CRUISE REPORT: P16S_2005A
(Updated: JAN 2009)


A.  HIGHLIGHTS 

A.1. WHP CRUISE SUMMARY INFORMATION

                WOCE section designation  P16S_2005a
       Expedition designation (ExpoCode)  33RR200501
                         Chief Scientist  Dr.Bernadette M. Sloyan/WHOI
                      Co-Chief Scientist  Dr. James H. Swift/SIO
       
                                   Dates  2005 JAN 09 - 2005 FEB 19
                                    Ship  R/V Revelle
                           Ports of call  Papeete, Tahiti - Wellington, New Zealand
                                          
                      Number of stations  111 CTD Stations
       
                                                       16°S
         Stations' Geographic boundaries  150° 14.71'W      149°54.48"W
                                                       71°S
       
            Floats and drifters deployed  12 ARGOS floats deployed
          Moorings deployed or recovered  0
                    Contributing Authors  none cited
                                   
                                   
           Data Submitted by  Shipboard Technical Support/Oceanographic Data Facility
                                Kristin M. Sanborn,  Susan Becker,    Mary C. Johnson, 
                                Teresa Kacena,       Dan G.Schuller,  Bettina Sohst and
                              Shipboard Technical Support/Shipboard Electronics Group
                                Scott Hiller,        John K. Calderwood
                              Scripps Institution of Oceanography
                              La Jolla, Ca. 92093-0214
  
  Chief Scientists' contact info.  Dr. Bernadette M. Sloyan
                                   Department of Physical Oceanography, MS# 21
                                   Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
                                   Woods Hole, MA  02543
                                   TEL:   508-289-2404    FAX: 508-457-2181
                                   EMAIL: bsloyan@whoi.edu

                                   Dr. James Swift
                                   Scripps Institution of Oceanography
                                   University of California San Diego
                                   Physical Oceanography Research Division; 0214
                                   9500 Gilman Drive      Mail Code 0214
                                   La Jolla, CA
                                   92093-0214 
                                   TEL:   858-534-3387    FAX: 858-534-7383
                                   EMAIL: jswift@ucsd.edu 

A.2. SUMMARY

A hydrographic/carbon/tracer survey in the South Pacific Ocean was carried
out from R/V Roger Revelle from 9 January through 19 February 2005.  The
cruise departed from Papeete, Tahiti on 9 January, 2005.  A meridional
transect from 16 to 71 degrees South along 150 degrees West was completed.
111 full-depth CTD/rosette/LADCP casts (at one-half degree spacing), 4
shallow CDOM rosette casts, and 58 trace metals CTD/rosette casts were
completed from 10 January to 11 February.  Salinity, dissolved oxygen, and
nutrients were analysed for up to 36 water samples from each cast of the
principal CTD/rosette program.  Other parameters sampled included CFCs,
helium, total inorganic carbon, alkalinity, radiocarbon, tritium, several
parameters related to dissolved organic matter, and nitrogen-15.
Additional deployments included 12 ARGOS floats and 21 Bio-Optics casts.
The cruise ended in Wellington, New Zealand on 19 February 2005.


INTRODUCTION

A sea-going science team gathered from eight oceanographic institutions
around the U.S. participated on the cruise.  Several other science programs
were supported with no dedicated cruise participant.  The science team and
their responsibilities are listed below.



A.3. PERSONNEL


PRINCIPAL PROGRAMS

ANALYSIS                 INSTITUTION           PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR               
-----------------------  --------------------  -------------------------------------
CTDO/S/O2/Nutrients      UCSD/SIO              Jim Swift                            
Transmissometer          TAMU                  Wilf Gardner                         
CO2-Alkalinity           UCSD/SIO              Andrew Dickson                       
CO2-DIC + Underway pCO2  NOAA                  Dick Feely/Chris Sabine              
DOC/DON                  RSMAS-UMiami/UCSB     Dennis Hansell/Craig Carlson         
CDOM                     UCSB                  Dave Siegel/Norm Nelson/Craig Carlson
C-13/C-14                WHOI/Princeton Univ.  Ann McNichol/Robert Key              
CFCs                     RSMAS-UMiami          Rana Fine                            
He-3/Tritium             LDEO                  Peter Schlosser                      
ADCP/LADCP               UHawaii               Eric Firing                          
Trace Elements           UHawaii/FSU           Chris Measures/Bill Landing          
ARGO Floats              NOAA                  Greg Johnson/Elizabeth Steffen       
15N                      Princeton             Daniel Sigman/Peter DeFiore



SCIENTIFIC PERSONNEL

DUTIES           NAME               AFFILIATION               EMAIL                     
---------------  -----------------  ------------------------  --------------------------
CH SCI           Bernadette Sloyan  WHOI                      bsloyan@whoi.edu          
CO-CH SCI        James H. Swift     UCSD/SIO                  jswift@ucsd.edu           
SCIENTIST        Jurgen Theiss      UCSD/SIO                  jthiess@ucsd.eud          
STUDENT          Carlos Moffat      WHOI                      cmoffat@whoi.edu          
TAS              Debra Brice        San Marcos Middle School  debrabrices@msn.com       
C14 STUDENT      Matt Mazloff       WHOI                      mmazloff@whoi.edu         
COMP TECH        Scott Allen        UCSD/SIO/SCG              allen@sdsioa.ucsd.edu     
SEG ET           Scott Hiller       UCSD/SIO/SEG              scott@odf.ucsd.edu        
ODF CHEM         Susan Becker       UCSD/SIO/ODF              susan@odf.ucsd.edu        
ODF CTD PR       Mary Johnson       UCSD/SIO/ODF              mary@odf.ucsd.edu         
ODF BOT PR       Kristin Sanborn    UCSD/SIO/ODF              kris@odf.ucsd.edu         
SEG ET           John Calderwood    UCSD/SIO/SEG              jkc@odf.ucsd.edu          
ODF CHEM         Dan Schuller       UCSD/SIO/ODF              dan@odf.ucsd.edu          
ODF TECH         Teresa Kacena      UCSD/SIO/ODF              teresa@odf.ucsd.edu       
ODF TECH         Bettina Sohst      UCSC                      blauhai@ucsc.edu          
ADCP             Jules Hummon       UHawaii                   hummon@hawaii.edu         
ALK TECH         Chris Sabine       PMEL                      chris.sabine@noaa.gov     
ALK TECH         Justine Afghan     UCSD/SIO                  jafghan@ucsd.edu          
DIC TECH         George Anderson    UCSD/SIO                  ganderson@ucsd.edu        
DIC TECH         Andrew McDonnell   UCSD/SIO                  amcdonnel@ucsd.edu        
DON TECH         Meridith Meyers    UCSB                      meyers@lifesci.ucsb.edu   
CFC TECH         Charlene Grall     UM/RSMAS                  cgrall@rsmas.miami.edu    
CFC TECH         David Cooper       UM/RSMAS                  dcooper@rsmas.miami.edu   
HE/TR            Anthony Dachille   LDEO                      dachille@ldeo.columbia.edu
TRACE MET        Bill Landing       FSU                       landing@ocean.fsu.edu     
TRACE MET        Amy Apprill        UofHawaii                 appril@hawaii.edu         
TRACE MET        Clifton Buck       FSU     (PhD Student)     buck@ocean.fsu.edu        
TRACE MET        Matthew Brown      UHawaii                   mbrown@soest.hawaii.edu   
TRACE MET        Chis Measures      UHawaii                   measures@hawaii.edu       
DON/DOC STUDENT  Stu Goldberg       UCSB    (PhD Student)     s_goldbe@lifesci.ucsb.edu 
CDOM             Chantal Swan       UCSB    (PhD Student)     swan@icess.ucsb.edu 



