGHLIGHTS Cruise Summary Information WOCE Section Designation A22 Expedition designation (ExpoCodes) 33AT20120324 Chief Scientists Ruth Curry / WHOI Dates Sat Mar 24, 2012 - Tue Apr 17, 2012 Ship R/V Atlantis Ports of call Woods Hole, Mass. - Bridgetown, Barbados 40° 0.68' N Geographic Boundaries 70° 0.38' W 64° 54.95' W 12° 36' N Stations 81 Floats and drifters deployed 0 Moorings deployed or recovered 0 Recent Contact Information: Ruth Curry • Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 266 Woods Hole Rd. • MS# 21 • Woods Hole, MA 02543-1050 Phone: +1 508 289 2799 • Fax: +1 508 457 2181 • Email: rcurry@whoi.edu US Global Ocean Carbon and Repeat Hydrography Program Section CLIVAR A22 RV Atlantis AT20 24 March 2012 - 17 April 2012 Woods Hole, Massachusetts - Bridgetown, Barbados Chief Scientist: Dr. Ruth Curry Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Co-Chief Scientist: Dr. Zoltan Szuts Max-Planck-Institut fur Meteorologie Cruise Report 17 April 2012 Narrative Summary Section designation: CLIVAR A22 Expedition: 33AT20120324 Chief Scientist: Ruth Curry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Ship: R/V Atlantis 20-01A Ports: Woods Hole, MA - Bridgetown, Barbados Dates: 24 March - 17 April 2012 A hydrographic survey consisting of CTDO (conductivity, temperature, pressure, oxygen), LADCP (lowered acoustic Doppler current profiler), rosette water samples, underway shipboard ADCP and total carbon dioxide (TCO2) measurements was conducted in the western North Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea aboard the UNOLS vessel R/V Atlantis from 24 March - 17 April 2012. A total of 81 CTD/LADCP/rosette stations were occupied on a transect running roughly along meridian 66 deg.W. CTD casts extended to within 10 meters of the seafloor and up to 36 water samples were collected throughout the water column on each upcast. Salinity and dissolved oxygen samples, drawn from each bottle on every cast, were analyzed and used to calibrate the CTD conductivity and oxygen sensors. Water samples were also analyzed on board the ship for nutrients (silicate, phosphate, nitrate, nitrite), total CO2 (TCO2), pH, total alkalinity, and transient tracers (CFCs, SF6 and CCl4). Additional water samples were collected and stored for analysis onshore: dissolved organic carbon (DOC), 3Helium / tritium, 13C / 14C and black carbon. Underway measurements included surface total CO2, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, fluorescence, various meteorological parameters, and bathymetry. Cruise Narrative R/V Atlantis cruise 20-01A - a meridional transect through the western North Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea, nominally along 66 deg.W, between 40 deg. - 12 deg.N latitudes - was undertaken as one component of the ongoing US CLIVAR Carbon & Repeat Hydrography Program. This particular section, designated A22, had been occupied twice previously: in 1997 (R/V Knorr 151-4) and 2003 (R/V Knorr 173-2). A central objective of the program is an assessment of the changing physical properties of ocean water masses and circulation on the global scale, including heat, salt and carbon inventories, employing a network of hydrographic sections, to obtain a factual basis for evaluating the state of Earth's climate system. To this end, 81 full-depth CTD/LADCP/rosette casts were conducted at the locations shown in the Cruise Track map. The cruise track deviated from previous A22 occupations along its southern segment by a western jog around the Venezuelan exclusive economic zone (EEZ) ending at Aruba (near 12.6 deg.N, 70.0 deg.W) instead of Venezuela (11 deg.N, 66 deg.W). The conclusion of station work was followed by a 3-day transit to the port of Bridgetown, Barbados, from which a second CLIVAR section, A20 along 52 deg.W, departed two days later. As expected, weather conditions and temperatures ranged considerably over the meridional extent of the section (Figure 0). Beginning on the continental shelf south of New England (near 40 deg.N), the first 5-6 days brought seasonally cold winds from the north. On the fifth day, we crossed the Gulf Stream north wall at Station 12, which was accompanied by a welcome 10 deg.C rise in air/sea temperatures. Only once (29 March, Station 17) did winds and seas force a temporary halt (5-6 hours) to the otherwise round-the-clock CTD operations. Unsettled subtropical conditions persisted until we passed into the tropics on April 5, midway through the cruise. Winds generally remained under 10 kts for the remainder of the station work, then picked up again to a persistent 30+ kts for most of the transit to Barbados. As a whole, the scientific equipment performed extremely well. Minor problems (replacement of a temperature sensor and a pump on the CTD package, and occasional repairs to Niskin bottles) were readily dealt with as they were encountered. The only significant issues - winch, wire- winding and weather difficulties - occurred at the start of the leg. The original cruise plan was to use the port-side traction winch, hydro-boom and drum equipped with .681 conducting wire, and the ROV hangar for shelter (of the package and samplers during transits between stations). On Station 2, the traction winch exhibited hydraulic problems which remained -2- unresolved for the remainder of that leg. CTD operations were moved to the starboard deck and the 0.322" wire/drum/winch system - but at the expense of a secure shelter. The CTD package was tugged under an overhang area, aft of the main lab, and a tarp was rigged to provide some protection from wind. Until we reached the tropics, however, the ship had to remain hove-to on most stations while water sampling was conducted on deck. The only other significant time sink arose from winding problems on the CTD wire/drum. As soon as possible (station 12), the CTD package was switched over to the ship's second drum/winch, which had been outfitted with a new spool of 0.322" wire before we left Woods Hole. Following this change, no further problems with the winch or wire ensued for the duration of the cruise. Figure 0 Time series of wind speed, direction and air temperature from the Atlantis shipboard meteorological sensors. Data Quality Assessment (refers to preliminary shipboard data only) The overall data quality from Level 1 parameters measured on board the ship during A22 appears to be very good. Although minor difficulties developed with the equipment used to analyze bottle salinities and oxygen, these did not seriously compromise their calibration capabilities. There is no parameter whose overall quality of measurement does not appear to meet or exceed the Program's requirements and expectations. Details regarding calibration and quality control procedures are reported throughout section 1. Figures showing vertical sections of measured and derived properties plus profiles of properties vs. potential temperature are provided. One Seabird CTDO instrument package was used throughout the cruise. The instrument was remarkably stable, and its drifts were small and easily corrected. Preliminary CTD conductivity data fit to the water sample data (expressed as salinity) shows overall agreement below 1500 db better than +/-0.001 PSS-78. Because of instabilities with the salinometer at the very end of the cruise, water samples for stations 77-81 were not analyzed immediately pending arrival of a replacement unit in port. With the possible exception of those few stations, it is highly unlikely that any post-cruise adjustments greater than 0.001 will be made to the preliminary CTD salinities. A preliminary fit of the SBE-43 dissolved oxygen sensor data to the water samples was performed for down-cast CTD oxygen values matched to up-cast water samples on density surfaces. The overall fit for A22 is excellent with differences of order 0.5 uM/kg-1. Shipboard analyses of bottle data also appear to be of very high quality. For salinity, oxygen and nutrients, the high degree of internal precision and consistency achieved over the cruise duration makes it unlikely that significant post-cruise changes will be made to the bottle values. It is possible that some quality code changes will occur during final post-cruise processing and evaluation. Principal Findings and Features The A22 section crossed multiple boundary current regimes and sampled a variety of distinct water mass characteristics, some originating locally while others are transported meridionally over great distances. Compared to previous occupations, the northern end of the present section revealed a notable reduction of dissolved oxygen concentrations and increased vertical stratification (e.g. potential vorticity) in the sub-thermocline water masses of the DWBC and Gulf Stream recirculation regime. These changes reflect a decreased strength of buoyancy forcing over the last decade upstream in the subpolar basins where these water masses -- Labrador Sea Water (LSW) and Nordic Seas Overflow Waters (NSOW) -- are formed through the processes of deep convection, overflow and entrainment. The reduced ventilation is marked by the disappearance of a local oxygen maximum in the LSW layer (~1500-2500 meters depth) - a prominent feature of earlier sections. The timing of this occupation (March-April) provided a snapshot of winter- mixed layer formation in the subtropical gyre. On the offshore side of the Gulf Stream and extending southward to Bermuda (Stations 17 - 26), mixed layer depths approached 200 meters. These had not yet penetrated to the previous year's Eighteen Degree Water (EDW) - the two water masses were separated by a thinner layer of higher stratification (see potential vorticity section). Given the parade of storms that rolled off the eastern U.S. and blew up over the Gulf Stream during the cruise and after we had passed to the south, it is very likely that a healthy slug of EDW -3- was formed locally this year at the northern end of A22. The 2012 trackline purposely tracked up to the 3000 meter contour on the northwest flank of Bermuda Rise, and again from that contour, down the southwest flank to reveal the deep baroclinic flows banked against topography beneath 3000 meters (e.g. the potential density section). These flows originate in the Gulf Stream west of the Grand Banks and over steep topography along the Mid Atlantic Ridge where deep mixing sets the abyssal layers in motion. The resulting geostrophic flows become focused against Bermuda Rise and represent a pathway by which North Atlantic Deep Water density classes are transported through the interior western basin to subsequently join the DWBC flows in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras. The full extent of the uplift of deep isopycnals had not been captured in previous A22 sections. At the southern end of the Atlantic part of the transect (Puerto Rico), the equatorward flowing DWBC again passed through the section, here from west to east. While the structure of the water column was very similar to both the 1997 and 2003 occupations, an eddy bearing very unusual water properties was encountered at Station 42, near 21.5 deg.N, just north of the Puerto Rico Trench. The property anomalies - high oxygen and CFCs, low salinity and nutrients -- were particularly strong between 1000-1500 meters depth and pegged its origin to the circulation east of Newfoundland. The eddy structure and water mass signatures were remarkably intact for having journeyed so far. The section passed to the east of Puerto Rico and into the Caribbean where the water mass characteristics were very similar to previous years. A strong core of Antarctic Intermediate Waters (low oxygen, low salinity, high nutrients) was southward intensified along the section. A second, weaker core also flowed poleward along the boundary to the north of Puerto Rico. Below the sill depth of ~2000 meters, the Caribbean water column was very well mixed and weakly stratified, exhibiting characteristics of older (high inorganic carbon concentrations), poorly ventilated (low CFCs) water masses intermediate between northern and southern sources. Comparison Profiles A22 1997, 2003 and 2012 Profiles Theta vs. SiO3 and PO4 Profiles Theta vs. Salinity and Oxygen Sections of A22 2012 Pressure vs. Potential Vorticity Pressure vs. Potential Density, Sigma 4 Pressure vs. Potential Density, Sigma 0 Pressure vs. Neutral Density Pressure vs. Potential Temperature Pressure vs. Salinity Pressure vs. CTD Oxygen Pressure vs. Bottle Salinity Pressure vs. Bottle Oxygen Pressure vs. Bottle Phosphate Pressure vs. Bottle Nitrate Pressure vs. Bottle Silicate Pressure vs. CFC-11 Pressure vs. CFC-12 Pressure vs. Total CO2 Pressure vs. pH -4- Principal Programs of CLIVAR A22 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Program Affiliation Principal Investigator email | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |CTDO/Rosette, Nutrients, O2, UCSD/SIO James H. Swift jswift@ucsd.edu | |Salinity, Data Processing | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |ADCP/LADCP UH Eric Firing efiring@soest.hawaii.edu | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |CFCs LDEO Bill Smethie bsmeth@ldeo.columbia.edu | |SF6 UM/RSMAS Rana Fine rfine@rsmas.miami.edu | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |3He-3H WHOI Bill Jenkins wjenkins@whoi.edu | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |CO2-DIC/Underway pCO2 NOAA/AOML Rik Wannikhof rik.wanninkhof@noaa.gov | | NOAA/PMEL Richard Feeley richard.a.feeley@noaa.gov | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Total Alkalinity, pH UM/RSMAS Frank Millero fmillero@rsmas.miami.edu | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)/ UM/RSMAS Dennis Hansell dhansell@rsmas.miami.edu | |Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Underway pCO2 with underway T&S NOAA/AOML Rik Wanninkhof Rik.Wanninkhof@noaa.gov | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Carbon Isotopes 13C/14C-DIC WHOI Ann McNichol amcnichol@whoi.edu | | PU Robert Key key@princeton.edu | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Carbon Isotopes 14C-DOC/ UCI Ellen Druffel edruffel@uci.edu | |14C-Black C | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Transmissometer TAMU Wilf Gardner wgardner@tamu.edu | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Surface Skin SST UM/RSMAS Peter Minnett pminnett@rsmas.miami.edu | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ * Affiliation abbreviations listed on page 24 -5- Shipboard Scientific Personnel on CLIVAR A22 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Name Affiliation Shipboard Duties Shore Email | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Ruth Curry WHOI Chief Scientist rcurry@whoi.edu | |Zoltan Szuts MPIM Co-Chief Scientist zoltan.szuts@zmaw.de | |Susan M. Becker SIO/STS/ODF Nutrients sbecker@ucsd.edu | |Sam Billheimer SIO CTD Watch sbillhei@ucsd.edu | |Hector Bustos-Serrano UABC pH hbustos@uabc.edu.mx | |Kevin Cahill WHOI 3He/3H kcahill@whoi.edu | |Bob Castle NOAA/AOML DIC robert.castle@noaa.gov | |Alysha Coppola UCI 14C-DOC/14C-BlackC acoppola@uci.edu | |Tom Custer UH Manoa CFCs custert@hawaii.edu | |Ryan J. Dillon SIO/STS/ODF O2 rjdillon@ucsd.edu | |Sarah Eggleston UH LADCP sse@hawaii.edu | |Eugene Gorman LDEO CFCs egorman@ldeo.columbia.edu | |Dana Greeley NOAA/PMEL DIC dana.greeley@noaa.gov | |Silvia Gremes Cordero UM/RSMAS 13C & 14C-DIC, DOC/TDN sgremes@rsmas.miami.edu | | Surface Skin SST | |Jim Happell UM/RSMAS CFCs jhappell@rsmas.miami.edu | |Mary Carol Johnson SIO/STS/ODF CTD Data/Website mcj@ucsd.edu | |Tammy Laberge MacDonald UM/RSMAS Total Alkalinity tlaberge@rsmas.miami.edu | |Isabela Le Bras MIT CTD Watch ilebras@mit.edu | |Robert Palomares SIO/STS/RT-E Deck Leader/ET rpalomares@ucsd.edu | |Sam Potter PU CTD Watch spotter@princeton.edu | |Alejandro Quintero SIO/STS/ODF O2 a1quintero@ucsd.edu | |Andrew C. Reed UW CFCs reedan@uw.edu | |Carmen Rodriguez UM/RSMAS Total Alkalinity crodriguez@rsmas.miami.edu | |Kristin Sanborn SIO/STS/ODF Data, Group Leader ksanborn@ucsd.edu | |Kenichiro Sato MWJ Nutrients satok@mwj.co.jp | |Courtney Schatzman SIO/STS/ODF Deck Leader/Salinity cschatzman@ucsd.edu | |Leah Trafford WHOI CTD Watch ltrafford@whoi.edu | |Jason Waters UM/RSMAS pH jwaters@rsmas.miami.edu | |Allison Heater WHOI SSSG Tech sssg@atlantis.whoi.edu | |Dave Sims WHOI SSSG Tech sssg@atlantis.whoi.edu | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ * Affiliation abbreviations are listed on page 24 Ship's Crew Personnel on CLIVAR A22 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Name Shipboard Duties Email | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allan Lunt Captain master@atlantis.whoi.edu | |Peter Leonard Chief Mate chmate@atlantis.whoi.edu | |Craig Dickson Second Mate secondmate@atlantis.whoi.edu | |Rick Bean Third Mate thirdmate@atlantis.whoi.edu | |Tim Logan Communication Electronics Tech comet@atlantis.whoi.edu | |Patrick Hennessy Bosun bosun@atlantis.whoi.edu | |Raul Martinez Able-Bodied Seaman | |Jerry Graham Able-Bodied Seaman | |Jim McGill Able-Bodied Seaman | |Richard Barnes Ordinary Seaman | |Leo Byckovas Ordinary Seaman | |Jeff Little Chief Engineer cheng@atlantis.whoi.edu | |Monica Hill First Assistant Engineer firsteng@atlantis.whoi.edu | |Glenn Savage Second Assistant Engineer secondeng@atlantis.whoi.edu | |Mike Spruill Third Assistant Engineer thirdeng@atlantis.whoi.edu | |Richard Stairs Oiler | |Matthew Slater Oiler | |Nick Alexander Oiler | |Leroy Walcott Wiper | |Carl Wood Steward steward@atlantis.whoi.edu | |Brendon Todd Cook | |Cecile Hall Mess Attendant | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -6- +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | KEY to Institution Abbreviations | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ |AOML Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (NOAA) | |LDEO Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory | |MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology | |MPIM Max-Planck-Institut fur Meteorologie | |MWJ Marine Works Japan Ltd. | |NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | |ODF Oceanographic Data Facility (SIO/STS) | |PMEL Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (NOAA) | |PU Princeton University | |RSMAS Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (UM) | |RT-E Research Technicians - Electronics (SIO/STS) | |SIO Scripps Institution of Oceanography (UCSD) | |SSSG Shipboard Scientific Services Group (WHOI) | |STS Shipboard Technical Support (SIO) | |TAMU Texas A&M University | |UABC Universidad Autonoma de Baja California | |UCI University of California, Irvine | |UCSD University of California, San Diego | |UH University of Hawaii | |UM University of Miami | |UW University of Washington | |WHOI Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ -7- Hydrographic/CTD Data, Salinity, Oxygen and Nutrients Oceanographic Data Facility and Research Technicians Shipboard Technical Support/Scripps Institution of Oceanography La Jolla, CA 92093-0214 The CLIVAR A22 repeat hydrographic line was reoccupied for the US Global Ocean Carbon and Repeat Hydrography Program (sometimes referred to as "CLIVAR/CO2") during March-April 2012 from RV Atlantis during a survey consisting of CTD/rosette/LADCP stations and a variety of underway measurements. The ship departed Woods Hole, Massachusetts on 24 March 2012 and arrived Bridgetown, Barbados on 17 April 2012 (UTC dates). A total of 81 stations were occupied with one CTD/rosette/LADCP cast completed at each. There were two aborted casts, one at Station 1 the other at Station 2. CTDO data and water samples were collected on each CTD/rosette/LADCP cast, usually to within 10 meters of the bottom. Water samples were measured on board as tabulated in the Bottle Sampling section. A sea-going science team gathered from 12 oceanographic institutions participated on the cruise. The programs and PIs, and the shipboard science team and their responsibilities, are listed in the Narrative section. Description of Measurement Techniques 1. CTD/Hydrographic Measurements Program A total of 83 CTD/rosette/LADCP casts were made at 81 stations. Two of the 83 casts were aborted. Most casts were lowered to within 10m 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, and transmissometer data were recorded from CTD profiles. Current velocities were measured by the RDI workhorse ADCP. The distribution of samples are shown in the following figures. Figure 1.0 A22 Sample distribution, stations 1-81. 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 with dual pumps (SBE5), dual temperature (SBE3plus), reference temperature (SBE35RT) dual conductivity (SBE4C), dissolved oxygen (SBE43), transmissometer (WET Labs), 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 in the CTD cage, as recommended by SBE. Pump exhausts were attached to the CTD cage on the side opposite from the sensors and directed downward. The transmissometer was mounted horizontally near 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 sensors referenced to the bottom of the frame. -8- +--------------------------------------------------------+ |Instrument Height in cm | +--------------------------------------------------------+ |Temperature/Conductivity Inlet 9 | |SBE35 9 | |Altimeter 2 | |Transmissometer 5 | |Pressure Sensor, inlet to capillary tube 17 | |Inner bottle midline 109 | |Outer bottle midline 113 | |LADCP face midline (bottom) 7 | |Zero tape on wire 280 | +--------------------------------------------------------+ Table 1.1.0 Heights referenced to bottom of rosette frame 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 portside ROV hangar for stations 1 and 2 cast 1, under the portside squirt boom using cart and tracks. The rosette was moved out from the starboard quarterdeck to the deployment location under the starboard squirt-boom using cart and tracks for all other station casts. The CTD was powered-up and the data acquisition system started from the computer lab. The rosette was unstrapped from the cart. Tag lines were threaded through the rosette frame and syringes were removed from CTD intake ports. The winch operator was directed by the deck watch leader to raise the package. The 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 operator determined that the sensor pumps had turned on and the sensors were stable. The winch operator was then directed to bring the package back to the surface, at which time the wireout reading was re-zeroed before descent. Most rosette casts were lowered to within 10 meters of the bottom, using the altimeter, winch wireout, CTD depth and echosounder depth to determine the distance. For each up cast, the winch operator was directed to stop the winch at up to 36 pre-determined 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. An additional 10 seconds elapsed before moving to the next consecutive trip depth, to allow the SBE35RT time to take its readings. The 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 attached to tag lines and air-tuggers for controlled recovery. The rosette was secured on the cart and moved forward on the starboard quarter deck cover for sampling. The bottles and rosette were examined before samples were taken, and anything unusual was noted on the sample log. Each bottle on the rosette had a unique serial number, independent of the bottle position on the rosette. Sampling for specific programs was outlined on sample log sheets prior to cast recovery or at the time of collection. Routine CTD maintenance included soaking the conductivity and oxygen sensors with 1% Triton-X solution between casts to maintain sensor stability and eliminate accumulated bio-films. Rosette maintenance was performed on a regular basis. Valves and o-rings were inspected for leaks. The carousel was rinsed with fresh water as part of the routine maintenance. 1.2. Underwater Electronics The SBE9plus CTD supplied a standard SBE-format data stream at a data rate of 24 frames/second. The sensors and instruments used during CLIVAR A22, along with pre-cruise laboratory calibration information, are listed below in Table 1.2.0. Copies of the pre-cruise calibration sheets for various sensors are included in Appendix D. -9- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Serial CTD Stations Pre-Cruise Calibration | |Instrument/Sensor* Mfr.**/Model Number Channel Used Date Facility** | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Carousel Water Sampler SBE32 (36-place) 3216715-0187 n/a 1-81 n/a n/a | |Reference Temperature SBE35 3528706-0035 n/a 1-81 16-Feb-2012 SIO/STS | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |CTD SBE9plus SIO 09P39801-0796 1-81 | |Pressure Paroscientific 796-98627 Freq.2 1-81 25 Oct 2011 SIO/STS | | Digiquartz 401K-105 | | | |Primary Pump Circuit | | Temperature (T1a) SBE3plus 03P-4138 Freq.0 1-39 28 Oct 2011 SIO/STS | | Temperature (T1b) SBE3plus 03P-4924 Freq.0 40-81 24 Oct 2011 SIO/STS | | Conductivity (C1) SBE4C 04-3369 Freq.1 1-81 21 Feb 2012 SBE | | Dissolved Oxygen+ SBE43 43-0614 Aux2/V2 1-56 18 Feb 2012 SBE | | Pump SBE5T 05-3334 1-5 | | Pump SBE5T 05-4374 6-81 | | | |Secondary Pump Circuit | | Temperature (T2) SBE3plus 03P-4907 Freq.3 1-81 08 Feb 2012 SIO/STS | | Conductivity (C2) SBE4C 04-3399 Freq.4 1-81 21 Feb 2012 SBE | | Pump SBE5T 05-4160 1-81 | | Dissolved Oxygen+ SBE43 43-0614 Aux2/V2 57-81 18 Feb 2012 SBE | | | | Diss.Oxygen Optode++ RinkoIII ARO-CAV 084 Aux4/V6 1-47 21-Oct-2011 JFE | | Optode Temperature++ Aux4/V7 Advantech | | | |Transmissometer (TAMU) WET Labs C-STAR CST-327DR Aux3/V4 1-16 30 Nov 2010 WET Labs | | Aux2/V3 17-81 | | | |Altimeter (500m range) Simrad 807 9711091 Aux1/V0 1-81 | | | | Aux2/V3 12-14 | |Load Cell/Tension (WHOI) 3PSInc LP-5K-2000 A0512124 Aux3/V5 15-16 | | Aux3/V4 17-81 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |LADCP Down (UH) RDI Workhorse 150kHz 16283 1-81 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Deck Unit (in lab) SBE11plus V2 11P21561-0518 1-81 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ * All sensors belong to SIO/STS/ODF, unless otherwise noted. ** SBE = Sea-Bird Electronics + same SBE43 Oxygen sensor, shifted to secondary pump circuit after station 56 ++ Experimental oxygen sensor, never gave any usable data. Removed after station 47 Table 1.2.0 CLIVAR A22 Rosette Underwater Electronics. An 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 SBE35RT was utilized per the manufacturer's specifications and instructions, as described on the Sea-Bird Electronics website ( http://www.seabird.com ). The SBE9plus CTD was connected to the SBE32 36-place carousel, providing for sea cable operation. A 0.681" fiber optic cable on the RV Atlantis's Markey DUTW-9-11 port-side winch was used during station 1 and station 2 cast 1. After a failure of the pump hydraulics during station 2, the starboard/forward Markey DESH-5 winch with an older wire was used for station 2 cast 2 through station 12. The Markey DESH-5 starboard/aft winch was used for all remaining casts. Both DESH-5 winches were outfitted with an 0.322" EM sea cable. A new termination was done before the first use of each sea cable. Two inner conductors from the 0.681" fiber optic cable were used, one for power and signal, the other for ground (return). Only one conductor in the DESH-5 three-conductor wires was used for power and signal; the sea cable armor was used for ground. Power to the SBE9plus CTD and sensors, SBE32 carousel and Simrad altimeter was provided through the sea cable from the SIO/STS SBE11plus deck unit in the computer lab. -10- 1.3. Navigation and Bathymetry Data Acquisition Navigation data were acquired at 1-second intervals from the ship's SeaNav 2050 GPS receiver by a Linux system beginning 24 March 2012 at 1600z, as the RV Atlantis left the dock in Woods Hole. Centerbeam bathymetric data from the Kongsberg EM-122 multibeam echosounder system were available before arriving at the first station. Bottom depths associated with rosette casts were recorded on the Console Logs during deployments. A minor change in STS/ODF software was required to read in the serial data feed, but the program could not be re-compiled for several days. Starting 28 March 2012 at 0300z (during station 12), depth data were fed realtime into the STS acquisition system and merged with navigation data. Depth data displayed by the ship were 6m deeper than the data from the feed. The 6m hull depth offset was added later to STS stored depth data for all events in the hydrographic database. Corrected multibeam center depths are reported for each cast event in the WOCE and Exchange format files. 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-5.6 Linux. Each PC workstation was configured with a color graphics display, keyboard, trackball and DVD+RW drive. One system had a Comtrol Rocketport PCI multiple port 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 A22. Redundant backups were managed automatically. CTD deployments were initiated by the console watch after the ship stopped on station. The acquisition program was started and the deck unit turned on at least 3 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 on-screen 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, or deeper in heavier seas. The CTD sensor pumps were configured with a 5-second start-up delay after detecting seawater conductivities. The console operator checked the CTD data for proper sensor operation and waited for sensors to stabilize, then instructed the winch operator to bring the package to the surface and descend to a specified target depth, based on CTD pressure available on the winch display. The winch was controlled from the deck for the top 100m of each downcast, then handed over to the lab during a typically 10-15 second stop at ~100mwo (meters wire out). The CTD profiling rate was at most 30m/min to 200m and up to 60m/min deeper than 200m, depending on sea cable tension and sea state. As the package descended toward the target depth, the rate was reduced to 30m/min at 100m off the bottom, 20m/min at 50m off, and 10m/min at 20m off. 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 8-10 meters. -11- Bottles were closed on the up-cast by operating an on-screen control. The expected CTD pressure was reported to the winch operator for every bottle trip. Bottles were tripped 30-40 seconds after the package stopped 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 10 seconds after closing bottles to ensure that stable CTD data were associated with the trip and to allow the SBE35RT temperature sensor to measure bottle trip temperature. Winch controls were handed back from lab to deck after a bottle trip near 100mwo. The package was directed to the surface by the deck for the last bottle closure, then the package was brought 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 and after each deployment using SIO/STS CTD processing software v.5.1.6-1. During acquisition, the raw CTD data were converted to engineering units, filtered, response-corrected, calibrated and decimated to a more manageable 0.5-second time series. Pre-cruise laboratory calibrations for pressure, temperature and conductivity were also 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 data 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 raw 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 generated from the down cast data. The pressure-series data were used by the web service for interactive plots, sections and CTD data distribution. Time-series data were also available for distribution through the website. CTD 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. CTD dissolved oxygen sensor data were calibrated to check sample data. As bottle salinity and oxygen results became available, they were used to refine shipboard conductivity and oxygen sensor calibrations. Theta- Salinity and theta-O2 comparisons were made between down and up casts as well as between groups of adjacent deployments. A total of 83 casts were made using the 36-place CTD/LADCP rosette. Further elaboration of CTD procedures specific to this cruise are found in the next section. 1.6. CTD Acquisition and Data Processing Details Secondary T/C sensors were used for all reported CTD data because: o the same sensor pair was used through-out the cruise, o there were no questions about flow obstruction in the secondary pump circuit, o down/up data agreed better than primaries, o there was less low-level noise in the data, o T2C2 corrections were lower order and more consistent overall. The following table identifies problems noted during specific casts (NOTE: mwo = meters of wire out on winch): -12- station Comment 1/1 Start cruise with trawl winch (0.681-inch wire), aborted at 15m during sensor equilibration due to deck unit alarm: Dummy plug for bottom contact switch not installed. 1/2 Installed dummy plug for bottom contact switch on deck, then restarted as cast 2. 2/1 Aborted at 271mwo: winch problems, pay out/in speed has been limited to < 30 m/min so far. 2/2 Switch to starboard (aft) Markey winch with old 0.322-inch wire prior to cast 2. 2/2, 3-7, 10 Apparent obstruction in primary pump circuit near surface (approx. top 30 dbar), bad primary data. Secondary data used for TC, but CTDOXY was on primary circuit. Codes 3/4 added to near-surface problem CTDOXY data, typically deeper than when obstruction cleared due to slow CTDOXY sensor response. Primary pump 05-4374 changed to 05-4890 prior to sta 6 - no change in surface signal quality. 7 Upcast stopped at 2101mwo/2107 dbar pressure due to wire on winch looking suspicious. Lowered back to 2122mwo/2128.5 pressure to check: wire ok, resumed cast. 8 Upcast, after tripping bottle 20: 600mwo back down to 662m due to wire-wrapping issue. At 500m, back out to 530m for same issue. Source of wire-wrap problems is much further down the wire. 9 Winch readout reset itself at 3230mwo downcast (bottom bottle 37m deeper). Multiple wire wrap problems during upcast, winch back down 5-7m on most, some after bottles already tripped. 10m back out at 2635 dbar, 30m back down at 2614 dbar. 10 Stopped 4.5 minutes at winch change-over at 105 dbar downcast. Stopped at bottom to fix wire wrap problem. Stop at 822mwo, back down to 843m to fix spool; can't fix resume hoist. Spool wrapping wrong way at 114mwo upcast, winch op fixed. Winch display not showing in lab, okay at outside winch controls. 11 Change the primary TC duct (connector between T1 and C1 sensors) prior to sta 11. Winch reset itself on upcast between 807mwo and next bottle trip (~700m). 12 Shift to forward Markey winch with new 0.322 wire, add WHOI load cell to a/d 3 (same AUX as CTDOXY) prior to cast. Stopped 4.5 minutes at winch change-over at 105 dbar downcast to check O2 signal. Strange oxygen offsets/drops: approx. 500-1600 dbar down on sta.12, jumps back and forth. Substantial despiking (mostly raw CTDOXY offsets) required to salvage the CTDOXY signal: large sections of despiked CTDOXY were coded 3/questionable. 13 Strange oxygen offsets/drops: approx. 550?-1750 dbar down on sta.13, more "long" sections of drop. then more sections at 4300+ dbar down to bottom, and 3700-3430 dbar up. Substantial despiking (mostly raw CTDOXY offsets) required to salvage the CTDOXY signal: large sections of despiked CTDOXY were coded 3/questionable. -13- station Comment 14 Strange oxygen offsets/drops: approx. 600-1300 dbar down, long offsets and/or noise; then not much after that. Substantial despiking (mostly raw CTDOXY offsets) required to salvage the CTDOXY signal: large sections of despiked CTDOXY were coded 3/questionable. 15 Shift load cell to a/d 5 prior to sta 15 (same AUX as trans); transm. noise and a few transm. dropouts during sta 15. 16 Extreme transm. problems: most of sta 16 transm. signal offset low. suspect load cell power cabling problem is affecting sensors on same AUX port. SSSG checked cable: resistance on pins 4/5 (ground) was low/not used on cable provided with sensor by WHOI, but these pins are used for other sensors on Y cable. 17 Tagline problem: CTD down 5m and then back on-board before full-depth cast. Transm. shifted from a/d 4 to a/d 3 (same AUX as CTDOXY); load cell moved to a/d 4 before sta 17, on AUX by itself prior to sta 17. Transm. signal is ok now. Stopped at 3452 dbar on upcast to check cable wrap: looks good. Odd raw CTDOXY signal at surface (top 106 dbar coded 3/questionable), then drops dramatically after short ~100m winch-control handoff and looks ok. 23 6-minute delay while package still on deck: the winch needed to be reset. 29 New load cell cable made/installed prior to sta 29. Winch tension graphical display stopped working, but tension readout still updates: re-programming problem. Slowed package at 4214, bottle trip, waited until SSSG tech diagnosed the problem. Transm. signal noisier than previous casts, and slight drop at the bottom. Transm. windows cleaned after sampling finished. 30 Winch required a reset. 33 Rope knot on deployment, had to bring rosette back on deck. Surface bottle tripped 10 seconds early: large swells at surface. 35 High tension/slower winch: ~20m/min from bottom trip, ~30m/min from 4200m trip, ~40m/min from 3900m trip, ~30-45m/min from 3600m trip, 60m/min from 3300m trip to surface. Unusually large effect of shiproll on downcast data, much despiking required in areas where winch was slower. 38-39 T1/S/Sigma Theta have suspicious difference between down/up on stas 38-39, starting about 1200m. 40 Remove orig. T1a/03P-4138; install T1b/03P-4924 prior to sta 40. 41 winch payout reset itself to 0 at ~3900m on up cast. 48 remove RinkoIII O2/T sensors for testing prior to sta 48: not working yet during this cruise. Shift loadcell to AUX4/ad6 to test AUX4 in case this is part of Rinko problem. 57 SBE43 sensor shifted to secondary pump circuit (plumbing) prior to sta 57; no change in end cap connection. -14- station Comment 62 10-minute delay in cast start: strap holding rosette stuck. Ship drifted while cast going down, slightly shallower than start. 8-minute stop at 2675mwo on upcast, between bottles 3 and 4: 6 modulo errors preceded ship switching to emergency generator, then 20 more with audible/visible deck unit alarm. Wait for ship power problem to be diagnosed before continuing cast. No additional missed frames the rest of the cast. 73 Return to surface (but not out of water) from 74 dbar downcast due to winch re-zeroing itself, plus large wire angle/current. Started from top of second yoyo for pressure-series data. Unable to hoist the winch from lab controls after the bottom trip. 5-minute delay to diagnose/fix problem. Problems after bottle 2 tripped (3853 dbar), quickly resolved; ship's engineers worked on electronics under winch controls in computer lab. 74 Winch monitor program failed at cast start, and wireout stopped streaming to the acquisition PC. Wireouts written from the winch box display, which still worked. SSSG traced the problem to the serial feed, fixed after cast. 79 Winch payout rezeroed itself at 160mwo on downcast. At ~115m on upcast, winch operator re-zeroed. Winch rezeroed on its own twice more before cast finished. 1.7. CTD Sensor Laboratory Calibrations Laboratory calibrations of the CTD pressure, temperature, conductivity and dissolved oxygen sensors were performed prior to CLIVAR A22. The sensors and calibration dates are listed in Table 1.2.0. Copies of the calibration sheets for Pressure, Temperature, Conductivity, and Dissolved Oxygen sensors, as well as factory and deck calibrations for the TAMU Transmissometer, are in Appendix D. 1.8. CTD Shipboard Calibration Procedures CTD #796 was used for all CTD/rosette/LADCP casts during A22. The CTD was deployed with all sensors and pumps aligned vertically, as recommended by SBE. The SBE35RT Digital Reversing Thermometer (S/N 3528706-0035) served as an independent calibration check for T1 and T2 sensors. In situ salinity and dissolved O2 check samples collected during each cast were used to calibrate the conductivity and dissolved O2 sensors. 1.8.1. CTD Pressure The Paroscientific Digiquartz pressure transducer (S/N 796-98627) was calibrated in October 2011 at the SIO/STS Calibration Facility. The calibration coefficients provided on the report were used to convert frequencies to pressure. The SIO/STS pressure calibration coefficients already incorporate the slope and offset term usually provided by Paroscientific. The initial deck readings for pressure indicated a pressure offset was needed, typically because CTDs are calibrated horizontally but deployed vertically. An additional -1.0 dbar offset was applied during data acquisition/block-averaging starting for stations 1-17. A review during station 17 showed that -0.7 dbar was a better choice. Stations 1-17 were re-averaged with the lower offset, and the new offset was used for the remaining stations. Residual pressure offsets (the difference between the first and last submerged pressures) varied from -0.34 to +0.23 dbar. Pre- and post-cast on-deck/out-of-water pressure offsets varied from +0.04 to +0.28 dbar before the casts, and -0.06 to +0.32 dbar after the casts. -15- 1.8.2. CTD Temperature Two SBE3plus primary temperature sensors (T1a: 03P-4138/stas 1-39 and T1b: 03P-4924/stas 40-81) and one secondary temperature sensor (T2: 03P-4907/stas 1-81) were used during A22. 03P-4138 was changed out after station 39 because of suspicious down/up cast differences in the higher- gradient region above 1000 dbar. Although these differences were also apparent in secondary sensors, the deep theta-salinity down/up plots for the primary sensors did not overlay as well as the secondaries. Calibration coefficients derived from the pre-cruise calibrations, plus shipboard temperature corrections determined during the cruise, were applied to raw primary and secondary sensor data during each cast. A single SBE35RT (3528706-0035) 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 deg.C/year. The SBE35RT on CLIVAR A22 was set to internally average over 5 sampling cycles (a total of 5.5 seconds). 