OFFICERS AND CREW

                          NAME              POSITION
                          ----------------  --------------
                          David Murline     Captain
                          Paul Mauricio     Chief Engineer
     
                          Eric Wakeman      1st Mate
                          Joe Ferris        2nd Mate
                          Alejo Alejo       3rd Mate
     
                          Steve St. Martin  1st A/E
                          Randy Fannigan    2nd A/E
                          Chris Quijano     3rd A/E
     
                          Ed Miller         Senior Cook
                          Davy Jones        Cook
     
                          James Pearson     Boatswain
                          Manuel Elliot     Electrician
     
                          Michelle Jackson  A/B
                          Brian Mattiesen   A/B
                          Heather Galiher   A/B
     
                          Sean Mix          Oiler
                          Mike Hotchkiss    Oiler
                          Ernie Bayer       Oiler
                          Rick McCormick    Oiler
     
                          Phil Hogan        Wiper
     
                          Eric Magellen     OS



A.4. NARRATIVE

At 0112, 10 January 2005 (UTC) the R/V Roger Revelle set sail from Papeete, 
Tahiti, French Polynesia, to begin the US Carbon/Repeat Hydrography P16S 
section.  This section is a repeat of the WOCE P16C and P16A sections that were 
occupied in September 1991 and October-November 1992, respectively.  This 
cruise re-occupied both the previous WOCE sections, although shifted slightly 
eastward to 150°W and spanned the latitude range of 16°S to 71°S.  The principal 
sampling program was full-depth CTD/rosette/LADCP casts, over the side, at 30 
degree spacing along 150°W.  Trace Metal rosette casts with separate equipment 
were performed off the ship's fantail, usually on alternate CTD/rosette 
stations.  Close to local noon on most days a shallow (0-250m) hand-deployed 
optics profiler cast was performed at a suitable point in the program.  The 
final station (71°S 150°W) was completed at 0600, 11 February (UTC).  Good 
weather conditions and excellent performance from all electronic equipment and 
water chemistry analysis systems resulted in no significant time delays during 
the cruise. This allowed us to complete additional southern stations beyond 
that originally proposed in the CLIVAR Carbon/Repeat Hydrography science plan.

We had an 8 hour steam from Papeete to our first station.  On arrival at 
Station 001 we performed a shallow test cast to check that the CTD, rosette, 
and LADCP electronics were working appropriately, and that sample bottles 
closed and sealed properly.  We began the P16S stations after the successful 
completion of the test cast.  Station spacing of 30nm (55.56km) was maintained 
throughout the cruise.  The seawater measurements covered a broad spectrum of 
those properties most useful to the study and understanding of the ocean's role 
in global change and the carbon system.  Extensive carbon-related measurements 
were coupled to high quality temperature, salinity, oxygen, and nutrient data, 
along with systematic measurements of CFCs, helium, tritium, and radiocarbon.  
An extensive suite of biological measurements (e.g. DOC/DOM, CDOM, bacteria, 
chlorophyll) were also supported on this cruise.  Separate Trace Metal casts 
measured iron, aluminum,  magnesium and nutrients in the upper 1000m of the 
water column.  Twelve ARGO floats were also deployed for the Pacific Marine 
Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) along the cruise track north of 59.5°S.  


A.5. ARGO FLOATS

Twelve ARGO floats were deployed along the cruise track at specific latitudes 
request by the PMEL ARGO scientists.  There were concerns about the performance 
of some ARGO floats that were deployed during the first week of the cruise:  On 
the deployment of two floats limited or no satellite transmissions were 
received while these floats were at the surface.  We worked with Elizabeth 
Steffen (PMEL) to diagnose why transmissions from these floats were not 
received.  This entailed starting up two ARGO floats and placing them on the 
fantail for six hours.  On this initial test one of the ARGO floats performed 
as expected with a number of transmission received by the satellite.  No 
messages were received from the other float.  However, upon retesting (float 
strapped upright on ships fantail) transmissions were received.  The suggested 
cause of lack of received transmissions from deployed float was due to a longer 
than normal time for the float to right themselves while at the surface.  After 
the successful tests were performed all remaining floats were deployed at pre-
set latitudes.  The position of two float deployments was, however, slightly 
modified.  Upon re-surfacing all ARGO floats returned temperature and salinity 
profile as expected.

                          ARGO Deployments along 150°W
                          ----------------------------
                                1741      18.5°S
                                1742      24.0°s
                                1743      26.5°S
                                1744      29.0°S
                                1745      40.0°S
                                1746      44.0°S
                                1747      46.5°S
                                1748      48.0°S
                                1752      52.0°S
                                1753      56.0°S
                                1754      58.0°S
                                1755      59.5°S




____________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
                                               P16S_2005a • Sloyan/Swift • R/V Roger Revelle






B. UNDERWAY MEASUREMENTS

B.1. SHIPBOARD AND LOWERED ADCP 

Two acoustic velocity profilers are considered to be the primary instruments 
for this cruise.  Two additional sonars were evaluated on this cruise for their 
data quality and their potential for high-quality velocity measurements on this 
and future cruises.

The two primary instruments for this cruise are the hull-mounted RDI 150KHz 
Narrowband ADCP and a rosette-mounted Self Contained 150KHz Broadband ADCP.  
Final processing of the former yields 5-minute averages of 8-m resolution 
vertical profiles down to 200-300m for the duration of the cruise; the latter 
yields a 20-m vertical resolution profile for as much of the water column as 
the instrument could determine.  The other two (Hydrographic Doppler Sonar 
Systems) are designed and maintained by Dr. R. Pinkel at Scripps Institute of 
Oceanography.  HDAS data and limited software and documentation are available 
for scientists on the Revelle. An attempt was made to evaluate these 
instruments and apply standard ADCP processing techniques to the data.

Data from the RDI shipboard ADCP is usually acquired by RDI's DAS2.48 or a 
later compilation, DAS2.49 (which has higher baud rates).  For this cruise, a 
Linux laptop was configured to acquire the data using "UHDAS".  UHDAS 
communicates directly with the instrument, sending configuration settings and 
collecting subsequent data as the instrument pings.  It also collects the 
necessary suite of data required to process shipboard ADCP data: gyro heading, 
gps positions, and a gps-based heading (Ashtech on the Revelle).  UHDAS also 
provides a web site with access to documentation and regularly-updated data and 
figures. Standard CODAS processing is used, including a sound-speed correction 
based on the thermistor temperature at the transducers, an amplitude and phase 
calibration constant applied to the measured velocities, and a correction from 
gyro to Ashtech heading.

The 150KHz Narrowband shipboard ADCP was configured with 8-m blank and pulse; 
50 8-m bins were collected.  In addition to the temperature-dependent sound 
speed correction, a scale factor of 0.978 and a heading misalignment angle of 
2.09 degrees were applied.  Data were averaged into 5-minute profiles.  Data 
penetration extended to about 200-250m from 15°S to 35°S, and deepened to over 
300m by about 43°S.  South of 45°S, rough weather affected underway data, causing 
underway bias in some cases, sometimes rendering it useless.  On station data 
were compromised as well.  Little data between 46°S and 51°S is useful.  South of 
51°S, penetration was 250m-350m and data quality improved.

The primary lowered ADCP instrument was configured with a bad setting during 
the first cast.  The spare (same model) was used for casts 2-10, during which 
time the bad setting on the primary instrument was discovered and corrected.  
The primary instrument was used from station 11-111.  The configuration for 
stations 2-66 was for a 16-m blank, 16m pulse, and 16 16-m bins.  From station 
67 to the end, the resolution was doubled (32 8-m bins). All data were 
collected in beam coordinates, with staggered pinging of 1.0 and 1.5 seconds 
between pings, to reduce data loss from previous-ping interference. Scattering 
was low from 15°S to 40°S and LADCP profiles did not reach full depth until 40°S.  
Ancillary data were generated from the CTD cast in the form of a 1/2second 
time-series file, with CTD pressure, temperature, salinity, and ship position.  
Preliminary processing was performed during the cruise.  LADCP and ancillary 
data  will be sent to Lamont Earth Observatory for final processing following 
the cruise.

Each of the two HDSS sonar systems is suffering from transducer failure: beam 3 
(aft starboard) on the 140KHz system has failed, and beams 1 and 2 (forward 
beams) on the 50KHz system have failed. The 140KHz transducer malfunction may 
be repairable at the next drydock without requiring a transducer replacement; 
repair status for the 50KHz sonars is unknown.  Each beam lost at a given 
frequency compromises the system.  Both instruments are affected by bubbles 
from the ship's hull.  In heavy weather, each suffered, with some underway data 
a complete loss.  When unaffected by bubbles, the range of the 140Khz system 
was 175m (in low scattering) to 275 (in higher scattering). The underway 50KHz 
range was from 600m-800m.  The velocity data from these instruments is under 
evaluation and will be released if merited.

All three hull-mounted Doppler systems were affected by bubbles during heavy 
weather.  The HDSS 50KHz fared worst; the NB150 was affected least, though it 
still suffered from bouts of underway bias and loss of data.  It is likely that 
the HDSS systems would have fared slightly better if they had possessed their 
full complement of beams.

Underway systems were also run nearly continuously along 150°W, including 
meteorology, bathymetric systems including multi-beam, thermosalinograph, ADCP 
systems, and pCO2.

This section traversed 55o of latitude (6111.6 km). We began (16°S) at the 
boundary between the tropical Pacific and sub-tropical Pacific circulations, 
completely sampled the South Pacific sub-tropical gyre, Subantarctic Zone, and 
Antarctic Polar Frontal Zone, and ended in the Antarctic Zone (71°S).  The 
boundaries between the various regions were marked by either increased surface 
currents as recorded by the ship-board ADCP and/or changes in water mass 
properties as recorded in the CTDO, nutrient and other water property data.

The most significant problem encountered during the cruise was related to the 
new cable on the R/V Roger Revelle's primary CTD winch.  The cable performed 
well mechanically and electrically, but it extruded a large amount of grease.  
During the first two weeks of CTDO/rosette operations grease built up on the 
outside of the wire and on the sheave.  This grease subsequently fell onto the 
deck, CTDO/rosette, and into the water when we deployed and/or retrieved the 
package.  The ship's crew did a great job of removing excess grease from the 
sheave and deck between stations.  Our concern with the wire was principally 
that the grease would compromise some of the measurements, especially those for 
organic carbon and nitrogen and CFCs.  CFC levels in the deep water remained at 
blank levels which suggested that there was no contamination of the water 
samples due to the grease.  However, the trace organic group were collecting 
samples to be analyzed on shore post-cruise.  They are measuring very low 
(organic) concentrations and any contamination would compromise their samples.  
To allay these concerns, we switched to the spare CTD cable (on the second CTD 
winch), an older cable which had no grease coating.  The termination to the 
spare wire was done during the transit between Stations 27 and 28.  The spare 
winch wire performed to expectation during the remainder of the cruise.  We 
recommend that the exact compounds in the grease on the new wire be determined, 
and the results investigated by the specialists for the various parameters 
measured from the rosette bottles, in order to determine whether or not this 
wire is suitable for future hydrographic surveys.

The long transit leg (approximately 7 days) from 71°S to Wellington, New Zealand 
allowed the science party to dismantle and pack their equipment.  Extensive 
data quality control continued during the transit to port.


B.2.  NAVIGATION AND BATHYMETRY DATA ACQUISITION

Navigation data were acquired at 1-second intervals from the ship's Trimble
PCODE GPS receiver by one of the Linux workstations beginning January 9.
Data from the ship's Knudsen 320B/R Echosounder (3.8 KHz transducer) were
also acquired and merged with the navigation. The Knudsen bathymetry data
were noisy and occasionally subject to washing out when the seas were
choppy.