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. All 3 temperature sensors were first examined for drift with time, using the more stable SBE35RT at a smaller range of deeper trip levels (2000-3000 dbar). T1a and T2 required a time-based offset to account for drift. T1a drifted -0.0005 over 39 stations; T2 drifted -0.0013 over the first 40 stations, then only -0.0007 more until station 68, after which a drift was no longer apparent. T1b was stable enough to apply a single offset for all stations where it was used. None of the sensors exhibited a temperature-dependent slope. However, T1a and T2 both had a small residual pressure dependence that required a first- order correction to pull deeper bottles in line with shallower bottles (about -0.001 deg.C correction for T1a and just +0.0002 deg.C for T2 at 6100 dbar). The final corrections for T2 temperature data reported on CLIVAR A22 are summarized in Appendix A. All corrections made to T2 temperatures had the form: T2ITS90=T2+tp1P+t0 Residual temperature differences after correction are shown in figures 1.8.2.0 through 1.8.2.8. Figure 1.8.2.0 SBE35RT-T1 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). Figure 1.8.2.1 Deep SBE35RT-T1 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar). Figure 1.8.2.2 SBE35RT-T2 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). Figure 1.8.2.3 Deep SBE35RT-T2 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar). Figure 1.8.2.4 T1-T2 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). Figure 1.8.2.5 Deep T1-T2 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar). Figure 1.8.2.6 SBE35RT-T1 by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). Figure 1.8.2.7 SBE35RT-T2 by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). Figure 1.8.2.8 T1-T2 by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). The 95% confidence limits for the mean low-gradient differences are +/-0.00845 deg.C for SBE35RT-T2 and +/-0.00441 deg.C for T1-T2. The 95% confidence limit for deep temperature residuals (where pressure > 2000db) -16- is +/-0.00102 deg.C for SBE35RT-T2 and +/-0.00072 deg.C for T1-T2. 1.8.3. CTD Conductivity The same SBE4C primary (C1/04-3369) and secondary (C2/04-3399) conductivity sensors were used during all CLIVAR A22 casts. Secondary sensor data were used to report final CTD data because of apparent flow-obstruction issues in the primary pump system in the top 30 dbar of most of the first 10 stations, and because a single secondary temperature sensor was used through-out the cruise. Calibration coefficients derived from the pre-cruise calibrations were applied to convert raw frequencies to conductivity. Shipboard conductivity corrections, determined during the cruise, were applied to primary and secondary conductivity data for each cast. Corrections for both CTD temperature sensors were finalized before analyzing conductivity differences. 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 using CTD pressure and temperature. Stations 10, 24-27, 36, 39, 54, 57-58, and 73-81 were omitted from final conductivity fits due to various anomalies in bottle salinities, mostly attributable to standard dial changes and/or Autosal issues during this leg. The differences between primary and secondary temperature sensors were used as filtering criteria for all conductivity fits to reduce the contamination of conductivity comparisons by package wake. The coherence of this relationship is shown in figure 1.8.3.0. Figure 1.8.3.0 Coherence of conductivity differences as a function of temperature differences. Uncorrected conductivity comparisons are shown in figures 1.8.3.1 through 1.8.3.3. Figure 1.8.3.1 Uncorrected CBottle-C1 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). Figure 1.8.3.2 Uncorrected CBottle-C2 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). Figure 1.8.3.3 Uncorrected C1-C2 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). Offsets for each C sensor were evaluated for drift with time using CBottle-CCTD differences from a deeper, limited pressure range (2000-3000 dbars). C1 offsets had a steady, slow shift with time; the total C1 drift from stations 1-81 was -0.0008 mS/cm. C2 displayed no significant drift with time; the offset calculated using stations 1-38 held through the rest of the leg. After conductivity offsets were applied to all casts, response to pressure was examined for each conductivity sensor. The pressure response was essentially linear for C1, requiring a -0.0005 mS/cm correction at the deepest pressures during the cruise. No pressure dependence was evident for C2 differences. CBottle-CCTD differences were then evaluated for response to temperature and/or conductivity, which typically shifts between pre- and post-cruise SBE laboratory calibrations. A comparison of the residual C1 differences showed an additional small conductivity-dependent slope was required. This correction lowered near-surface values by about -0.00056 mS/cm compared to the deepest data. C2 showed a strong first-order dependence on conductivity. Shallow C2 data were +0.00625 mS/cm compared to deep C2 data, so a conductivity-dependent slope was applied to correct the difference. Deep Theta-S overlays showed that deep CTD data overlaid well for the data reported. The residual conductivity differences after correction are shown in figures 1.8.3.4 through 1.8.3.15. -17- Figure 1.8.3.4 Corrected CBottle-C1 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). Figure 1.8.3.5 Deep Corrected CBottle-C1 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar). Figure 1.8.3.6 Corrected CBottle-C2 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). Figure 1.8.3.7 Deep Corrected CBottle-C2 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar). Figure 1.8.3.8 Corrected C1-C2 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). Figure 1.8.3.9 Deep Corrected C1-C2 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar). Figure 1.8.3.10 Corrected CBottle-C1 by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). Figure 1.8.3.11 Corrected CBottle-C2 by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). Figure 1.8.3.12 Corrected C1-C2 by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). Figure 1.8.3.13 Corrected CBottle-C1 by conductivity (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). Figure 1.8.3.14 Corrected CBottle-C2 by conductivity (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). Figure 1.8.3.15 Corrected C1-C2 by conductivity (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). The final corrections for the secondary sensors used on CLIVAR A22 are summarized in Appendix A. Corrections made to C2 conductivity sensor had the form: C2cor=C2+c1C2+c0 Salinity residuals after applying shipboard P/T/C corrections are summarized in figures 1.8.3.16 through 1.8.3.18. Only CTD and bottle salinity data with "acceptable" quality codes are included in the differences. Figure 1.8.3.16 Salinity residuals by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). Figure 1.8.3.17 Salinity residuals by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). Figure 1.8.3.18 Deep Salinity residuals by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar). Figures 1.8.3.17 and 1.8.3.18 represent estimates of the salinity accuracy of CLIVAR A22. The 95% confidence limits are +/-0.01309 PSU relative to bottle salinities for all salinities, and +/-0.00184 PSU relative to bottle salinities for deep salinities, where T1-T2 is within +/-0.01 deg.C. 1.8.4. CTD Dissolved Oxygen A single SBE43 dissolved O2 sensor (DO/43-0614) was used during CLIVAR A22. The sensor was plumbed into the primary T1/C1 pump circuit after C1. The O2 sensor was shifted to the secondary pump circuit before station 57, during the long run around Puerto Rico, after it was decided to use the secondary TC sensors for all reported data. The DO sensor was calibrated to dissolved O2 bottle 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 bottle 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 the sensor. These time constants are sensor-specific but applicable to an entire cruise. Next, casts were fit individually to bottle sample data. Consecutive casts were compared on plots of Theta vs O2 to verify consistency. At the end of the cruise, standard and blank values for bottle oxygen data were smoothed, and the bottle oxygen values were recalculated. The changes to bottle oxygen values were less than 0.01 ml/l for most stations before station 45, then as much as 0.017 ml/l for stations 62-68. CTD O2 data were re-calibrated to the smoothed bottle values after the leg. -18- Final CTD dissolved O2 residuals are shown in figures 1.8.4.0-1.8.4.2. Figure 1.8.4.0 O2 residuals by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). Figure 1.8.4.1 O2 residuals by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C). Figure 1.8.4.2 Deep O2 residuals by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar). The standard deviations of 2.155 umol/kg for all oxygens and 0.439 umol/kg for deep oxygens are only presented as general indicators of goodness of fit. SIO/STS makes no claims regarding the precision or accuracy of CTD dissolved O2 data. The general form of the SIO/STS DO sensor response model equation for Clark cells follows Brown and Morrison [Brow78], Millard [Mill82] and Owens & Millard [Owen85]. SIO/STS models DO sensor responses with lagged CTD data. In situ pressure and temperature are filtered to match the sensor responses. Time constants for the pressure response (Taup), a slow (TauTf) and fast (TauTs) thermal response, package velocity (TaudP), thermal diffusion (TaudT) and pressure hysteresis (Tauh) 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: O2ml/l=[C1*VDO*e**(C2*Ph/5000)+C3]*fsat(T,P)*e**(C4*Tl+C5*Ts+C7*Pl+C6*dOc/dt+C8*dP/dt+C9*dT)(1.8.4.0) 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 in situ temperature (deg.C); P in situ pressure (decibars); Ph Low-pass filtered hysteresis pressure (decibars); Tl Long-response low-pass filtered temperature (deg.C); Ts Short-response low-pass filtered temperature (deg.C); Pl Low-pass filtered pressure (decibars); dOc/dt Sensor current gradient (uamps/sec); dP/dt Filtered package velocity (db/sec); dT low-pass filtered thermal diffusion estimate (Ts - Tl). C4-C9 Response coefficients. CTD O2ml/l data are converted to umol/kg units on demand. -19- 1.9. Bottle Sampling At the end of each rosette deployment water samples were drawn from the bottles in the following order: o CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, SF6 and CCl4 o 3He o Dissolved O2 o Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC) o pH o Total Alkalinity o 13C- and 14C-DIC o Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN) o Tritium o Nutrients o 14C-DOC o 14C-Black Carbon o Salinity o Millero Density 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 mis-tripped bottles. Once individual samples had been drawn and properly prepared, they were distributed for analysis. Oxygen, nutrient and salinity analyses were performed on computer-assisted (PC) analytical equipment networked to the data processing computer for centralized data management. 1.10. Bottle Data Processing Water samples collected and properties analyzed shipboard were centrally managed in a relational database (PostgreSQL 8.1.23) running on a Linux system. A web service (OpenACS 5.5.0 and AOLServer 4.5.1) 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]. -20- Table 1.10.0 shows the number of samples drawn and the number of times each WHP sample quality flag was assigned for each basic hydrographic property: +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Rosette Samples Stations 1- 81 | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Reported WHP Quality Codes | | levels 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 | +------------++----------+------------------------------------------------+ | Bottle || 2651 | 0 2641 5 0 0 0 5 | | CTD Salt || 2651 | 0 2651 0 0 0 0 0 | | CTD Oxy || 2607 | 0 2543 16 48 19 0 25 | | Salinity || 2607 | 0 2543 16 48 19 0 25 | | Oxygen || 2640 | 0 2582 44 14 0 0 11 | | Silicate || 2636 | 0 2586 18 32 9 0 6 | | Nitrate || 2644 | 0 2638 2 4 0 0 7 | | Nitrite || 2644 | 0 2639 1 4 0 0 7 | | Phosphate || 2644 | 0 2639 1 4 0 0 7 | +------------++----------+------------------------------------------------+ Table 1.10.0 Frequency of WHP quality flag assignments. Additionally, data investigation comments are presented in Appendix C. Various consistency checks and detailed examination of the data continued throughout the cruise. Chief Scientist, Ruth Curry, reviewed the data and compared it with historical data sets. 1.11. Salinity Analysis Equipment and Techniques Two salinometers were used at different intervals for this cruise. One Guildline Autosal 8400B salinometer (S/N 65-740) and one 8400A (S/N 57-525) located in RV Atlantis's Hydro Lab were used for all salinity measurements. Both salinometers utilize National Instruments interface to decode Autosal data and communicate with windows based acquisition PC. Samples were analyzed after they had equilibrated to laboratory temperature, usually within 4-18 hours after collection. The salinometers were standardized for each group of analysis (usually 1-2 casts, up to ~36 samples) using at least two fresh vials of standard seawater per group. Salinometer measurements were aided by a computer using LabVIEW software developed by SIO/STS. A minor change to assist data processing was made during the expedition and LVASAL V1.33a was installed on the backup acquisition computer and brought online. The software maintained an Autosal log of each salinometer run which included salinometer settings and air and bath temperatures. The air temperature was displayed and monitored via digital thermometer. The program guided the operator through the standardization procedure and making sample measurements. The analyst was prompted to change samples and flush the cells between readings. Standardization procedures included flushing the cell at least 2 times with a fresh vial of Standard Seawater (SSW), setting the flow rate to a low value 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 2 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 were used to expedite equilibrating salinity samples. Cases of samples were placed on a frame with a fan attached to help bring them to room temperature. They were then removed and set on a shelf near the Autosal for storage for further equilibration. The next or current case to be run sat to the left of the Autosal, next to the standard seawater. The amount of time each case spent at each location varied -21- depending on sample temperature and rate of analysis by the operator. Sampling and Data Processing A total of 2366 salinity samples were measurements were made. Autosal 65-740 was used for 463 samples and 1903 were analyzed on Autosal 57-525. 140 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 equilibration times were logged for all casts. The samples were measured with an external thermometer by placing the probe against the salinity bottle for 2-3 minutes. When the temperature was close to the bath temperature, 1-2 degrees the samples for the cast were analyzed. 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 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. Discrete salinity data was 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 at 24 deg.C. The ambient air temperature varied from 21 to 24 deg.C during the cruise. Standards IAPSO Standard Seawater Batches P-153 was used to standardize all stations. Analytical Problems Lack of stability of the Autosals required switching units while repairs were made. Table 1.11.0 tabulates the Stations which the units were employed. +-----------------------------+ |Stations Guildline Autosal | +-----------------------------+ |1-10a 65-740 | |10b-26 57-525 | |27 65-740 | |28-41 57-525 | |42-48a 65-740 | |48b-76 57-525 | |77-81 65-740 | +-----------------------------+ Table 1.11.0 Autosal station reference During analysis for station 6 cast 1, the check-heater light appeared solid for salinometer 65-740. Observation showed the forward heater lamp had burned out. Analysis was completed by running all samples slowly. Heat lamp was replaced after analysis was completed. During analysis for station 9 cast 1 sample 1, 65-740 showed a decreasing trend. This was true for the following 5 samples. It appeared bath water was weeping into the cell at the upper arm end. Sample 6 also had a decreasing trend of the same magnitude. The run was aborted run without an -22- ending SSW sample after six samples. The Autosal was removed from service until closer diagnosis of the problem and repairs could be made. The WHOI spare Autosal number 10 (57-525) was set up. This is an unmodified Guildline 8400A with separate pumps. Autosal 57-525 pumps did not work upon start-up. On inspection it was found one pump turned very slowly, the second pump did not turning at all. Belts were loose to the point of falling off, bushings were frozen with congealed oil, leather washers were dry, and the flapper check valves were stuck shut. Suction filters were in good condition. As one pump had failed, the "flush" air line had been removed and the sample fill air line attached with only the marginally working pump. Both leather washers were cleaned and oiled, both flapper valves were blown out both flapper valves, cleaned pump bodies, removed and cleaned brass bushings, cleaned and descaled drive wheel axles, reassembled pumps, oiled bushings, installed pumps in housings and adjusted belt tension to normal fit. Pumps were back to near original specifications. Prior to analysis salinometer was checked with a stable temperature of 23.97. Prior to analysis of station 27, unit 57-525 was replaced with 65-740. During analysis of sample 4 a decreasing trend was noticed with each measurement, this continued to sample 9. It appeared bath water was weeping into the cell at the upper arm end. The analysis was discontinued and 57-525 was once again employed. Station 42 unit 65-740 was put back into service. After sample 2 on station 48 large step decreasing trends noted, 57-525 was put back into service. Prior to station 74 cell coils looked dull and coated. IAPSO Standard readings were 40 units high. The cell was cleaned after the run was completed. Analysis of station 75 appeared to return standard normalized readings. After station 76 IAPSO standard readings had dropped by 10 units once again. Further analysis revealed a definite unstable data trend for stations 74-76. 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. 1.12. 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 ODF PC software compiled in LabView. Thiosulfate was dispensed by a Titronic 110 Plus buret driver fitted with a 1.0 mL buret which was eventually changed to the Brickman Dosimat 765. The ODF method 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). Standard KIO3 solutions prepared ashore 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 2645 samples were analyzed on A22. Samples were collected for dissolved oxygen analyses soon after the rosette was brought on board. Six different cases of 24 flasks each were rotated by station to minimize any potential flask calibration issues. Using a 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 (OmegaTM HH370 RTD) embedded in the drawing tube. These temperatures were used to calculate umol/kg concentrations, and as a diagnostic check of bottle integrity. Reagents (MnCl2 then NaI/NaOH) were -23- added to fix the oxygen before stoppering. The flasks were shaken to assure thorough dispersion of the precipitate, once immediately after drawing, and then again after about 20 minutes. A water seal was applied to the rim of each bottle in between shakes. The samples were analyzed within 1-2 hours of collection, and the data incorporated into the cruise database. Thiosulfate normalities were calculated from each standardization and corrected to 20 deg.C. The thiosulfate normalities and blanks were monitored for possible drifting or possible problems when new reagents were used. An average blank and thiosulfate normality were used to recalculate oxygen concentrations. The thiosulfate was changed between stations 31 and 32. The first set of averages were performed on Stations 1 through and including Station 32. The second set was done on Stations 32 through 71. The third set was from Stations 72 to 81 since the burette was changed. The difference between the original and "smoothed" data averaged 0.0%-0.1% over the course of the cruise. Bottle oxygen data was reviewed ensuring proper station, cast, bottle number, flask, and draw temperature were entered properly. Comments made during analysis were reviewed. All anomalous actions were investigated and resolved. If an incorrect end point was encountered, the analyst re- examined raw data and the program recalculated a correct end point. After the data was uploaded to the database, bottle oxygen was graphically compared with CTD oxygen and adjoining stations. Any points that appeared erroneous were reviewed and comments made regarding the final outcome of the investigation. These investigations and final data coding are reported in Appendix C. 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 and tested 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 of powder temperature of solution and flask volume at 70 deg.C. 