Bathymetric data from the ship's multibeam (Simrad) echosounder system were
also logged by the R/V Revelle's underway system.


B.3. UNDERWAY pCO2

The underway surface pCO2 system was started shortly after leaving Papeete, 
Tahiti.  The semi-autonomous system analyzes surface water collected from the 
ship's uncontaminated seawater supply and marine air from the ship's bow on a 
repeating hourly cycle.  The first quarter of each hour is devoted to 
calibration with four CO2 standards (Feely et al., 1998).  A second order 
polynomial calibration curve is calculated for the LiCor 6262 infrared 
detector.  The remaining time in each hour is used to measure equilibrator air 
(15 min), bow air (15 min), and equilibrator air once again (15 min).  The 
analytical precision of the system is estimated to be approximately 0.3-0.4 ppm 
for seawater and for air.

The underway system operated without problems until January 27, 2005, when 
rough weather forced the uncontaminated seawater supply to be shut down.  On 
January 28th, the system was re-plumbed to take seawater from the sea-chest 
which could still operate in rough weather.  On February 3rd, the weather had 
calmed again so the seawater intake was switched back to the uncontaminated 
supply from the bow.  The system continued to run until February 8th when the 
computer running the underway system failed preventing any additional analyses 
for the remainder of the cruise.




____________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
                                               P16S_2005a • Sloyan/Swift • R/V Roger Revelle





C. DESCRIPTION OF MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES

C.1. CTD/HYDROGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM


The basic CTD/hydrographic measurements consisted of salinity, dissolved
oxygen and nutrient measurements made from water samples taken on
CTD/rosette casts, plus pressure, temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen
and transmissometer from CTD profiles.  A total of 111 CTD/rosette casts
were made usually to within 10 meters of the bottom.  No major problems
were encountered during the operation.  The distribution of samples is
illustrated in figure 1.0.


     Figure 1.0: Sample distribution, stations 1-111.


Notes on the CTDO/rosette/LADCP program

We modified the three vertical sampling scheme that Paul Robbins (SIO) devised 
for the CO2/Repeat Hydrography trans-Pacific section (P02).  This scheme 
provides over multiple stations the most information for various properties and 
the optimum information for objective mapping schemes.  The three different 
vertical sampling schemes were used in strict rotation.  The three vertical 
sampling scheme is given below:


Bottle Depths P16S,  2005

         Scheme #1               Scheme #2                Scheme #3
         ---------               ---------                ---------
         surface                 surface                  surface          
           (25)                     35                     (15)          
            50                      70                      40          
           (75)                    (90)                     85          
           100                     120                     135          
           150                    (140)                   (160)          
           200                     170                     185          
           250                     220                     235          
           300                     270                     285          
           350                     320                     335          
           400                     370                     385          
           450                     420                     435          
           500                     470                     485          
           600                     520                     570          
           700                     640                     670          
           800                     740                     770          
           900                     840                     870          
          1000                     940                     970          
          1100                    1040                    1070          
          1200                    1140                    1170          
          1300                    1240                    1270          
          1400                    1340                    1370          
          1500                    1440                    1470          
          1600                    1540                    1570          
         (1700)                  (1640)                  (1670)          
          1800                    1740                    1770          
         (1900)                  (1840)                  (1870)          
          2000                    1940                    1970          
          2250                    2100                    2170          
          2500                    2350                    2420          
          2750                    2600                    2670          
          3000 Z < 4400           2850                    2920 Z < 4400
          3400  (3250)            3100 Z < 4300           3250  (3170)
          3800  (3500)            3500  (3350)            3650  (3420)
          4200  (3750)            3900  (3600)            4050  (3670)
          4600  (4000)            4300  (3850)            4450  (3920)
          5000  (4250)            4700  (4100)            4850  (4170)
          5400 (bottom)           5200 (bottom)           5250 (bottom)
          bottom-200              5600                    bottom-200          
          bottom                  bottom-200              bottom          
                                  bottom                               

Depending on water depth, bottles depths given in () were added where 
possible. Additional bottle depth were added in the upper 200m for 
the organic measurements whenever possible. The bottle scheme was 
modified (shown below) at the southern end of the section (south 
of 45°S) to improve bottle sample resolution below 3000m and above 200m.

Bottle Depths P16S,  2005 (modified deep bottle spacing)

         Scheme #1               Scheme #2                Scheme #3
         ---------               ---------                ---------
         surface                 surface                  surface          
            25                      35                      15          
            50                      70                      40          
            75                      90                      85          
           100                     120                     135          
           150                     140                     160          
           200                     170                     185          
           250                     220                     235          
           300                     270                     285          
           350                     320                     335          
           400                     370                     385          
           450                     420                     435          
           500                     470                     485          
           600                     520                     570          
           700                     640                     670          
           800                     740                     770          
           900                     840                     870          
          1000                     940                     970          
          1100                    1040                    1070          
          1200                    1140                    1170          
          1300                    1240                    1270          
          1400                    1340                    1370          
          1500                    1440                    1470          
          1600                    1540                    1570          
         (1700)                  (1640)                  (1670)          
          1800                    1740                    1770          
         (1900)                  (1840)                  (1870)          
          2000                    1940                    1970          
          2250                    2100                    2170          
          2500                    2350                    2420          
          2750                    2600                    2670          
          3000 Z < 4400           2850                    2920 Z < 4400
          3300  (3250)            3100 Z < 4300           3250  (3170)
          3600  (3500)            3400  (3350)            3550  (3420)
          3900  (3750)            3700  (3600)            3850  (3670)
          4200  (4000)            4050  (3850)            4150  (3920)
          4550  (4250)            4400  (4100)            4500  (4170)
          4900 (bottom)           4750 (bottom)           4850 (bottom)
          bottom-100              5050                    bottom-100          
          bottom                  bottom-100              bottom          
                                  bottom                              
 

Finally, south of the Pacific-Antarctic Ridge bottle spacing between 2000m and 
1000m was increased to 200m, and decreased near the bottom to 100m to resolve 
subtle property changes in Antarctic Bottom Water within the Amundsen Basin. 

LADCP/CTD/rosette casts were performed with a package consisting of a
36-bottle rosette frame (ODF), a 36-place pylon (SBE32) and 36 10-liter
Bullister bottles (ODF).  Underwater electronic components consisted of a
Sea-Bird Electronics (SBE) 9plus CTD (ODF #381) with dual pumps, dual
temperature (SBE3plus), dual conductivity (SBE4), dissolved oxygen (SBE43),
transmissometer (Wetlabs C-Star) and fluorometer (Seapoint Sensors); an
SBE35RT Digital Reversing Thermometer, RDI LADCP (Broadband 150khz) and a
Simrad 807 altimeter.

The CTD was mounted vertically in an SBE CTD frame attached to the bottom
center of the rosette frame. All SBE4 conductivity and SBE3plus temperature
sensors and their respective pumps were mounted vertically as recommended
by SBE. Pump exhausts were attached to outside corners of the CTD cage and
directed downward. The entire cage assembly was then mounted on the bottom
ring of the rosette frame, offset from center to accommodate the pylon, and
also secured to frame struts at the top.  The SBE35RT temperature sensor
was mounted vertically and equidistant between the T1 and T2 intakes.  The
altimeter was mounted on the inside of a support strut adjacent to the
bottom frame ring. The transmissometer and fluorometer were mounted
horizontally along the rosette frame adjacent to the CTD.  The LADCP was
vertically mounted inside the bottle rings on the opposite side of the
frame from the CTD with one set of transducers pointing down.

The rosette system was suspended from a UNOLS-standard three-conductor
0.322" electro-mechanical sea cable.

The R/V Revelle's forward Markey winch was used for Stations 1-27.
Operations were switched to the aft Markey before station 28 when grease
from the forward winch wire was found to be dripping on the rosette.

A sea cable retermination was made at station 70 when the sea state caused
a kink in the wire.  Mechanical reterminations were required at stations 63
and 69, also because of rough seas.  An additional mechanical retermination
was made after the winch operator two-blocked the rosette at the start of
(aborted) cast 89/2.

The deck watch prepared the rosette 10-20 minutes prior to each cast.  All
valves, vents and lanyards were checked for proper orientation. The bottles
were cocked and all hardware and connections rechecked. Once stopped on
station, the LADCP was turned on and the rosette moved into position onto
the starboard deck an air-powered cart and tracks.  As directed by the deck
watch leader, the CTD was powered-up and the data acquisition system
started. Two stabilizing tag lines were threaded through rings on the
rosette frame, and syringes were removed from the CTD sensor intake ports.
The deck watch leader directed the winch operator to raise the package, the
boom and rosette were extended outboard and the package quickly lowered
into the water. The tag lines were removed and the package was lowered to
10 meters. The CTD console operator then directed the winch operator to
bring the package close to the surface, pause for typically 10 seconds and
begin the descent.

Each rosette cast was usually lowered to within 10 meters of the bottom.

Each bottle on the rosette had a unique serial number. This bottle
identification was maintained independently of the bottle position on the
rosette and was used for sample identification.  A leak was discovered on
bottle 16 at Station 75; bottle 16 was replaced with bottle 37 during
stations 79 and 80.  Bottle 16 was placed back in service beginning station
81, after repairs were made.  Bottles 33 and 35 were lost at station 89/2
when the rosette was two-blocked.  They were replaced with bottles 37 and
38; bottle 38 was never actually sampled.  No other bottles were replaced
on this cruise, although various parts on bottles were occasionally changed
or repaired.

Recovering the package at the end of the deployment was essentially the
reverse of launching, with the additional use of poles and snap-hooks to
attach tag lines for added safety and stability.  The rosette was moved
into the CTD hangar for sampling.  The bottles and rosette were examined
before samples were taken, and anything unusual was noted on the sample
log.

Routine CTD maintenance included soaking the conductivity and CTD DO
sensors in fresh water between casts to maintain sensor stability.  Rosette
maintenance was performed on a regular basis.  O-rings were changed as
necessary and bottle maintenance was performed each day to insure proper
closure and sealing. Valves were inspected for leaks and repaired or
replaced as needed.


C.2.  UNDERWATER ELECTRONICS PACKAGES

CTD data were collected with a SBE9plus CTD (ODF #381).  The instrument
provided pressure, dual temperature (SBE3), dual conductivity (SBE4),
dissolved oxygen (SBE43), transmissometer (Wetlabs C-Star), fluorometer
(Seapoint Sensors) and altimeter (Simrad 807) channels.  The CTD supplied a
standard Sea-Bird format data stream at a data rate of 24 frames/second
(fps).


P16S 2005  Rosette Underwater Electronics.

Sea-Bird SBE32 36-place Carousel Water Sampler   S/N 3216715-0187                  
Sea-Bird SBE35RT Digital Reversing Thermometer   S/N 35-0035                       
Sea-Bird SBE9plus CTD                            S/N 09P9852-0381                  
Paroscientific Digiquartz Pressure Sensor        S/N 58952                         
Sea-Bird SBE3plus Temperature Sensor             S/N 03P-4213 (Primary)            
Sea-Bird SBE3plus Temperature Sensor             S/N 03P-4226 (Secondary)          
Sea-Bird SBE4C Conductivity Sensor               S/N 04-2659 (Primary)             
Sea-Bird SBE4C Conductivity Sensor               S/N 04-2319 (Secondary)           
Sea-Bird SBE43 DO Sensor                         S/N 43-0275 (1/3-11/2)            
Sea-Bird SBE43 DO Sensor                         S/N 43-0185 (12/1-111/2)          
Wetlabs C-Star Transmissometer                   S/N 327DR (owned by TAMU)         
Seapoint Sensors Fluorometer                     S/N 2486                          
Simrad 807 Altimeter                             S/N 4077                          
RDI Broadband 150khz LADCP                       S/N 1546 (1, 11-111); 1394 (2-10) 
LADCP Battery Pack                                                                 


The CTD was outfitted with dual pumps. Primary temperature, conductivity
and dissolved oxygen were plumbed on one pump circuit and secondary
temperature and conductivity on the other. The sensors were deployed
vertically.  The primary temperature and conductivity sensors (T1 #03P-4213
and C1 #04-2659) were used for reported CTD temperatures and conductivities
on all casts.  The secondary temperature and conductivity sensors were used
for calibration checks.

The SBE9plus CTD and the SBE35RT Digital Reversing Thermometer were both
connected to the SBE32 36-place pylon providing for single-conductor sea
cable operation.  Two of three sea cable conductors were connected together
for signal.  The third conductor was not used.  The sea cable armor was
used for ground (return).  Power to the SBE9plus CTD (and sensors), SBE32
pylon, SBE35RT and Simrad altimeter was provided through the sea cable from
the SBE11plus deck unit in the main lab.