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. Analytical Problems A Schott Titronic 110 autoburet was used for the first 71 stations of A22. Towards the beginning of the expedition, the autotitration software would occasionally stall, causing the loss of a sample. The frequency of these stalls increased with time, until the third week when it was decided to return to the traditional Dosimat 765 unit. After the switch, no further errors of this kind occurred. 1.13. Nutrient Analysis Summary of Analysis 2644 samples from 81 CTD stations. The cruise started with new pump tubes; they were changed once after station 39. Three sets of Primary/Secondary standards were made up over the course of the cruise. The cadmium column efficiency was checked periodically and ranged between 98%-100%. -24- Equipment and Techniques Nutrient analyses (phosphate, silicate, nitrate plus nitrite, and nitrite) were performed on a Seal Analytical continuous-flow AutoAnalyzer 3 (AA3). After each run, the charts were reviewed for any problems and final concentrations (in uM or micromoles per liter) were calculated using SEAL Analytical AACE 6.07 software. The analytical methods used are described by Gordon et al. [Gord92], Hager et al. [Hage68] and Atlas et al. [Atla71]. The details of modification of analytical methods used for this cruise are also compatible with the methods described in the nutrient section of the GO-SHIP repeat hydrography manual [Hyde10]. Nitrate/Nitrite Analysis A modification of the Armstrong et al. [Arms67] procedure was used for the analysis of nitrate and nitrite. For nitrate analysis, a seawater sample was passed through a cadmium column where the nitrate was reduced to nitrite. This nitrite was then diazotized with sulfanilamide and coupled with N-(1-naphthyl)-ethylenediamine to form a red dye. The sample was then passed through a 10mm flowcell and absorbance measured at 540nm. The procedure was the same for the nitrite analysis but without the cadmium column. REAGENTS Sulfanilamide Dissolve 10g sulfanilamide in 1.2N HCl and bring to 1 liter volume. Add 2 drops of 40% surfynol 465/485 surfactant. Store at room temperature in a dark poly bottle. Note: 40% Surfynol 465/485 is 20% 465 plus 20% 485 in DIW. N-(1-Naphthyl)-ethylenediamine dihydrochloride (N-1-N) Dissolve 1g N-1-N in DIW, bring to 1 liter volume. Add 2 drops 40% surfynol 465/485 surfactant. Store at room temperature in a dark poly bottle. Discard if the solution turns dark reddish brown. Imidazole Buffer Dissolve 13.6g imidazole in ~3.8 liters DIW. Stir for at least 30 minutes to completely dissolve. Add 60 ml of CuSO4 + NH4Cl mix (see below). Add 4 drops 40% Surfynol 465/485 surfactant. Let sit overnight before proceeding. Using a calibrated pH meter, adjust to pH of 7.83-7.85 with 10% (1.2N) HCl (about 20-30 ml of acid, depending on exact strength). Bring final solution to 4L with DIW. Store at room temperature. NH4Cl + CuSO4 mix Dissolve 2g cupric sulfate in DIW, bring to 100 m1 volume (2%). Dissolve 250g ammonium chloride in DIW, bring to l liter volume. Add 5ml of 2% CuSO4 solution to this NH4Cl stock. This should last many months. Phosphate Analysis Ortho-Phosphate was analysed using a modification of the Bernhardt and Wilhelms [Bern67] method. Acidified ammonium molybdate was added to a seawater sample to produce phosphomolybdic acid, which was then reduced to phosphomolybdous acid (a blue compound) following the addition of dihydrazine sulfate. The sample was passed through a 10mm flowcell and absorbance measured at 820nm. -25- REAGENTS Ammonium Molybdate H2SO4 solution: Pour 420 ml of DIW into a 2 liter Ehrlenmeyer flask or beaker, place this flask or beaker into an ice bath. SLOWLY add 330 ml of concentrated H2SO4. This solution gets VERY HOT!! Cool in the ice bath. Make up as much as necessary in the above proportions. Dissolve 27g ammonium molybdate in 250ml of DIW. Bring to 1 liter volume with the cooled sulfuric acid solution. Add 3 drops of 15% DDS surfactant. Store in a dark poly bottle. Dihydrazine Sulfate Dissolve 6.4g dihydrazine sulfate in DIW, bring to 1 liter volume and refrigerate. Silicate Analysis Silicate was analyzed using the technique of Armstrong et al. [Arms67]. Acidified 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. The sample was passed through a 10mm flowcell and measured at 660nm. REAGENTS Tartaric Acid Dissolve 200g tartaric acid in DW and bring to 1 liter volume. Store at room temperature in a poly bottle. Ammonium Molybdate Dissolve 10.8g Ammonium Molybdate Tetrahydrate in 1000ml dilute H2SO4*. *(Dilute H2SO4 = 2.8ml concentrated H2SO4 or 6.4ml of H2SO4 diluted for PO4 moly per liter DW) (dissolve powder, then add H2SO4) Add 3-5 drops 15% SDS surfactant per liter of solution. Stannous Chloride stock (as needed) Dissolve 40g of stannous chloride in 100 ml 5N HCl. Refrigerate in a poly bottle. NOTE: Minimize oxygen introduction by swirling rather than shaking the solution. Discard if a white solution (oxychloride) forms. working: (every 24 hours) Bring 5 ml of stannous chloride stock to 200 ml final volume with 1.2N HCl. Make up daily - refrigerate when not in use in a dark poly bottle. Sampling Nutrient samples were drawn into 40 ml polypropylene screw-capped centrifuge tubes. The tubes and caps were cleaned with 10% HCl and rinsed 2-3 times with sample before filling. Samples were analyzed within 1-3 hours after sample collection, allowing sufficient time for all samples to reach room temperature. The centrifuge tubes fit directly onto the sampler. Data collection and processing Data collection and processing was done with the software (ACCE ver 6.07) provided with the instrument from Seal Analytical. After each run, the charts were reviewed for any problems during the run, any blank was subtracted, and final concentrations (uM) were calculated, based on a linear curve fit. Once the run was reviewed and concentrations calculated a text file was created. That text file was reviewed for possible problems and then converted to another text file with only sample identifiers and nutrient concentrations that was merged with other bottle data. -26- Standards and Glassware calibration Primary standards for silicate (Na2SiF6), nitrate (KNO3), nitrite (NaNO2), and phosphate (KH2PO4) were obtained from Johnson Matthey Chemical Co. and/or Fisher Scientific. The supplier reports purities of >98%, 99.999%, 97%, and 99.999 respectively. All glass volumetric flasks and pipettes were gravimetrically calibrated prior to the cruise. The primary standards were dried and weighed out to 0.1 mg prior to the cruise. The exact weight was noted for future reference. When primary standards were made, the flask volume at 20 deg.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. Primary and secondary standards were made up every 7-10 days. The new standards were compared to the old before use. All the reagent solutions, primary and secondary standards were made with fresh distilled deionized water (DIW). Standards used for the analysis were a combination of reference materials for nutrients in seawater (RMNS) and a dilution of the secondary standard. The RMNS preparation, verification, and suggested protocol for use of the material are described by Aoyama et al. [Aoya06] [Aoya07] [Aoya08] and Sato et al. [Sato10]. RMNS batches BS, BU, BT, and BD were used on this cruise. The high working standard was made up using the in house secondary standard and low nutrient seawater (LNSW). Surface water having low nutrient concentration was taken and filtered using 0.45 micrometer pore size membrane filter. This water was stored in 20 liter cubitainer within a cardboard box. The concentrations of nutrient of this water were measured carefully in Jul 2008. Standardizations were performed at the beginning of each group of samples. Two different batches of LNSW were used on the cruise. The first was used for stations 1-56 and a different batch of LNSW was used for stations 58-81. The concentration of the high working standard changed slightly with the new batch of LNSW. Std. N+N PO4 SiO3 NO2 ------------------------------------------------ BS 0.10 0.065 1.69 0.03 BU 4.13 0.387 21.21 0.07 BT 19.10 1.35 42.83 0.48 BD 30.59 2.244 67.27 0.05 Std5 46.54 3.650 91.64 1.51 sta 1-56 Std5 46.54 3.645 91.66 1.51 sta 57-81 Table 1.13.0 CLIVAR A22 Concentration of RMNS and high standard (uM) Quality Control All data were reported in uM (micromoles/liter). NO3, PO4, and NO2 were reported to two decimal places and SiO3 to one. Accuracy is based on the quality of the standards; the levels were: Parameter Accuracy (uM) -------------------------- NO3 0.05 PO4 0.02 SiO3 2-4 NO2 0.05 Table 1.13.1 CLIVAR A22 Nutrient Accuracy Precision numbers for the instrument were the same for NO3 and PO4 and a little better for SiO3 and NO2 (1 and 0.01 respectively). -27- The detection limits for the methods/instrumentation were: Parameter Detection Limits (uM) ---------------------------------- NO3+NO2 0.02 PO4 0.02 SiO3 0.5 NO2 0.02 Table 1.13.2 CLIVAR A22 Nutrient Detection Limits As is standard ODF practice, a deep calibration check sample was run with each set of samples and the data are tabulated below. Parameter Concentration (uM) ------------------------------- NO3 17.20 +/- 0.04 PO4 1.17 +/- 0.009 SiO3 18.57 +/- 0.15 Table 1.13.3 CLIVAR A22 RMNS cruise-averaged data Analytical Problems There were no major analytical problems. The calibration fits for all the nutrients were adjusted after noticing an offset in phosphate data between the 2003 and 2012 A22 occupations. -28- References Aoya06. Aoyama, M., "Intercomparison Exercise for Reference Material for Nutrients in Seawater in a Seawater Matrix," Technical Reports of the Meteorological Research Institute No.50, p. 91, Tsukuba, Japan. (2006a). Aoya08. Aoyama, M., Barwell-Clark, J., Becker, S., Blum, M., Braga, E.S., Coverly, S.C., Czobik, E., Dahllof, I., Dai, M.H., Donnell, G.O., Engelke, C., Gong, G.C., Hong, Gi-Hoon, Hydes, D. J., Jin, M. M., Kasai, H., Kerouel, R., Kiyomono, Y., Knockaert, M., Kress, N., Krogslund, K. A., Kumagai, M., Leterme, S., Li, Yarong, Masuda, S., Miyao, T., Moutin, T., Murata, A., Nagai, N., Nausch, G., Ngirchechol, M. K., Nybakk, A., Ogawa, H., Ooijen, J. van, Ota, H., Pan, J. M., Payne, C., Pierre-Duplessix, O., Pujo-Pay, M., Raabe, T., Saito, K., Sato, K., Schmidt, C., Schuett, M., Shammon, T. M., Sun, J., Tanhua, T., White, L., Woodward, E.M.S., Worsfold, P., Yeats, P., Yoshimura, T., A.Youenou, and Zhang, J. Z., "2006 Intercomparison Exercise for Reference Material for Nutrients in Seawater in a Seawater Matrix," Technical Reports of the Meteorological Research Institute No. 58, p. 104pp (2008). Aoya07. Aoyama, M., Susan, B., Minhan, D., Hideshi, D., Louis, I. G., Kasai, H., Roger, K., Nurit, K., Doug, M., Murata, A., Nagai, N., Ogawa, H., Ota, H., Saito, H., Saito, K., Shimizu, T., Takano, H., Tsuda, A., Yokouchi, K., and Agnes, Y., "Recent Comparability of Oceanographic Nutrients Data: Results of a 2003 Intercomparison Exercise Using Reference Materials.," Analytical Sciences, 23: 115, pp. 1-1154 (2007). 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 Park, 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). -29- Hage68. Hager, S. W., Gordon, L. I., and Park, 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). Hyde10. Hydes, D. J., Aoyama, M., Aminot, A., Bakker, K., Becker, S., Coverly, S., Daniel, A., Dickson, A. G., Grosso, O., Kerouel, R., Ooijen, J. van, Sato, K., Tanhua, T., Woodward, E. M. S., and Zhang, J. Z., "Determination of Dissolved Nutrients (N, P, Si) in Seawater with High Precision and Inter-Comparability Using Gas-Segmented Continuous Flow Analysers" in GO-SHIP Repeat Hydrography Manual: A Collection of Expert Reports and Guidelines. IOCCP Report No. 14, ICPO Publication Series No 134 (2010a). 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. 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," Journ. of Am. Meteorological Soc., 15, p. 621 (1985). Sato10. Sato, K., Aoyama, M., and Becker, S., "RMNS as Calibration Standard Solution to Keep Comparability for Several Cruises in the World Ocean in 2000s.," Aoyama, M., Dickson, A.G., Hydes, D.J., Murata, A., Oh, J.R., Roose, P., Woodward, E.M.S., (Eds.) Comparability of nutrients in the world's ocean., pp. 43-56, Tsukuba, JAPAN: MOTHER TANK (2010b). UNES81. UNESCO, "Background papers and supporting data on the Practical Salinity Scale, 1978," UNESCO Technical Papers in Marine Science, No. 37, p. 144 (1981). -30- Appendix A CLIVAR A22: CTD Temperature and Conductivity Corrections Summary ITS-90 Temperature Coefficients Conductivity Coefficients Sta/ corT = tp1*corP + t0 corC = c1*C + c0 Cast tp1 t0 c1 c0 001/02 3.1700e-08 -0.001096 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 002/02 3.1700e-08 -0.001013 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 003/01 3.1700e-08 -0.001000 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 004/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000988 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 005/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000971 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 006/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000951 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 007/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000932 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 008/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000909 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 009/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000884 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 010/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000848 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 011/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000817 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 012/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000786 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 013/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000755 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 014/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000724 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 015/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000698 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 016/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000670 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 017/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000601 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 018/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000565 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 019/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000534 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 020/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000504 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 021/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000474 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 022/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000443 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 023/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000412 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 024/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000381 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 025/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000353 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 026/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000327 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 027/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000290 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 028/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000259 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 029/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000224 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 030/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000189 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 031/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000155 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 032/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000120 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 033/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000084 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 034/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000047 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 035/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000012 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 036/01 3.1700e-08 0.000030 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 037/01 3.1700e-08 0.000064 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 038/01 3.1700e-08 0.000100 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 039/01 3.1700e-08 0.000136 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 040/01 3.1700e-08 0.000172 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 041/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000186 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 042/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000147 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 043/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000110 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 044/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000078 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 045/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000046 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 046/01 3.1700e-08 -0.000017 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 047/01 3.1700e-08 0.000013 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 048/01 3.1700e-08 0.000044 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 049/01 3.1700e-08 0.000069 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 050/01 3.1700e-08 0.000090 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 051/01 3.1700e-08 0.000112 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 052/01 3.1700e-08 0.000129 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 053/01 3.1700e-08 0.000144 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 054/01 3.1700e-08 0.000157 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 055/01 3.1700e-08 0.000167 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 056/01 3.1700e-08 0.000203 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 057/01 3.1700e-08 0.000241 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 058/01 3.1700e-08 0.000250 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 059/01 3.1700e-08 0.000260 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 060/01 3.1700e-08 0.000273 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 -31- ITS-90 Temperature Coefficients Conductivity Coefficients Sta/ corT = tp1*corP + t0 corC = c1*C + c0 Cast tp1 t0 c1 c0 061/01 3.1700e-08 0.000288 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 062/01 3.1700e-08 0.000306 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 063/01 3.1700e-08 0.000326 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 064/01 3.1700e-08 0.000357 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 065/01 3.1700e-08 0.000392 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 066/01 3.1700e-08 0.000429 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 067/01 3.1700e-08 0.000464 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 068/01 3.1700e-08 0.000499 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 069/01 3.1700e-08 0.000499 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 070/01 3.1700e-08 0.000499 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 071/01 3.1700e-08 0.000499 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 072/01 3.1700e-08 0.000499 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 073/01 3.1700e-08 0.000499 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 074/01 3.1700e-08 0.000499 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 075/01 3.1700e-08 0.000499 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 076/01 3.1700e-08 0.000499 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 077/01 3.1700e-08 0.000499 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 078/01 3.1700e-08 0.000499 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 079/01 3.1700e-08 0.000499 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 080/01 3.1700e-08 0.000499 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 081/01 3.1700e-08 0.000499 -2.08476e-04 0.008115 -32- Appendix B Summary of CLIVAR A22 CTD Oxygen Time Constants (time constants in seconds) +------------------+----------------------------+-----------------+-------------+----------+-------------------+ | Pressure | Temperature | Pressure | O2 Gradient | Velocity | Thermal | |Hysteresis (Tauh) | Long(TauTl) | Short(TauTs) | Gradient (Taup) | (Tauog) | (TaudP) | Diffusion (TaudT) | +------------------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-------------+----------+-------------------+ | 50.0 | 300.0 | 4.0 | 0.50 | 8.00 | 200.00 | 300.0 | +------------------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-------------+----------+-------------------+ CLIVAR A22: Conversion Equation Coefficients for CTD Oxygen (refer to Equation 1.8.4.0) Sta/ OcSlope Offset Phcoeff Tlcoeff Tscoeff Plcoeff dOc/dtcoeff dP/dtcoeff TdTcoeff Cast (c1) (c3) (c2) (c4) (c5) (c6) (c7) (c8) (c9) 001/02 6.642e-04 -0.2448 -1.8400 5.212e-03 -1.762e-02 -1.158e-01 2.820e-03 -1.158e-01 1.047e-02 002/02 8.034e-04 -0.2422 3.4168 -2.263e-02 -8.080e-03 5.536e-02 1.441e-03 5.536e-02 1.397e-03 003/01 3.949e-04 -0.1604 -1.8875 2.991e-02 2.541e-03 -6.785e-02 2.586e-03 -6.785e-02 -2.328e-02 004/01 5.376e-04 -0.2191 -1.5090 1.622e-02 -1.032e-02 -4.067e-02 2.237e-03 -4.067e-02 3.515e-03 005/01 5.393e-04 -0.1994 -0.4073 1.593e-04 6.479e-03 -4.905e-03 2.795e-03 -4.905e-03 -1.132e-02 006/01 6.519e-04 -0.3291 1.6563 1.327e-02 -1.407e-02 1.844e-02 -4.520e-03 1.844e-02 1.340e-02 007/01 5.248e-04 -0.2377 3.8916 6.541e-03 5.073e-03 4.057e-02 1.320e-03 4.057e-02 -3.110e-03 008/01 6.446e-04 -0.2931 1.0297 1.327e-02 -1.743e-02 1.098e-02 6.621e-03 1.098e-02 8.420e-03 009/01 5.588e-04 -0.1983 -0.3408 -1.518e-02 1.798e-02 -1.283e-02 -6.638e-03 -1.283e-02 -1.676e-02 010/01 5.845e-04 -0.2076 0.5549 -6.587e-03 4.644e-03 2.543e-02 3.553e-03 2.543e-02 9.715e-04 011/01 5.734e-04 -0.1791 -0.1288 -2.393e-03 -2.075e-03 1.520e-04 -1.386e-03 1.520e-04 -4.564e-04 012/01 5.984e-04 -0.2469 -0.0528 1.525e-03 -6.083e-04 -6.380e-03 -4.691e-04 -6.380e-03 8.138e-04 013/01 5.865e-04 -0.2248 -0.0457 -7.871e-03 8.581e-03 -2.517e-03 -3.120e-04 -2.517e-03 -2.960e-03 014/01 5.631e-04 -0.2037 -0.2142 -7.642e-03 9.523e-03 -1.584e-02 -2.872e-03 -1.584e-02 -8.374e-03 015/01 5.676e-04 -0.2153 -0.1645 -3.316e-03 5.425e-03 -9.933e-03 4.065e-03 -9.933e-03 -4.889e-03 016/01 5.753e-04 -0.2345 -0.1532 -1.186e-03 3.113e-03 -1.103e-02 2.152e-03 -1.103e-02 -6.391e-03 017/01 5.815e-04 -0.2281 -0.0968 -4.255e-03 5.356e-03 -4.662e-03 -2.187e-03 -4.662e-03 -6.545e-03 018/01 5.843e-04 -0.2205 -0.1057 1.405e-03 -7.194e-04 -1.412e-02 -3.364e-03 -1.412e-02 5.856e-04 019/01 5.457e-04 -0.1785 -0.2546 -6.330e-03 8.641e-03 -1.583e-02 4.282e-04 -1.583e-02 -8.594e-03 020/01 5.841e-04 -0.2195 -0.1071 4.616e-04 5.877e-04 -7.168e-03 6.206e-03 -7.168e-03 -1.066e-04 021/01 5.604e-04 -0.1856 -0.2060 -2.592e-03 4.290e-03 -1.985e-02 1.776e-03 -1.985e-02 -4.818e-03 022/01 6.073e-04 -0.2593 -0.0210 3.002e-03 -3.049e-03 -1.270e-03 4.588e-04 -1.270e-03 1.229e-03 023/01 6.215e-04 -0.2836 -0.0326 7.060e-03 -6.814e-03 -1.541e-02 -4.079e-03 -1.541e-02 2.437e-03 024/01 5.770e-04 -0.2176 -0.1686 -1.668e-03 2.988e-03 -2.267e-02 5.513e-03 -2.267e-02 -5.717e-03 025/01 5.995e-04 -0.2387 -0.1036 4.072e-03 -4.162e-03 -1.395e-02 1.192e-03 -1.395e-02 2.164e-03 026/01 6.046e-04 -0.2528 -0.0754 5.358e-03 -5.103e-03 -7.404e-03 2.883e-03 -7.404e-03 3.209e-03 027/01 7.448e-04 -0.4388 0.6982 1.890e-02 -2.361e-02 5.354e-03 -3.894e-04 5.354e-03 1.539e-02 028/01 5.677e-04 -0.2120 -0.1722 -1.503e-03 3.311e-03 -1.179e-02 1.426e-03 -1.179e-02 -3.391e-03 029/01 5.803e-04 -0.2425 -0.1292 2.050e-03 -4.132e-04 -1.491e-02 -8.356e-04 -1.491e-02 -5.977e-03 030/01 5.790e-04 -0.2253 -0.1518 -1.671e-03 2.996e-03 -1.481e-02 8.281e-04 -1.481e-02 -3.489e-03 031/01 5.161e-04 -0.1043 -0.4482 -2.108e-02 2.385e-02 -1.855e-02 6.077e-04 -1.855e-02 -1.242e-02 032/01 6.241e-04 -0.2818 -0.0215 6.568e-03 -6.971e-03 -1.197e-02 -1.732e-03 -1.197e-02 1.837e-03 033/01 5.700e-04 -0.2094 -0.1466 -7.423e-03 9.500e-03 -7.522e-03 7.109e-03 -7.522e-03 -9.432e-03 034/01 6.097e-04 -0.2565 -0.0709 1.158e-03 -9.006e-04 -1.927e-02 -9.041e-04 -1.927e-02 -2.041e-03 035/01 5.940e-04 -0.2351 -0.0751 4.665e-04 -1.972e-04 -5.268e-03 -1.624e-05 -5.268e-03 -2.183e-04 036/01 6.050e-04 -0.2455 -0.0591 -2.220e-03 2.438e-03 -7.737e-03 2.220e-03 -7.737e-03 -1.476e-03 037/01 5.960e-04 -0.2318 -0.0711 -3.046e-03 3.290e-03 -9.082e-03 -1.217e-03 -9.082e-03 -2.500e-03 038/01 5.894e-04 -0.2241 -0.0754 -1.777e-03 2.270e-03 -6.374e-03 6.591e-03 -6.374e-03 -1.441e-03 039/01 5.799e-04 -0.2081 -0.1270 -1.023e-02 1.121e-02 -1.349e-02 7.165e-04 -1.349e-02 -1.155e-02 040/01 5.972e-04 -0.2230 -0.0880 -4.873e-03 4.842e-03 -1.164e-02 9.243e-04 -1.164e-02 -1.216e-03 041/01 6.030e-04 -0.2379 -0.0669 -4.746e-04 4.783e-04 -1.339e-02 1.707e-03 -1.339e-02 -8.161e-04 042/01 5.988e-04 -0.2409 -0.1065 8.253e-04 -4.436e-04 -1.524e-02 7.536e-04 -1.524e-02 -1.602e-03 043/01 6.131e-04 -0.2506 -0.0471 4.173e-03 -4.365e-03 -1.225e-02 -2.409e-03 -1.225e-02 5.186e-03 044/01 5.962e-04 -0.2377 -0.0611 -6.919e-03 7.333e-03 -9.207e-03 -4.140e-03 -9.207e-03 -6.448e-03 045/01 6.123e-04 -0.2453 -0.0607 -4.663e-04 -1.141e-04 -1.575e-02 4.695e-03 -1.575e-02 -2.767e-04 046/01 6.053e-04 -0.2309 -0.0370 -4.987e-03 4.674e-03 -8.153e-03 -1.251e-03 -8.153e-03 -9.248e-04 047/01 5.988e-04 -0.2351 -0.0640 -3.572e-04 2.408e-04 -6.832e-03 7.362e-05 -6.832e-03 3.573e-04 048/01 6.091e-04 -0.2391 -0.0242 5.777e-04 -1.264e-03 2.028e-03 2.624e-03 2.028e-03 4.997e-03 049/01 5.424e-04 -0.2024 -0.4397 -3.916e-03 7.303e-03 -2.151e-02 -2.002e-03 -2.151e-02 -1.090e-02 050/01 5.874e-04 -0.2264 -0.1444 -1.848e-03 2.539e-03 -4.929e-03 -1.007e-04 -4.929e-03 -2.246e-03 -33- Sta/ OcSlope Offset Phcoeff Tlcoeff Tscoeff Plcoeff dOc/dtcoeff dP/dtcoeff TdTcoeff Cast (c1) (c3) (c2) (c4) (c5) (c6) (c7) (c8) (c9) 051/01 6.462e-04 -0.2894 0.4984 -1.469e-03 9.369e-05 7.334e-03 1.600e-05 7.334e-03 -4.420e-04 052/01 6.800e-04 -0.3162 1.0582 1.457e-03 -4.476e-03 1.028e-02 1.667e-03 1.028e-02 6.645e-03 053/01 6.172e-04 -0.3436 1.8013 4.988e-03 -2.265e-03 1.749e-02 -1.912e-04 1.749e-02 -4.357e-03 054/01 1.305e-03 -0.4242 0.6181 -1.905e-02 -1.131e-02 6.616e-02 -2.247e-03 6.616e-02 3.074e-02 055/01 4.768e-04 -0.1485 -1.2900 1.536e-03 5.287e-03 -4.643e-03 -1.450e-03 -4.643e-03 -2.402e-02 056/01 5.799e-04 -0.2016 -0.1106 -6.575e-03 7.012e-03 -5.650e-03 1.007e-03 -5.650e-03 -1.974e-03 057/01 4.446e-04 -0.0131 -2.7392 -4.282e-04 4.742e-03 -1.629e-02 1.302e-03 -1.629e-02 -2.815e-02 058/01 7.042e-04 -0.3953 1.9412 7.506e-03 -8.839e-03 -2.302e-02 1.392e-03 -2.302e-02 -8.596e-03 059/01 5.512e-04 -0.2265 -0.9362 -3.414e-03 7.440e-03 -6.389e-02 2.321e-03 -6.389e-02 -2.136e-02 060/01 7.470e-04 -0.3079 0.8010 -2.767e-04 -6.971e-03 2.378e-02 3.557e-03 2.378e-02 1.862e-02 061/01 6.403e-04 -0.2491 0.4444 -3.321e-03 1.166e-03 2.814e-03 1.601e-03 2.814e-03 5.290e-03 062/01 6.235e-04 -0.2744 1.1414 -1.780e-03 1.723e-03 1.897e-02 9.954e-04 1.897e-02 -1.302e-03 063/01 5.853e-04 -0.2416 -0.1827 -1.843e-03 3.831e-03 -1.386e-02 4.120e-03 -1.386e-02 -7.807e-03 064/01 5.737e-04 -0.1959 -0.0676 -6.374e-03 7.405e-03 6.091e-04 2.042e-03 6.091e-04 -1.524e-03 065/01 5.653e-04 -0.1960 -0.2058 -1.113e-02 1.308e-02 -1.371e-02 -6.072e-03 -1.371e-02 -1.001e-02 066/01 6.058e-04 -0.2414 -0.0153 -1.531e-04 3.664e-04 8.264e-04 -3.663e-04 8.264e-04 1.631e-03 067/01 6.003e-04 -0.2258 -0.0573 -1.284e-03 1.872e-03 -5.803e-03 -2.041e-03 -5.803e-03 2.618e-03 068/01 5.872e-04 -0.2298 -0.1921 -3.329e-03 4.343e-03 -1.128e-02 -2.297e-03 -1.128e-02 -3.229e-03 069/01 5.762e-04 -0.2080 -0.1232 -4.788e-03 6.109e-03 -2.954e-03 3.963e-03 -2.954e-03 -2.886e-03 070/01 5.980e-04 -0.2392 -0.0428 -2.163e-03 2.697e-03 4.681e-03 2.904e-03 4.681e-03 -2.398e-03 071/01 5.920e-04 -0.2296 -0.1134 -1.788e-03 2.429e-03 -7.441e-03 1.078e-03 -7.441e-03 -7.572e-04 072/01 5.858e-04 -0.2115 -0.0055 -4.615e-03 4.854e-03 -1.945e-03 -5.246e-03 -1.945e-03 8.465e-04 073/01 5.749e-04 -0.2188 -0.2200 -9.460e-03 1.123e-02 -1.228e-02 -4.721e-03 -1.228e-02 -1.143e-02 074/01 6.480e-04 -0.3024 1.2051 6.478e-03 -7.307e-03 1.817e-02 4.208e-03 1.817e-02 7.035e-03 075/01 6.422e-04 -0.3034 1.3200 4.102e-03 -4.214e-03 2.150e-02 3.701e-03 2.150e-02 2.501e-03 076/01 6.552e-04 -0.2975 0.4556 -4.107e-04 -8.647e-04 4.916e-03 3.520e-03 4.916e-03 -8.091e-04 077/01 6.471e-04 -0.2848 1.0507 2.420e-03 -3.838e-03 2.505e-02 3.758e-03 2.505e-02 7.071e-03 078/01 5.871e-04 -0.2207 -1.0264 -8.897e-03 1.001e-02 -4.135e-02 -3.298e-03 -4.135e-02 -1.079e-02 079/01 5.925e-04 -0.2134 -1.0264 -1.328e-02 1.369e-02 9.146e-03 -1.661e-03 9.146e-03 -9.215e-03 080/01 5.455e-04 -0.2131 0.8037 1.695e-03 2.624e-03 -1.996e-02 3.612e-04 -1.996e-02 -7.834e-03 081/01 2.886e-04 -0.1221 3.3148 2.545e-02 3.888e-03 -1.845e-01 2.998e-03 -1.845e-01 -4.318e-03 -34- Appendix C CLIVAR A22: 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). +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |1/2 201 bottle 2 Cast 1 was aborted during equilibration | | process. Dummy plug was left off the bottom | | contact switch port resulting in an deck unit | | alarm. | |1/2 202 o2 2 Saw bubble in flask before re-shaking. Oxygen | | as well as salinity and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |1/2 204 o2 2 Left thio tip out, acid left in sample longer | | than normal while restarting run. Oxygen is a | | little low. Oxygen as well as salinity and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |1/2 208 o2 2 Oxygen sample was run before any chemicals were | | added. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients | | are acceptable. | |2/2 201 bottle 2 Cast 1 was aborted at ~270m, winch problem. | |2/2 204 salt 2 Decreasing trend in salinity measurement, | | probable contamination. Salinity is slightly | | low, within accuracy of the measurement. | | Salinity as will as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |2/2 212 o2 5 Oxygen sample was lost during analysis. | |2/2 213 reft 3 SBE35RT, CTDT1, CTDT2 all disagree; very | | unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient. Code | | questionable. | |2/2 217 po4 2 Appears the nutrients were mis-drawn from 16. | | Data are acceptable, leave as is. Subsequent | | stations show a feature. Analyst: Could be mis- | | drawn, no problem with the run or peaks. | |2/2 219 reft 3 SBE35RT +0.07/+0.10 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very | | unstable SBE35RT reading. Code questionable. | |3/1 101 o2 2 Oxygen run stopped and then restarted, did not | | affect the sample. | |3/1 114 reft 3 SBE35RT, CTDT1, CTDT2 all disagree; very | | unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient. Code | | questionable. | |3/1 116 o2 2 Oxygen run stopped and then restarted, did not | | affect the sample. | |3/1 116 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |3/1 120 bottle 9 Bottle was knocked open on recovery, drained | | before sampling, no water for sampling. | |3/1 120 reft 3 SBE35RT -0.02/-0.06 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very | | unstable SBE35RT reading. Code questionable. | |3/1 122 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, | | agrees with adjoining stations at the surface. | | 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Bottle | | salinity as well as the oxygen and nutrients | | are acceptable. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -35- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |4/1 104 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |4/1 107 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First | | reading was more appropriate, corrected data | | file. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients | | are acceptable. | |4/1 113 reft 3 SBE35RT -0.02/-0.025 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; unstable | | SBE35RT reading. Code questionable. | |4/1 119 reft 3 SBE35RT, CTDT1, CTDT2 all disagree; very | | unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient. Code | | questionable. | |4/1 120 salt 2 Extra salinity sample in position 36, it | | appears to have been drawn from bottle 20, | | corrected the raw data file. Data are | | acceptable. 4 attempts for a good salinity | | reading. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |4/1 125 po4 2 Appears the nutrients were mis-drawn from 26, | | PO4 0.1 high and SiO3 1.0 high, do not see this | | in NO3 or salinity and oxygen. This feature is | | seen in subsequent stations. Data are | | acceptable. Analyst: Peaks look good. | |5/1 102 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Thimble partially came out with cap. Possible | | contamination. Salinity is within specification | | and is acceptable as well as oxygen and | | nutrients. | |5/1 108 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good | | salinity reading. Thimble partially came out | | with cap. Possible contamination. Additional | | reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity | | as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |5/1 109 bottle 2 CFC sampler reported that vent not closed, | | small leak when spigot opened. CFC did not | | sample. Oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |5/1 116 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |5/1 118 bottle 9 O-ring cap leak, bottom end cap askew. No | | samples were taken. | |5/1 121 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional readings resolved salinity | | discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |5/1 123 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |5/1 128 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD agrees | | as surface sample with adjoining stations. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |5/1 130 po4 2 PO4 appears high, feature also seen in NO3 and | | O2, SiO3 does not show this. Trend seen in | | subsequent stations heading toward the Gulf | | Stream. Analyst: Data are acceptable. | |5/1 131 o2 3 Noisy oxygen endpoint fixed. Measurement still | | appears questionable. | |5/1 131 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD agrees | | as surface sample with adjoining stations. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |6/1 115 o2 5 Oxygen appears to have been mis-drawn sample | | 15-18. 15 appears to have been drawn from 16, | | 16 from 17, 17 from 18 and 18 a duplicate with | | 19. Switched these levels. Code oxygen as lost. | |6/1 116 no2 9 | |6/1 116 no3 9 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -36- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |6/1 116 o2 2 Oxygen appears to have been mis-drawn sample | | 15-18. 15 appears to have been drawn from 16, | | 16 from 17, 17 from 18 and 18 a duplicate with | | 19. Switched these levels. | |6/1 116 po4 9 Nutrient tube was found empty, must have been a | | sampling error. | |6/1 116 sio3 9 | |6/1 117 o2 2 Oxygen appears to have been mis-drawn sample | | 15-18. 15 appears to have been drawn from 16, | | 16 from 17, 17 from 18 and 18 a duplicate with | | 19. Switched these levels. | |6/1 118 bottle 3 Leaking from bottom end cap when top vent is | | opened, same as last station. O-ring changed | | out. | |6/1 118 no2 9 | |6/1 118 no3 9 | |6/1 118 o2 4 Oxygen appears to have been drawn from bottle | | 19. Sampler indicates there may have been a | | sampling error, appears bottle 15 was drawn | | from 16, 16 from 17, 17 from 18 and 18 was | | drawn from 19. Will leave the recorded value | | for 19 as is. Code Oxygen bad, salinity and | | nutrients not drawn. | |6/1 118 po4 9 Nutrients were not drawn, bottle ran out of | | water. | |6/1 118 salt 9 Salinity was not drawn, bottle ran out of | | water. | |6/1 118 sio3 9 | |6/1 121 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |6/1 124 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Check | | heater light signal came on; forward bulb | | burned out. Heater continues to cycle, on duty | | is approximately 90%. Salinity as well as | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |6/1 126 reft 3 SBE35RT -0.03/-0.065 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very | | unstable SBE35RT reading. Code questionable. | |6/1 127 reft 3 SBE35RT -0.02/-0.06 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very | | unstable SBE35RT reading. Code questionable. | |7/1 102 bottle 2 Salinity and nutrient samples taken, water used | | for nutrient checks. | |7/1 115 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |7/1 132 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD agrees | | with adjoining stations for a shallow profile. | | There is fluctuation in the CTD profile at the | | bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |7/1 134 o2 5 Error during analysis, O2 sample lost. | |7/1 134 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD agrees | | with adjoining stations for a shallow profile. | | There is fluctuation in the CTD profile at the | | bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |7/1 135 bottle 2 Leaking at bottom, reported by DIC sampler. | | Oxygen as a surface sample is acceptable as | | well as salinity and nutrients. | |8/1 101 bottle 2 Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20, | | winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for | | 19. | |8/1 102 bottle 2 Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20, | | winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for | | 19. | |8/1 103 bottle 2 Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20, | | winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for | | 19. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -37- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |8/1 104 bottle 2 Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20, | | winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for | | 19. | |8/1 105 bottle 2 Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20, | | winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for | | 19. | |8/1 106 bottle 2 Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20, | | winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for | | 19. | |8/1 107 bottle 2 Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20, | | winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for | | 19. | |8/1 108 bottle 2 Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20, | | winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for | | 19. | |8/1 109 bottle 2 Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20, | | winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for | | 19. | |8/1 110 bottle 2 Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20, | | winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for | | 19. | |8/1 111 bottle 2 Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20, | | winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for | | 19. | |8/1 112 bottle 2 Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20, | | winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for | | 19. | |8/1 113 bottle 2 Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20, | | winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for | | 19. | |8/1 114 bottle 2 Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20, | | winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for | | 19. | |8/1 115 bottle 2 Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20, | | winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for | | 19. | |8/1 116 bottle 2 Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20, | | winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for | | 19. | |8/1 117 bottle 2 Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20, | | winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for | | 19. | |8/1 118 bottle 2 Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20, | | winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for | | 19. | |8/1 119 bottle 3 Bottle appears to have leaked, caused by | | lowering of the package. PO4 low, NO2 low, SiO3 | | does agree with adjoining stations, O2 is high. | |8/1 119 no2 4 | |8/1 119 no3 4 | |8/1 119 o2 4 O2 high, ~0.2 ml/l. No analytical problems | | noted, the bottle leaked. Code oxygen bad. | |8/1 119 po4 4 | |8/1 119 salt 4 Salinity low compared with adjoining stations. | |8/1 119 sio3 4 | |8/1 120 bottle 2 Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20, | | winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for | | 19. | |8/1 124 reft 3 SBE35RT +0.04/+0.025 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very | | unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient. Code | | questionable. | |8/1 128 reft 3 SBE35RT -0.045 vs CTDT; in a gradient. Code | | questionable. | |8/1 131 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. No analytical problems | | noted, sample was run very quickly. Could have | | been mis-drawn from 33. Code salinity bad, | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -38- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |8/1 135 bottle 2 Leak from bottom, bottom o-ring missing, | | replaced after sampling. Salinity, oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |9/1 127 salt 5 Salinity sample bottle was empty. Code salinity | | lost, sampler error. | |9/1 134 reft 3 SBE35RT -0.05 vs CTDT; very unstable SBE35RT | | reading. Code questionable. | |9/1 134 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity thimble came off with cap. Salinity is | | a little high compared with CTD changing area, | | acceptable as shallow sample with adjoining | | station. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |10/1 104 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |10/1 105 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |10/1 106 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good | | salinity reading. Additional readings did not | | resolve salinity discrepancy. Code salinity | | bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | | Backup salinometer was employed after this | | sample. | |10/1 108 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |10/1 109 bottle 2 Could only rinse salinity bottle once, low on | | water. Minimal sampling on this bottle. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |10/1 110 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |10/1 120 salt 2 Salinity bottle has a broken lip, bottle | | retired after analysis performed. Salinity as | | well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |10/1 129 reft 3 SBE35RT -0.035/-0.04 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; unstable | | SBE35RT reading. Code questionable. | |10/1 130 reft 3 SBE35RT -0.03/-0.05 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; unstable | | SBE35RT reading. Code questionable. | |10/1 131 reft 3 SBE35RT -0.08/-0.07 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; unstable | | SBE35RT reading. Code questionable. | |10/1 132 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |10/1 134 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Variation at trip in CTD, | | salinity agrees with shallow region adjoining | | stations. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |10/1 135 o2 2 Oxygen endpoint not believable. Measurement | | likely bad. Compared with adjoining stations | | and CTD, oxygen is acceptable. | |11/1 105 salt 5 Salinity bottles are full after station 15. | | Salinometer had a problem and the spare was not | | equilibrated to complete the analysis and free | | bottles. Bottles 5, 9 and 15 were requested to | | be pulled for subsequent station, 16, 11 was | | pulled instead of 15. Code salinity lost. | |11/1 109 salt 5 Code salinity lost, see bottle 5 explanation. | |11/1 110 salt 4 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Additional readings did not | | resolve salinity discrepancy. If this were a | | mis-draw it would have to come from bottle 13. | | Code salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -39- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |11/1 111 salt 5 Code salinity lost, see bottle 5 explanation. | |11/1 135 reft 3 SBE35RT -0.07 vs CTDT; unstable SBE35RT | | reading. Code questionable. | |11/1 135 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |12/1 103 salt 5 Salinity bottles are full after station 15. | | Salinometer had a problem and the spare was not | | equilibrated to complete the analysis and free | | bottles until Station 17. Bottles 5, 9 and 15 | | were requested to be pulled for subsequent | | station, 16, 11 was pulled instead of 15. Code | | salinity lost. | |12/1 106 salt 4 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good | | salinity reading. Additional readings do not | | resolve salinity discrepancy, could be a mis- | | draw with 7. Code salinity bad, oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |12/1 107 salt 5 Code salinity lost, see bottle 3 explanation. | |12/1 110 salt 5 Code salinity lost, see bottle 3 explanation. | |12/1 132 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, | | acceptable for a shallow maximum sample with | | variation in the water column. Salinity as well | | as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |12/1 134 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, | | acceptable for a shallow sample with variation | | in the water column. Salinity as well as oxygen | | and nutrients are acceptable. | |13/1 101 salt 2 Larger than normal drift, suspect and adjust | | the beginning bad SSW vial. Salinity agreement | | much better with adjoining stations and CTD, | | although there was a lot of noise in the run. | |13/1 104 salt 5 Salinity bottles are full after station 15. | | Salinometer had a problem and the spare was not | | equilibrated to complete the analysis and free | | bottles. Bottles 5, 9 and 15 were requested to | | be pulled for subsequent station, 16, 11 was | | pulled instead of 15. Code salinity lost. | |13/1 106 salt 3 Salinity low compared with adjoining stations | | and CTD. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |13/1 108 salt 5 Code salinity lost, see bottle 4 explanation. | |13/1 110 salt 3 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Suspect Black Carbon | | sampling only left dregs. Code salinity | | questionable, oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |13/1 111 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional readings resolved salinity | | discrepancy. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |13/1 112 salt 2 03 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional readings did not resolved salinity | | discrepancy. Throughout the run there were | | noisy values, this is within measurement specs. | | Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |13/1 113 salt 5 Code salinity lost, see bottle 4 explanation. | |13/1 119 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinity appears to have | | been mis-drawn from 18. Code salinity bad. | |13/1 121 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good | | salinity reading. Additional readings did not | | resolve salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well | | as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -40- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |13/1 125 salt 2 5 attempts for a good salinity reading. Erratic | | readings, possible contamination. Additional | | readings did not resolve salinity discrepancy. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |13/1 128 reft 3 SBE35RT +0.035/+0.04 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; unstable | | SBE35RT reading in a gradient. Code | | questionable. | |13/1 130 salt 2 5 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Erratic readings, possible contamination. | | Additional readings did not resolve salinity | | discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |13/1 131 reft 3 SBE35RT +0.06 vs CTDT; somewhat unstable | | SBE35RT reading. Code questionable. | |13/1 132 reft 3 SBE35RT -0.025/-0.03 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; unstable | | SBE35RT reading in a high gradient. Code | | questionable. | |14/1 103 salt 5 Salinity bottles are full after station 15. | | Salinometer had a problem and the spare was not | | equilibrated to complete the analysis and free | | bottles. Bottles 5, 9 and 15 were requested to | | be pulled for subsequent station, 16, 11 was | | pulled instead of 15. Code salinity lost. | |14/1 104 o2 3 Noisy endpoint for O2. May be slightly high, | | 0.03, compared with CTD and adjoining stations. | | Code O2 questionable, salinity and nutrients | | are acceptable. | |14/1 105 bottle 2 Feature seen in oxygen, higher, and the | | nutrients, lower, which is not seen in | | salinity. Data are acceptable. | |14/1 109 salt 5 Code salinity lost, see bottle 3 explanation. | |14/1 110 ctds 2 CTDS feature is real, seen in TS and O2, for | | both primary and secondary sensors. Code | | acceptable. | |14/1 110 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD | | agrees with adjoining stations. Feature seen in | | CTD that must not have been captured by the | | bottle. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |14/1 112 salt 5 Code salinity lost, see bottle 3 explanation. | |14/1 115 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Sample very fresh, could | | have been sampled from another station, 1-11. | | Code salinity bad. | |14/1 121 o2 4 Bad endpoint for O2 (None). O2 is slightly | | high compared with CTD and adjoining station. | | Code O2 bad. | |14/1 128 o2 2 O2 program froze. Restarted, no problem with | | the sample. | |14/1 132 reft 3 Somewhat unstable SBE35RT reading in gradient. | | Code questionable. | |15/1 118 salt 4 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Thimble came with cap. Code | | salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |15/1 128 salt 5 Marked as sampled, salt bottle was empty. Code | | salinity lost. | |15/1 134 reft 3 SBE35RT +0.03/+0.025 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; somewhat | | unstable SBE35RT reading in a high gradient. | | Code questionable. | |16/1 101 salt 2 Not all salinities were drawn on this station. | | Backup salinometer was brought into service and | | needed to equilibrate before using, all | | salinity bottles were employed. Salinity bottle | | were pulled from Stations 11, 12, 13 and 14 to | | provide salinity for levels sampled for carbon | | and some deep checks for CTD calibrations. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -41- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |16/1 110 o2 2 Accidentally added 2 stir bars during O2 | | analysis, had to extract and rinse. Oxygen as | | well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. | |16/1 134 bottle 2 Vent was open when started to sample. Oxygen as | | well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. | |16/1 135 bottle 2 Vent was open when started to sample. Oxygen as | | well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. | |16/1 136 bottle 2 Vent was open when started to sample. Oxygen as | | well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. | |17/1 105 salt 4 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good | | salinity reading. Additional readings did not | | resolve salinity discrepancy. Code salinity | | bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |18/1 111 reft 3 deep SBE35RT +0.003 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; unstable | | SBE35RT reading. Code questionable. | |18/1 117 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good | | salinity reading. Thimble came out with cap, | | possible contamination. First reading resolved | | salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |18/1 134 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Thimble came out with cap, possible | | contamination. Salinity, gradient and within | | data specification, as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |19/1 108 o2 2 Sample was over-titrated and back-titrated. | | This is the over-titrated run due to a very | | poor curve. Oxygen as well as salinity and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |19/1 116 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |19/1 121 reft 3 SBE35RT +0.065/+0.035 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; somewhat | | unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient. Code | | questionable. | |20/1 114 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity is slightly high, additional readings | | do not resolve salinity discrepancy. Salinity | | as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |20/1 116 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity is acceptable with two reading | | agreement. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |20/1 119 o2 2 O2 titration error. Oxygen agrees with | | adjoining station and reasonable in gradient. | | Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |20/1 131 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity is acceptable with two reading | | agreement. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |21/1 124 o2 2 Sample was over-titrated and back-titrated. | | Missed O2 Endpoint. Oxygen is acceptable. | |21/1 124 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, | | gradient area, acceptable agreement. Salinity | | as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable | |22/1 113 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble | | came out with cap, possible contamination. | | Additional reading resolved salinity | | discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients. | |22/1 115 o2 2 Sample was over-titrated and back-titrated, | | original curve bad. This didn't look much | | better. Original titration fits the station | | profile, corrected the file. Oxygen as well as | | salinity and nutrients are acceptable. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -42- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |22/1 121 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinometer had a momentary freeze of | | temperature control circuit bath temperature | | went low on first reading. Salinity as well as | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |22/1 122 reft 3 SBE35RT +0.05/+0.06 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; unstable | | SBE35RT reading. Code questionable. | |22/1 122 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, | | gradient area. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |22/1 135 o2 2 Sample was over-titrated and back-titrated. | | Looks much better. Oxygen as well as salinity | | and nutrients are acceptable. | |23/1 101 salt 2 Bubbles in rinse discharge. Autosal cell | | cleaned prior to use. Salinity for cast are | | slightly low, well within measurement | | specifications. | |23/1 110 o2 2 Dissolved sample sat for a while due to a | | needed computer reboot. Feature in O2 both | | bottle and CTD, same feature seen in salinity | | and nutrients. | |23/1 123 o2 2 Oxygen endpoint a bit high, agrees with | | adjoining stations. Oxygen as well as salinity | | and nutrients are acceptable. | |24/1 107 o2 2 Program froze. Restarted before titrating | | sample. Oxygen agrees with CTD and adjoining | | stations and is acceptable as are salinity and | | nutrients. | |24/1 121 reft 3 SBE35RT +0.025/+0.035 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very | | unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient. Code | | questionable. | |24/1 127 o2 2 Noisy, bad O2 endpoint. Oxygen agrees with CTD | | and adjoining stations and is acceptable as are | | salinity and nutrients. | |25/1 122 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, | | agrees as well in gradient area. Salinity, | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |25/1 123 reft 3 SBE35RT -0.02/-0.035 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; somewhat | | unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient. Code | | questionable. | |25/1 123 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, | | agrees as well in gradient area. Salinity, | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |25/1 130 salt 2 Salinity computer shut off inexplicably. No | | other programs were running. No data transfer | | in progress. Unknown failure. Salinity as well | | as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |26/1 107 o2 5 Forgot to add acid. Oxygen sample lost. | |26/1 108 o2 2 Sample was over-titrated and back-titrated, did | | over-titration after 0.139ml thio added to | | sample. system went into low o2 mode and was | | running too slowing. Oxygen is slightly low, | | will attempt to recalculate. O2 vs. SiO3 | | relationship low. Code oxygen questionable, | | salinity and nutrients are acceptable. | |26/1 113 salt 5 Salinity error found empty before analysis, | | sampling error. Code salinity lost. | |26/1 124 o2 2 Ran as niskin flask 1328 & temp 6.5, actually | | flask 1687 & temp 16.4. O2 data files | | corrected, oxygen is acceptable. Oxygen as well | | as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. | |27/1 101 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional readings resolved salinity | | discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |27/1 105 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity is within measurement specification | | and is acceptable as well as oxygen and | | nutrients. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -43- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |27/1 107 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well | | as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |27/1 108 salt 2 5 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity is acceptable with chosen readings. | | Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |27/1 112 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional readings did not resolve salinity | | discrepancy. Salinity is within measurement | | specification and is acceptable as well as | | oxygen and nutrients. | |27/1 125 o2 5 Software froze mid-titration. O2 sample lost. | |27/1 135 o2 2 Oxygen flask 1544 broke, replaced with 1089. | |28/1 108 o2 2 Stopper from 1311. O2 endpoint good but volume | | questionable. Oxygen is acceptable. | |28/1 122 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD agrees | | with adjoining gradient area stations with a | | strong difference between the down and up cast. | | No analytical problems noted. Salinity as well | | as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |29/1 109 salt 2 Salinity bottle had no water in it when first | | sampled indicating it may have been a new | | bottle. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |29/1 113 reft 3 deep SBE35RT -0.007 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very | | unstable SBE35RT reading. Code questionable. | |29/1 122 o2 2 Sample was over-titrated and back-titrated, | | similar curve as before. Oxygen is acceptable. | | Oxygen, salinity and nutrients are acceptable. | |29/1 122 reft 3 SBE35RT -0.75/-0.06 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very | | unstable SBE35RT reading. Code questionable. | |30/1 119 po4 2 PO4, NO3 and SiO3 appears high compared with | | adjoining stations. This is not seen in O2, | | salinity is slightly low. All within accuracy, | | nutrients as well as salinity and oxygen are | | acceptable. Analyst: Run looks good. Value | | seems ok on overlay plot with Stations 28-32. | |30/1 130 reft 2 Winch restarted a few seconds before SBE35RT | | reading done, value looks ok. | |31/1 101 o2 3 Oxygen high compared with CTD and adjoining | | stations, samples 1-7. Analysts not certain | | what caused this, suspect sampling exposure to | | high winds with no protection. Code oxygen | | questionable, salinity and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |31/1 102 o2 3 Oxygen high compared with CTD and adjoining | | stations, samples 1-7. Analysts not certain | | what caused this, suspect sampling exposure to | | high winds with no protection. Code oxygen | | questionable, salinity and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |31/1 102 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble | | came off with cap. Additional readings resolved | | salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |31/1 103 o2 3 Oxygen high compared with CTD and adjoining | | stations, samples 1-7. Analysts not certain | | what caused this, suspect sampling exposure to | | high winds with no protection. Code oxygen | | questionable, salinity and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |31/1 104 o2 5 System froze. O2 sample lost. Salinity and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |31/1 105 o2 3 Oxygen high compared with CTD and adjoining | | stations. Not certain what caused this however | | sampling was exposed to wind, suspect that is | | the cause of the high oxygen. Code oxygen | | questionable, salinity and nutrients are | | acceptable. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -44- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |31/1 106 o2 3 Oxygen high compared with CTD and adjoining | | stations. Not certain what caused this however | | sampling was exposed to wind, suspect that is | | the cause of the high oxygen. Code oxygen | | questionable, salinity and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |31/1 106 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble | | came off with cap. Additional readings resolved | | salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |31/1 107 o2 4 O2 value too high. Likely system/operator | | error. Salinity and nutrients are acceptable. | |31/1 112 o2 4 Overshot O2 endpoint. Code O2 bad. Salinity and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |31/1 113 sio3 3 SiO3 appears low compared with adjoining | | stations, did not show in other properties. | | Analyst: SiO3 peak is low in the run, real but | | questionable data. Code SiO3 questionable, | | other nutrients, salinity and oxygen are | | acceptable. | |31/1 118 o2 3 Oxygen high compared with CTD and adjoining | | stations. Not certain what caused this however | | sampling was exposed to wind, suspect that is | | the cause of the high oxygen. Code oxygen | | questionable, salinity and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |31/1 127 o2 3 Oxygen high compared with CTD and adjoining | | stations. Not certain what caused this however | | sampling was exposed to wind, suspect that is | | the cause of the high oxygen. Code oxygen | | questionable, salinity and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |31/1 135 o2 3 Oxygen high compared with CTD and adjoining | | stations. Not certain what caused the O2 | | problems on this station, however, sampling was | | exposed to wind, suspect that is the cause of | | the high oxygen. Code oxygen questionable. This | | bottle was found to have a leaking/tripping | | problem on Station 33. The O2 draw temperature | | does not reflect that problem. Reviewed | | previous stations specifically for bottle 35 | | and did not see a mis-tripping problem. | |32/1 124 reft 3 SBE35RT +0.035/+0.045 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; somewhat | | unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient. Code | | questionable. | |32/1 125 o2 2 Oxygen may have lost thio, possibly bad. Oxygen | | agrees with adjoining stations and is | | acceptable. | |33/1 105 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Two | | good readings averaged properly. Salinity as | | well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |33/1 120 o2 2 Noisy endpoint. Oxygen as well as salinity and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |33/1 126 o2 2 Lost part of sample after adding reagent. | | Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |33/1 135 bottle 3 Oxygen draw temperature colder than adjoining | | bottles, could be a mis-trip. Nutrients are | | high, oxygen is low, bottle in fact tripped | | early. On Station 34, spring changed out. Code | | bottle 3, samples bad. This bottle was found | | to have a leaking/tripping problem on Station | | 33. The O2 draw temperature indicates the | | bottle tripped shallower. | |33/1 135 no2 4 | |33/1 135 no3 4 | |33/1 135 o2 4 | |33/1 135 po4 4 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -45- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |33/1 135 salt 4 Salt bottle value low, niskin problem, code | | bad. | |33/1 135 sio3 4 | |34/1 126 bottle 9 Lanyard hooked on recovery-no water. | |34/1 135 bottle 3 O2 draw temperature indicates a problem with | | the bottle tripping. Interconnect lanyard not | | repaired properly from Station 6 and repaired | | after Station 7. Bottom cap started shutting | | prematurely, repaired after this cast. | |34/1 135 no2 4 | |34/1 135 no3 4 | |34/1 135 o2 4 Oxygen low, bottle problem. Code oxygen bad. | |34/1 135 po4 4 Nutrients high, bottle problem. Code PO4, NO3, | | NO2, SiO3 bad. | |34/1 135 salt 4 Salt bottle value low, niskin problem, code | | bad. | |34/1 135 sio3 4 | |35/1 101 bottle 2 Ship speed reduced to ~2kn for sampling. | |35/1 124 reft 3 SBE35RT +0.08/+0.10 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very | | unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient. Code | | questionable. | |35/1 125 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, | | gradient area. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |35/1 134 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First | | reading resolved slight salinity discrepancy. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |36/1 118 o2 3 Same random slow titration problem, has not as | | yet affected the O2 sample. O2 low. Code O2 | | questionable, salinity and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |37/1 113 salt 5 Salinity sample lost, operator error, forgot to | | take the reading after flushing. | |37/1 122 o2 4 Oxygen is high, suspect sampling error. Code O2 | | bad. | |37/1 125 o2 2 Oxygen flask switched, Sample Log was followed | | during analysis and O2 is acceptable. | |38/1 103 bottle 2 Difficult to open spigot/nozzle, 3, 12, 16, | | 23,26. Bottle maintenance prior to the next | | station, cleaning the pins. | |39/1 105 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Readings resolved salinity discrepancy. | | Salinity is acceptable as well as oxygen and | | nutrients. | |39/1 106 salt 3 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. No analytical problems | | noted. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |39/1 111 salt 3 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Thimble came off with cap. Salinity high | | compared with CTD and adjoining stations. There | | is a feature in the nutrients, higher vs. | | adjoining stations, oxygen agrees with CTDO. | |40/1 106 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Readings produced a good salinity value. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |40/1 113 salt 5 Salinity sample lost, operator error, forgot to | | take the reading after flushing. | |40/1 124 reft 3 SBE35RT +0.035/+0.045 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; somewhat | | unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient. Code | | questionable. | |40/1 127 bottle 2 Spigot is difficult to open. After the cast, | | the pin was found bent, so it was replaced. | |40/1 134 reft 3 SBE35RT -0.03/-0.045 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; somewhat | | unstable SBE35RT reading. Code questionable. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -46- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |40/1 135 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, | | gradient area. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |41/1 105 o2 4 Endpoint was overshot on first run,and | | accidentally hit "Finish Sample". Added | | standard & re-ran sample in "low o2" mode. | | Obtained good endpoint. O2 high, needs to be | | recalculated for back-titration. O2 slightly | | high could not save the sample. Code O2 bad. | |41/1 118 o2 2 Sample was over-titrated and back-titrated. | | Endpoint was overshot. Good endpoint achieved. | | Oxygen agrees with adjoining stations. | |41/1 124 bottle 9 Spigots/nozzle were hit during recovery, no | | water. | |41/1 126 bottle 9 Spigots/nozzle were hit during recovery, no | | water. | |41/1 136 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Readings chosen by the program are acceptable. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |42/1 104 salt 2 Salinity bottle thimble came off with cap. | | Salinity slightly low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Within measurement | | specifications, salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |42/1 109 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional reading resolves low salinity | | discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |42/1 117 o2 2 O2 17-21 O2 draw temperature probe was reading | | 13.x, sampler went back after sampling bottle | | 22 to get the temperature from the spigot. | |42/1 119 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional reading resolves low salinity | | discrepancy. | |42/1 125 reft 3 SBE35RT +0.035/+0.045 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very | | unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient. Code | | questionable. | |43/1 101 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |43/1 104 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Agrees | | with Station 44, within the measurement | | specifications, although not within accuracy of | | other stations. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |43/1 105 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional reading resolved salinity | | difference. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |43/1 119 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, | | gradient, agrees with adjoining station, CTD is | | showing more features than the bottle. Salinity | | as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |43/1 123 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, | | gradient, agrees with adjoining station for the | | gradient. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |44/1 102 salt 3 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer problem, code | | salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |44/1 103 salt 3 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer problem, code | | salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -47- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |44/1 104 salt 3 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer problem, code | | salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |44/1 105 salt 3 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer problem, code | | salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |44/1 106 o2 2 Oxygen sample was over-titrated and back- | | titrated. No endpoint, original curve was bad, | | and was advised to overtitrate. | |44/1 106 salt 3 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer problem, code | | salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |44/1 107 salt 3 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer problem, code | | salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |44/1 108 salt 3 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer problem, code | | salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |44/1 109 salt 3 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good | | salinity reading. Additional readings did not | | resolve salinity discrepancy. Salinometer | | problem, code salinity questionable, oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |44/1 110 salt 3 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional readings did not resolve salinity | | discrepancy, possibility is that cell was not | | flushed well enough after the last sample. | | Salinometer problem, code salinity | | questionable, oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |44/1 111 o2 4 Oxygen sample was over-titrated and back- | | titrated, endpoint looks better. Oxygen is | | high. Code O2 bad. | |44/1 111 salt 3 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer problem, code | | salinity questionable, oxygen coded bad, | | nutrients are acceptable. | |44/1 112 salt 3 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer problem, code | | salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |44/1 119 salt 2 04 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional readings did not resolve slight | | salinity discrepancy. Salinity within | | measurement specifications and acceptable as | | are oxygen and nutrients. | |44/1 131 o2 4 Oxygen high compared with adjoining stations. | | Suspect sampling error. Code O2 bad. | |45/1 101 salt 2 5 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional readings did not resolve slight low | | salinity discrepancy. Agrees with Station 46. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |45/1 106 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional reading resolved salinity | | difference. Agrees with Station 46. Salinity | | as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |45/1 108 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. Agrees | | with Stations 43 and 46. Within accuracy of | | measurement, salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -48- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |45/1 109 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional readings did not resolve slight low | | salinity discrepancy. Salinity is a little low | | compared with Stations 43 and 46 agrees with | | 44. Within accuracy of the measurement, | | salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |45/1 112 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, | | agrees with adjoining stations. 4 attempts for | | a good salinity reading. Additional readings | | did not resolve salinity discrepancy. Salinity | | as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |45/1 118 salt 2 System crashed after 18, manually recorded | | conductivity reading. Salinity as well as | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |46/1 105 o2 3 System didn't refill and number didn't reset | | though ready light was on. Subtracted value | | from previous value. Questionable measurement. | | Oxygen is slightly high, 0.02, compared to CTDO | | and adjoining station. | |46/1 132 reft 3 SBE35RT -0.03 vs CTDT; in a gradient. Code | | questionable. | |47/1 106 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional reading resolved salinity | | discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |47/1 108 salt 2 5 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |47/1 111 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Appeared that 11 and 12 | | were swapped. Corrected the sample number and | | the agreement is good for both 12 and 11. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |47/1 112 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Appeared that 11 and 12 | | were swapped. Corrected the sample number and | | the agreement is good for both 12 and 11. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |47/1 113 salt 2 5 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |47/1 118 o2 2 Endpoint mostly overshot. Possibly still | | acceptable. O2/SiO3 relationship is reasonable. | | Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |47/1 118 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional reading resolved salinity | | discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |48/1 102 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. First reading resolved | | salinity discrepancy, still a little low but | | within the measurement specification. Salinity | | as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |48/1 103 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low 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. | |48/1 108 salt 2 Nutrients tube was empty, analyst took sample | | from salinity bottle. Nutrients as well as | | salinity and oxygen are acceptable. | |48/1 114 o2 2 One drop lost from O2 sample after acid added. | | O2/SiO3 relationship is reasonable. Oxygen is | | acceptable. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -49- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |48/1 130 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Mis-draw or operator error, | | appears it was drawn from bottle 29. Code | | salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |48/1 133 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD is | | acceptable for gradient. Salinity as well as | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |49/1 102 salt 4 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good | | salinity reading. Appears as a mis-draw or it | | could be operator error. Code salinity bad. | |49/1 106 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Thimble came out with cap. Additional readings | | resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well | | as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |49/1 108 salt 4 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good | | salinity reading. Thimble came out with cap. | | Probable contamination. Additional readings did | | not resolve the high salinity. Appears as a | | mis-draw or it could be operator error. Code | | salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |49/1 113 salt 4 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good | | salinity reading. Salinity bottle thimble came | | out with cap, readings erratic. Additional | | readings did not resolve salinity discrepancy. | | Appears as a mis-draw or it could be operator | | error. Code salinity bad. | |49/1 118 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD | | agrees with adjoining stations. Salinity as | | well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |49/1 132 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, | | gradient area agrees with adjoining stations. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable | |50/1 101 bottle 2 Pins on cart bent-did sampling at rosette | | recovery/launching site. | |50/1 122 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Thimble came out with cap, possible | | contamination. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |50/1 135 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble | | came out with cap, possible contamination. | | Additional reading did not resolve salinity | | difference. Agrees with adjoining stations, | | slightly low compared with Station 47. Salinity | | as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |51/1 101 bottle 2 Vent was not closed. See oxygen comment. | | Salinity and nutrients are acceptable. | |51/1 101 o2 4 Overshot endpoint. Stopper mismatched as well. | | Code oxygen bad. | |51/1 101 salt 2 Salinity samples 1 and 2 were switched, mis- | | drawn. Corrected file. Salinity as well as | | nutrients are acceptable. | |51/1 102 bottle 2 Vent was not closed. Salinity oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |51/1 103 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional reading resolved salinity | | discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |51/1 111 o2 4 Overshot endpoint. Code oxygen bad. Salinity | | and nutrients are acceptable. | |51/1 118 o2 2 Sample was over-titrated and back-titrated. | | Oxygen is acceptable. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -50- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |51/1 118 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD | | gradient agrees with adjoining stations. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |51/1 119 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, | | gradient agrees with adjoining stations. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |51/1 121 salt 2 5 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional reading resolved salinity | | discrepancy. Bung and sample tube not cleaned | | before this sample. Erratic readings. Gradient, | | salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |51/1 122 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Program | | chosen readings are acceptable. Gradient, | | salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |51/1 129 o2 2 Sample was over-titrated and back-titrated. | | Oxygen slightly low compared with adjoining | | stations, although it does look okay with | | SiO3/O2 relationship and CTDO. | |51/1 130 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, | | gradient agrees with adjoining stations. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |52/1 101 o2 2 O2 "wake-up" sample not run, deep oxygen is | | acceptable. | |52/1 110 salt 3 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional readings do not resolve the salinity | | discrepancy. Code salinity questionable. | |52/1 111 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional readings do not resolve the slight | | salinity discrepancy. Salinity is within the | | measurement specification and acceptable. | |52/1 113 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Program chose the two good readings, salinity | | is acceptable. | |52/1 114 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional readings do not resolve the slight | | salinity discrepancy. Salinity is within the | | measurement specification and acceptable. | |52/1 116 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional readings do not resolve the slight | | salinity discrepancy. Salinity is within the | | measurement specification and acceptable. | |52/1 118 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional readings do not resolve the slight | | salinity discrepancy. Salinity is within the | | measurement specification and acceptable. | |52/1 122 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional readings do not resolve the slight | | salinity discrepancy. Salinity is within the | | measurement specification and acceptable. | |52/1 129 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, | | agrees with adjoining stations, gradient. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |53/1 117 salt 4 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinity appears to have | | been mis-drawn from bottle 19 or operator error | | on analysis. Code salinity bad, oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |54/1 102 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional reading resulted in a higher, | | acceptable salinity. Salinity as well as oxygen | | and nutrients are acceptable. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -51- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |54/1 103 o2 3 Sample was over-titrated and back-titrated. | | Over-titration value came out slightly low, | | original value was high with CTDO and on | | SiO3/O2 relationship. Code O2 questionable. | |54/1 105 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Program | | chose the correct two readings. Salinity as | | well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |54/1 108 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional reading resulted in a higher, | | acceptable salinity. Salinity as well as oxygen | | and nutrients are acceptable. | |54/1 110 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good | | salinity reading. Analyst originally ran sample | | 9 as 10, sample 10 was analyzed, computer did | | not update with the correct value. Corrected | | raw data file. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |54/1 111 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional reading resulted in a higher, | | acceptable salinity. Salinity as well as oxygen | | and nutrients are acceptable. | |54/1 113 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional reading resulted in a higher, | | acceptable salinity. Salinity as well as oxygen | | and nutrients are acceptable. | |55/1 106 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional reading would make the salinity | | higher. Salinity, gradient, as well as oxygen | | and nutrients are acceptable. | |56/1 125 o2 5 System froze. O2 sample lost. | |56/1 130 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Program | | chose the appropriate readings. Salinity as | | well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |57/1 101 reft 3 SBE35RT 0.70/0.15 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very unstable | | SBE35RT reading. Code questionable. | |57/1 105 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional reading resolved salinity | | discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |57/1 106 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional reading resolved salinity | | discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |58/1 102 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good | | salinity reading. Additional reading resolved | | the salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |58/1 105 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional reading would have made the value | | higher. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |58/1 106 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Program | | chose the appropriate reading. Salinity as well | | as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |58/1 108 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional reading resolved the salinity | | discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |58/1 109 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Program | | chose the appropriate reading. Salinity as well | | as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |58/1 118 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, | | agrees with adjoining stations in gradient. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -52- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |58/1 122 salt 2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional reading resolved the salinity | | discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |60/1 124 bottle 2 Valve was found open. Oxygen as well as | | salinity and nutrients are acceptable. | |60/1 125 bottle 2 Valve was found open. Oxygen as well as | | salinity and nutrients are acceptable. | |60/1 126 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, | | agrees with adjoining station for gradient. | | Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |61/1 118 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, | | gradient appears acceptable as are oxygen and | | nutrients. | |62/1 105 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Program | | chose the appropriate readings. Salinity as | | well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |62/1 106 salt 4 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good | | salinity reading. Additional reading would | | result in a higher salinity. Code salinity bad, | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |62/1 132 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, | | gradient and is acceptable as are oxygen and | | nutrients. | |63/1 110 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Program | | chose appropriate value. Salinity as well as | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |63/1 123 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, | | gradient, structure in CTD trace. Salinity as | | well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |64/1 103 o2 2 Sample was overtitrated and backtitrated. | | Overshot endpoint. Oxygen is acceptable. | |64/1 110 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. | |64/1 120 o2 4 Sampling error. Code Oxygen bad. | |64/1 122 o2 4 Sample was overtitrated and backtitrated. | | Overshot endpoint. Code Oxygen bad. | |64/1 130 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Program | | chose the appropriate reading. Salinity as well | | as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |66/1 109 o2 2 Draw temperature missed writing down, | | temperature for kg conversion should be okay. | | Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |67/1 111 salt 2 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Program | | chose appropriate readings. Salinity as well as | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |67/1 113 o2 2 Sample was overtitrated and backtitrated, | | overshot endpoint. Oxygen slightly low, good | | SiO3/O2 relationship, gradient, appears | | acceptable. | |67/1 117 bottle 3 Bottle appears to have mis-tripped, draw | | temperature too warm. Nutrients and oxygen are | | low and indicate a mis-trip. | |67/1 117 no2 4 | |67/1 117 no3 4 | |67/1 117 o2 4 Oxygen confirms mis-trip, code bad. | |67/1 117 po4 4 Nutrients indicate a mis-trip, code bad. | |67/1 117 salt 4 Salinity high compared to adjoining stations | | profiles and CTD, mis-trip, code bad. | |67/1 117 sio3 4 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -53- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |67/1 131 salt 5 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinity analyst stated | | that a sample was missed, suspect from the data | | that is was 30. Reassigned sample numbers and | | corrected files. Salinity is lost. | |67/1 132 o2 5 O2 system froze, sample lost. | |68/1 124 salt 5 Salinity operator stated she missed a sample. | | Salinity lost. | |68/1 130 salt 4 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. | | Additional reading would result in lower | | salinity. Code salinity bad. | |68/1 136 o2 3 Oxygen is high compared with adjoining | | stations, SiO3/O2 relationship and CTDO. No | | analytical problems noted. SiO3 is a little | | low, following other nutrients and acceptable. | | Code oxygen questionable. | |69/1 101 o2 3 Oxygen high does not agree with CTDO or | | adjoining stations. No analytical notes | | indicating a problem. Code oxygen questionable, | | salinity and nutrients are acceptable. | |69/1 103 o2 3 Oxygen high does not agree with CTDO or | | adjoining stations. No analytical notes | | indicating a problem. Code oxygen questionable, | | salinity and nutrients are acceptable. | |69/1 111 o2 3 Oxygen high does not agree with CTDO or | | adjoining stations. No analytical notes | | indicating a problem. Code oxygen questionable, | | salinity and nutrients are acceptable. | |69/1 127 o2 2 Missed recording O2 draw temperature, taken | | after sampling, conversion to kg units is | | acceptable. | |69/1 127 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, | | agrees with adjoining stations for gradient. | | Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |69/1 133 o2 3 Oxygen value high as reported by CTD operator. | | Also appears slightly high on SiO3/O2 | | relationship. No analytical problems noted. | | Code oxygen questionable. | |70/1 105 o2 4 Oxygen high does not agree with CTDO or | | adjoining stations. | |70/1 108 o2 4 Oxygen high does not agree with CTDO or | | adjoining stations. | |70/1 111 salt 2 Salinity thimble came out with cap. This may | | have cause the slightly high salinity , just | | within measurement specifications. Salinity as | | well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |70/1 113 salt 2 Salinity thimble came out with cap. This may | | have cause the slightly high salinity , within | | measurement specifications. Salinity as well as | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |71/1 101 bottle 2 Bottle ran out of water for salinity. There | | were 3 parameters, DIC, Alkalinity and 13C/14C | | taking duplicates. This totals 8.45L and should | | have been enough water. Bottle o-rings checked | | prior to Station 73. | |71/1 101 o2 4 Sampling error. Ran out of reagents. | |71/1 102 o2 2 Oxygen appears a little low, could also have | | been part of the sampling error. | |71/1 104 o2 4 Oxygen high does not agree with CTDO or | | adjoining stations. | |71/1 107 o2 4 Oxygen high does not agree with CTDO or | | adjoining stations. | |71/1 109 o2 4 Oxygen low. Analyst noted large debris in | | sample during analysis. | |71/1 132 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, | | gradient agreement with adjoining stations. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -54- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |71/1 133 o2 4 Oxygen high, does not have good SiO3/O2 | | relationship, agreement with adjoining stations | | or CTDO. | |71/1 135 o2 4 Oxygen high, does not have good SiO3/O2 | | relationship, agreement with adjoining stations | | or CTDO. | |71/1 135 salt 2 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, | | gradient agreement with adjoining stations. | | Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are | | acceptable. | |72/1 101 o2 4 Oxygen high, along with 3, 5, 8, 11 and 36, | | uncertain of the cause. | |72/1 101 salt 2 Salinity run had a large drift. Analyst could | | not obtain a good ending Standard Seawater | | value. Suspect salinometer was the problem. | | Salinity is within measurement specifications | | and has a reasonable agreement with the CTD and | | adjoining stations. | |72/1 103 o2 4 Oxygen high. Code O2 bad. | |72/1 105 o2 4 Opened flask too soon before running. Oxygen | | high. Code O2 bad. | |72/1 108 o2 4 Oxygen high. Code O2 bad. | |72/1 111 o2 4 Oxygen high. Code O2 bad. | |72/1 117 o2 5 Oxygen sample lost, was mistakenly drawn from | | 18, 18=19, 19=20 and 20 drawn from 21. | |72/1 118 o2 2 Oxygen were drawn off on level, corrected data | | file and oxygen is acceptable. | |72/1 119 o2 2 Oxygen were drawn off on level, corrected data | | file and oxygen is acceptable. | |72/1 120 o2 2 Oxygen sampler suspected he drew from bottle 20 | | with flask intended for 21, redrew from 21. | |72/1 136 o2 4 Oxygen high. Code O2 bad. | |73/1 101 salt 2 Salinity run had a large drift. Suspect | | salinometer was the problem. Salinity is within | | measurement specifications and has a reasonable | | agreement with the CTD and adjoining stations. | | Salinometer retired after Station 76 run. | |73/1 133 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, | | variation in CTD profile, gradient, agrees with | | adjoining stations. Salinity as well as oxygen | | and nutrients are acceptable. | |74/1 104 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious with this station. It was taken | | off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad, | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |74/1 105 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious with this station. It was taken | | off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad, | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |74/1 106 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious with this station. It was taken | | off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad, | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |74/1 107 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious with this station. It was taken | | off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad, | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |74/1 108 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious with this station. It was taken | | off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad, | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |74/1 109 o2 2 Oxygen flask was chipped, used flask 1640 | | instead of | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -55- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |75/1 114 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious with this station. It was taken | | off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad, | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |75/1 115 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious with this station. It was taken | | off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad, | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |75/1 116 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious with this station. It was taken | | off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad, | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |75/1 117 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious with this station. It was taken | | off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad, | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |75/1 118 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious with this station. It was taken | | off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad, | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |75/1 119 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious with this station. It was taken | | off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad, | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |75/1 120 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious with this station. It was taken | | off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad, | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |75/1 121 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious with this station. It was taken | | off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad, | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |75/1 122 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious with this station. It was taken | | off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad, | | oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |75/1 128 o2 2 Analyst made the comment fix. SiO3/O2 | | relationship is good. Oxygen is acceptable. | |76/1 104 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious starting with Station 74. It was | | taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity | | bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |76/1 105 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious starting with Station 74. It was | | taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity | | bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |76/1 106 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious starting with Station 74. It was | | taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity | | bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |76/1 107 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious starting with Station 74. It was | | taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity | | bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -56- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |76/1 108 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious starting with Station 74. It was | | taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity | | bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |76/1 109 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious starting with Station 74. It was | | taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity | | bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |76/1 110 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious starting with Station 74. It was | | taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity | | bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |76/1 111 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious starting with Station 74. It was | | taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity | | bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |76/1 112 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious starting with Station 74. It was | | taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity | | bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |76/1 113 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious starting with Station 74. It was | | taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity | | bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |76/1 114 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious starting with Station 74. It was | | taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity | | bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |76/1 115 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious starting with Station 74. It was | | taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity | | bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |76/1 116 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious starting with Station 74. It was | | taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity | | bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |76/1 117 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious starting with Station 74. It was | | taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity | | bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |76/1 118 salt 4 Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and | | adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue | | very obvious starting with Station 74. It was | | taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity | | bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | |77/1 102 o2 4 Debris in sample. Endpoint looks okay. Oxygen | | high compared with adjoining stations and CTD. | |77/1 103 o2 4 Oxygen high compared with adjoining stations | | and CTDO. No analytical problem noted. Code | | oxygen questionable. | |77/1 127 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, | | agrees with salinity max bottle values for | | adjoining stations, variation in CTD profile at | | bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and | | nutrients are acceptable. | |78/1 122 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, | | agrees with salinity max bottle values for | | adjoining stations, as is 21. Salinity as well | | as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -57- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |StationSampleQuality | |/Cast No. PropertyCode Comment | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |79/1 115 no2 3 | |79/1 115 no3 3 | |79/1 115 po4 3 Nutrients low and appear to have been drawn | | from 16. NO3 and NO2 do not have this same | | agreement with 16, so they are even lower. No | | similar feature is seen in oxygen or salinity. | | Code nutrients questionable, salinity and | | oxygen acceptable. | |79/1 115 sio3 3 | |79/1 121 salt 2 Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, | | agrees with salinity gradient bottle values for | | adjoining stations. Salinity as well as oxygen | | and nutrients are acceptable. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -58- Appendix D CLIVAR A22: Pre-Cruise Sensor Laboratory Calibrations +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | CTD 796 Sensors - Table of Contents | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |CTD Manufacturer Serial Station Appendix D Page | |Sensor and Model No. Number Number (Un-Numbered) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |PRESS (Pressure) Digiquartz 401K-105 0796 1-81 1 | |T1 (Primary Temperature) SBE3plus 03-4138 1-39 4 | |T1 (Primary Temperature) SBE3plus 03-4924 40-81 5 | |C1 (Primary Conductivity) SBE4C 04-3369 1-81 6 | |O2 (Dissolved Oxygen) SBE43 43-0614 1-81 7 | |T2 (Secondary Temperature) SBE3plus 03-4907 1-81 8 | |C2 (Secondary Conductivity) SBE4C 04-3399 1-81 9 | |REFT (Reference Temperature) SBE35 35-0035 1-81 10 | |TRANS (Transmissometer) WET Labs C-Star CST-327DR 1-81 11 | |RINKO (Optical O2 & Temp.) RinkoIII ARO-CAV 084 1-47 13 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ CCHDO DATA PROCESSING NOTES Date Contact Data Type Action Summary ---------- ---------- ----------- --------------- -------------------------- 2012-04-19 K. Sanborn BTL/SUM Submitted PRELIMINARY, NOT to go online Some bottle data parameters are considered preliminary and should be resolved by the on shore labs. Submission of a22_hy1.csv, a22.sea, a22.sum and a22_33AT20120324_ct1.zip and Cruise Report will be submitted in 5 different submission sessions. 2012-04-30 K. Sanborn HYD/SEA/SUM Submitted Preliminary Data should be labeled as Preliminary until all Project PI's inform you otherwise. 2012-04-30 C Berys HYD/SEA/SUM Website Updated Available under 'Files as received' File a22_hy1.csv containing BTL data, submitted by Kristin Sanborn on 2012-04-30, available under 'Files as received', unprocessed by CCHDO. File a22.sea containing WOCE BTL data, submitted by Kristin Sanborn on 2012-04-30, available under 'Files as received', unprocessed by CCHDO. File a22.sum containing WOCE SUM file, submitted by Kristin Sanborn on 2012-04-30, available under 'Files as received', unprocessed by CCHDO. 2012-04-30 K. Sanborn CrsRpt Submitted prelim., pdf & txt formats, to go online 2012-04-30 C. Berys CrsRpt Website Updated Available under 'Files as received' 2012-06-26 M. Johnson CrsRpt Submitted Updates 4/30/12 submission 2012-07-05 J Kappa CrsRpt Website Updated Reformatted TXT version online • added CCHDO summary pages • added these Data Processing Notes 2012-07-10 J Kappa CrsRpt Website Updated Reformatted PDF version online • added CCHDO summary pages • added internal links, bookmarks, TOC • added these Data Processing Notes