____________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
                                               P16S_2005a • Sloyan/Swift • R/V Roger Revelle





D. CTD MEASUREMENTS

D.1.  REAL-TIME CTD DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM

The CTD data acquisition system consisted of an SBE-11plus deck unit and
four networked generic PC workstations running Fedora 2 Linux.  Each PC
workstation was configured with a color graphics display, keyboard,
trackball, 120 GB disk, and DVD+RW drives. Two of the four systems also had
8 additional RS-232 ports via a Rocketport PCI serial controller.  The
systems were networked through a 100BaseTX ethernet switch, which was also
connected to the ship's network.  These systems were available for real-
time operational and CTD data displays, and provided for CTD and
hydrographic data management and backup.  Hardcopy capability was provided
by an HP 1600CM network printer and by the ship's networked printers.

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 for
controlling CTD deployments as well as real-time operational displays for
CTD and rosette trip data, GPS navigation, bathymetry and the CTD winch.

CTD deployments were initiated by the console watch after the ship stopped
on station.  The watch maintained a console operations log containing a
description of each deployment, a record of every attempt to close a bottle
and any pertinent comments. The deployment software presented a short
dialog instructing the operator to turn on the deck unit, to examine the on
screen raw data display for stable CTD data, and to notify the deck watch
that this was accomplished. When the deck watch was ready to put the
rosette over the side, the console watch was notified and the CTD data
acquisition started. The deployment software display changed to indicate
that a cast was in progress. A processed data display appeared, as did a
rosette bottle trip display and control for closing bottles. Various real-
time plots were initiated to display the progress of the deployment.  GPS
time and position, and uncorrected Knudsen bottom depth were automatically
logged at 1 second resolution during the cast. Both raw and processed (2 Hz
time-series) CTD data were automatically backed up by one of the other
workstations via ethernet.

Once the deck watch had deployed the rosette, the winch operator
immediately lowered it to 10 meters. The CTD pumps were configured with an
8 second startup delay, and were on by the time the rosette reached 10
meters. The console operator checked the CTD data for proper sensor
operation, then instructed the winch operator to bring the package to the
surface, pause for 10 seconds, and descend to a target depth (wire-out).
Sometimes the near-surface pause and yoyo were omitted due to sea state.
The lowering rate was normally 60 meters/minute for this package, depending
on sea cable tension and sea state.

The console watch monitored the progress of the deployment and quality of
the CTD data through interactive graphics and operational displays.
Additionally, the watch decided where to trip bottles on the up cast,
noting this on the console log.  The altimeter channel, CTD depth, wire-out
and bathymetric depth were monitored to determine the distance of the
package from the bottom.  The on-screen winch and altimeter displays
allowed the watch to refine the target wire-out relayed to the winch
operator and safely approach to within 10 meters of the bottom.

Bottles were closed on the upcast by operating a "point and click"
graphical trip control button.  The data acquisition system responded with
trip confirmation messages and the corresponding CTD data in a rosette
bottle trip window on the display.  All tripping attempts were noted on the
console log.  The console watch then directed the winch operator to raise
the package up to the next bottle trip location.  The console watch was
also responsible for creating a sample log for the deployment which was
used to record the correspondence between rosette bottles and analytical
samples taken.

After the last bottle was tripped, the console watch directed the deck
watch to bring the rosette on deck.  Once on deck, the console watch
terminated the data acquisition, turned off the deck unit and assisted with
rosette sampling.


D.2.  CTD DATA PROCESSING

ODF CTD processing software consists of over 30 programs running in a
Linux/Unix run-time environment.

Raw CTD data are initially converted to engineering units, filtered,
response-corrected, calibrated and decimated to a more manageable 0.5
second time-series.  The laboratory calibrations for pressure, temperature
and conductivity are applied at this time.

Once the CTD data are reduced to a standard format time-series, they can be
manipulated in various ways.  Channels can be additionally filtered.  The
time-series can be split up into shorter time-series or pasted together to
form longer time-series.  A time-series can be transformed into a pressure-
series, or into a larger-interval time-series.  Adjustments to pressure,
temperature and conductivity determined from comparisons to other sensors
and to check samples are maintained in separate files and are applied
whenever the data are accessed.

The CTD data acquisition software acquired and processed the data in real-
time, providing calibrated, processed data for interactive plotting and
reporting during a cast.  The 24 Hz CTD data were filtered, response-
corrected and decimated to a 2 Hz time-series.  Sensor correction and
calibration models were applied to pressure, temperature, and conductivity.
Rosette trip data were extracted from this time-series in response to trip
initiation and confirmation signals.  All data were stored on disk and were
additionally backed up via ethernet to a second system.  At the end of the
cast, various consistency and calibration checks were performed and a 2 db
pressure-series of the down cast was generated and subsequently used for
reports and plots.

CTD data were examined at the completion of deployment for potential
problems.  Data from the two CTD temperature sensors were examined,
compared with SBE35RT Digital Reversing Thermometer data and checked for
sensor drift.  CTD conductivity sensors were compared and calibrated by
examining differences between CTD and check-sample conductivity values.
The CTD dissolved oxygen sensor data were calibrated to check-sample data.
Additionally, deep theta-salinity and theta-O2 comparisons were made
between down and up casts as well as with adjacent deployments.

The initial 10-meter yoyo in each deployment, where the package was lowered
and then raised back to the surface to start the SBE pumps, was omitted
during the generation of the 2 db pressure-series.

Density inversions can be induced in high-gradient regions by ship-
generated vertical motion of the rosette.  Detailed examination of the raw
data shows significant mixing can occur in these areas because of "ship
roll".  To minimize density inversions, a "ship-roll" filter which
disallowed pressure reversals was applied during the generation of the 2 db
pressure-series down-cast data.

The sensors were exposed to below-freezing air temperatures during the last
few stations.  Water in the pump tubes near the sensors at least partially
froze before the casts at stations 108 and 109.  The pump tubes were
cleared with warm water prior to deployment, and none of the sensors appear
to have been adversely affected.

Two CTD casts are reported for stations 9, 31, 61 and 93. The rosette was
lowered to approximately 250m on the first cast at each station to collect
water for CDOM only.  These shallow casts were not processed beyond the
initial block-averaging and automated post-cast processing.  The second
cast reported at each of these stations was the standard deep cast.


D.3.  CTD LABORATORY CALIBRATION PROCEDURES

Laboratory calibrations of the CTD pressure, temperature and conductivity
sensors were used to generate Sea-Bird conversion equation coefficients
applied by the data acquisition software at sea.

CTD #381 with pressure transducer #58952 was used for P16S-2005.

Pressure calibrations were last performed on CTD #381 at the ODF
Calibration Facility (La Jolla) on 16 November 2004.  The Paroscientific
Digiquartz pressure transducer was calibrated in a temperature-controlled
water bath to a Ruska Model 2400 Piston Gauge Pressure Reference.

The SBE3plus temperature sensors (primary S/N 03P-4213, secondary S/N
03P-4226) were calibrated at ODF on 16 November 2004.

The primary and secondary SBE4 conductivity sensors (S/N 04-2659 and S/N
04-2319) were both calibrated on 16 November 2004 at SBE.

The SBE35RT Digital Reversing Thermometer (S/N 35-0035) was calibrated on
15 September 2004 at ODF.


D.4.  CTD SHIPBOARD CALIBRATION PROCEDURES

CTD #381 was used for all P16S 2005 casts.  The CTD was deployed with all
sensors and pumps aligned vertically, as recommended by SBE.  Secondary
temperature and conductivity (T2 & C2) sensors served as calibration checks
for the reported primary temperature and conductivity (T1 & C1) on all
casts.  The SBE35RT Digital Reversing Thermometer (S/N 35-0035) served as
an independent temperature calibration check.  In-situ salinity check
samples collected during each CTD cast were used to calibrate the
conductivity sensors.

D.4.1.  CTD PRESSURE

Pressure sensor conversion equation coefficients derived from the pre-
cruise pressure calibration for CTD #381 (Pressure S/N 58952) were applied
to raw pressure data during each cast.  Out-of-water pressure values were
running 1.0-1.2 decibars at cast start, and 0.6-0.7 decibars at cast end.
The pressure was offset by -0.7 decibars at the surface, sloping to 0
correction at 5000 decibars, for stations 1-57.  After air and sea-surface
temperatures cooled off, the offset was reduced to -0.5 decibars at the
surface (sloping to 0 at 5000 decibars) for stations 58-87, and to -0.3
decibars at the surface (sloping to 0 at 3000 decibars) for stations
88-111.

Start and end pressures were tabulated for each cast to check for
calibration shifts.  The start pressures were between 0 and 0.6 decibars,
and the end pressures were between 0 and -0.2 decibars.

The post-cruise CTD #381 pressure calibration results are pending.

D.4.2.  CTD TEMPERATURE

Temperature sensor conversion equation coefficients were derived from the
pre-cruise calibrations and applied to raw primary and secondary
temperature data. The primary (T1, S/N 03P-4213) and secondary (T2, S/N
03P-4226) SBE3plus temperature sensors were used the entire cruise without
replacement.

Two independent metrics of calibration accuracy were examined.  The primary
and secondary temperatures were compared at each rosette trip, and the
SBE35RT (S/N 35-0035) temperatures were compared to primary and secondary
temperatures at each rosette trip.

The T1 sensor appeared to have a slow, steady drift with station number,
relative to the SBE35RT: +0.5 to +1.0 m°C from stations 1-111.  The T2
sensor was less stable, starting 1.0 m°C high, drifting to 0, then back
to 0.8 m°C high.  The sensor calibration histories were examined, and
the SBE35RT was deemed most likely of the 3 to be correct.  Offsets were
calculated from SBE35RT-T1 differences, using data below 1500 decibars.
The offsets, shifting slightly for each station, were applied to T1 data.
There did not appear to be any residual pressure effect on the T1 or SBE35
sensors.  The T2 sensor was not corrected.

Figures 1.7.2.0 and 1.7.2.1 show T1-T2 residual differences after shipboard
correction of T1 only.  The shipboard-final T1 and SBE35RT comparisons are
summarized in figures 1.7.2.2 and 1.7.2.3.

 
     Figure 1.7.2.0: Primary and secondary temperature differences by pressure,
                     all pressures. 
     Figure 1.7.2.1: Primary and secondary temperature differences by cast, 
                     p>1000db. 
     Figure 1.7.2.2: T1 and SBE35RT temperature differences by pressure, all 
                     pressures. 
     Figure 1.7.2.3: T1 and SBE35RT temperature differences by cast, p>1000db.


Post-cruise calibrations for all the temperature sensors are pending.

D.4.3.  CTD CONDUCTIVITY

Conductivity sensor conversion equation coefficients were derived from the
pre-cruise calibrations and applied to raw primary and secondary
conductivities.

The same primary (C1 - S/N 04-2659) and secondary (C2 - S/N 04-2319) SBE4
conductivity sensors were used on all of P16S 2005.  C1 was used for all
reported CTD conductivities; C2 was used as a calibration check on the
primary sensor.

Comparisons between the primary and secondary sensors, and between sensors
and check sample conductivities, were used to derive conductivity sensor
corrections.  The average C1-C2 differences were about +0.001 mS/cm at the
start of the cruise, increased to +0.0015 by station 25, then dropped to
+0.0005 by station 40.  The differences abruptly shifted at station 50,
after the sensors were cleaned with Triton X (according to SBE specs).
After a few more stations, the averages stabilized a bit, varying between
+0.001 and +0.0015 mS/cm for the rest of the cruise.  Another cleaning with
Triton X between stations 92 and 93 appeared to have no effect on either C1
or C2 data.  The bottle-C1 average values were less consistent, and varied
more than 0.002 mS/cm.

The differences between sensors and bottles were considered at the same
time as deep theta-salinity overlays of consecutive stations were examined
for both T1C1 and T2C2 sensor pairs.  C1 offsets were adjusted by as much
as +/-0.0005 mS/cm for a few casts to provide deep theta-salinity
consistency, and had the effect of "normalizing" some of the differences
between sensors and bottle data.  A second-order pressure-dependent slope
was fit to the adjusted bottle-C1 differences, omitting stations 1-20 to
eliminate any possibility of residual Autosal suppression issues at the
shallow end.  The resulting correction (on the order of +0.001 mS/cm at 0
decibars, -0.001 mS/cm at 3500 decibars and -0.0006 mS/cm at 5700 decibars)
was applied to all C1 data.  C2 data were not corrected.

Shipboard overlays of deep theta-salinity profiles were checked for cast-
to-cast consistency after the corrections were applied.  Stations 50-74
(after the first Triton X cleaning) were adjusted slightly, to better align
the profiles and the bottle-C1 differences.  Most deep profiles of adjacent
casts agreed to within +/-0.0001-2 mS/cm.

The comparison of the primary and secondary conductivity sensors by
station, after applying shipboard corrections, is summarized in figure
1.7.3.0.

 
     Figure 1.7.3.0: C1 and C2 conductivity differences by cast, p>1000db.


Salinity residuals after applying shipboard T1/C1 corrections are
summarized in figures 1.7.3.1 through 1.7.3.3.

 
     Figure 1.7.3.1: salinity residuals by pressure, all pressures. 
     Figure 1.7.3.2: salinity residuals by cast, all pressures. 
     Figure 1.7.3.3: salinity residuals by cast, p>1000db.


Figure 1.7.3.3 represents an estimate of the deep salinity accuracy for the
CTD/sensors used during P16S-2005.  The 95% confidence limit is +/-0.0018
PSU relative to bottle salts.

Post-cruise calibrations of the conductivity sensors by Sea-Bird are
pending.  These calibrations will not account for any pressure effects on
the sensors.

D.4.4.  CTD DISSOLVED OXYGEN

Two SBE43 dissolved O2 (DO) sensor were used during this cruise: S/N
43-0275 for stations 1-11 and 43-0185 for stations 12-111.  The sensor was
plumbed into the P/T1/C1 intake line in a vertical configuration after C1
and before P1 (as specified by SBE).

The first DO sensor (43-0275) offset and cut out repeatedly during station
1.  The cable between the CTD and sensor was replaced before station 2.  A
cursory check of data during the next few casts showed that problem to be
fixed, but the sensor apparently had other major problems.  Its sensitivity
decreased rapidly for the next few stations, until the raw signal was low
and shapeless by station 11.  The CTD oxygen data for stations 1 and 11
were deemed unusable and are not reported.  For the casts in between, only
stations 5 and 6 somewhat fit the bottle data from surface to bottom.
Because of the poor fits and obvious problems with the sensor, stations
2-10 CTD oxygen data are reported, but all coded questionable or bad.

The second sensor (43-0185) was installed prior to station 12 and performed
reliably for the rest of the cruise.  Standard and blank values for bottle
oxygen data were smoothed and applied prior to fitting the CTD oxygen
profiles.

The DO sensor calibration method used for this cruise was to match down-
cast CTD O2 data to up-cast bottle trips along isopycnal surfaces, then to
minimize the residual differences between the in-situ check sample values
and CTD O2 using a non-linear least-squares fitting procedure. Since this
technique only calibrates the down-cast, only the 2 db pressure series
down-cast data contain calibrated CTD O2.

The coefficients for the deep casts were used for the shallow casts on the
four 250m "CDOM" casts (9/1, 31/1, 61/2 and 93/1), which had no bottle
data; the CTD oxygen for those shallow casts are reported as uncalibrated.

Figures 1.7.4.0, 1.7.4.1 and 1.7.4.2 show the residual differences between
bottle and calibrated CTD O2 for all pressures where both CTD and bottle
oxygen data are coded "acceptable".  Figure 1.7.4.3 shows the residual
differences for pressures deeper than 1000 db.

 
     Figure 1.7.4.0 O2 residuals by station number, all pressures. 
     Figure 1.7.4.1 O2 residuals by pressure, all pressures. 
     Figure 1.7.4.2 O2 residuals by temperature, all pressures. 
     Figure 1.7.4.3 O2 residuals by station number, p>1000db.


The standard deviations of 0.0574 ml/l for all oxygens and 0.0142 ml/l for
deep oxygens are only intended as indicators of how well the up-cast bottle
O2 and down-cast CTD O2 match.  ODF makes no claims regarding the precision
or accuracy of CTD dissolved O2 data.

The general form of the ODF O2 conversion equation for Clark cells follows
Brown and Morrison [Brow78] and Millard [Mill82], [Owen85].  ODF models
membrane and sensor temperatures with lagged CTD temperatures and a lagged
thermal gradient.  In-situ pressure and temperature are filtered to match
the sensor response. Time-constants for the pressure response Taup, two
temperature responses TauTs and TauTf, and thermal gradient response TaudT
are fitting parameters.  The thermal gradient term is derived by low-pass
filtering the difference between the fast response (Tf) and slow response
(Ts) temperatures. This term is SBE43-specific and corrects a non-linearity
introduced by analog thermal compensation in the sensor.  The Oc gradient,
dOc/dt, is approximated by low-pass filtering 1st-order Oc differences.
This gradient term attempts to correct for reduction of species other than
O2 at the sensor cathode.  The time-constant for this filter, Tauog, is a
fitting parameter.  Dissolved O2 concentration is then calculated:

  O2ml/l=[c1*Oc+c2]*fsat(S,T,P)*e**(c3*Pl+c4*Tf+c5*Ts+c6*dOc/dt(1.7.4.0)

where:

     O2ml/l        = Dissolved O2 concentration in ml/l;
     Oc            = Sensor current (uamps);
     fsat(S,T,P)   = O2 saturation concentration at S,T,P (ml/l);
     S             = Salinity at O2 response-time (PSUs);
     T             = Temperature at O2 response-time (°C);
     P             = Pressure at O2 response-time (decibars);
     Pl            = Low-pass filtered pressure (decibars);
     Tf            = Fast low-pass filtered temperature (°C);
     Ts            = Slow low-pass filtered temperature (°C);
     dOc/dt        = Sensor current gradient (uamps/secs);
     dT            = low-pass filtered thermal gradient (Tf - Ts).





____________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
                                               P16S_2005a • Sloyan/Swift • R/V Roger Revelle





E.  BOTTLE SAMPLING

At the end of each rosette deployment water samples were drawn from the
bottles in the following order:


     • CFCs
     • He-3
     • O2
     • Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC)/Total Alkalinity
     • C-14
     • 15N
     • Dissolved Organic Carbon, (DOC)/Dissolved Organic Nitrogen (DON)
     • Tritium
     • Nutrients
     • Salinity
     • Chromophoric Dissolved Organic Material (CDOM)
     • Chlorophyll
     • Bacteria Growth Rate
     • Carbohydrates
     • Particulate Absorption Spectra and Microsporin Like Amino Acids
     • High-Pressure Liquid Chromatography Phytoplankton Pigments
 
 
The correspondence between individual sample containers and the rosette
bottle from which the sample was drawn was recorded on the sample log for
the cast.  This log also included any observations and comments about the
condition of 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.


E.1.  BOTTLE DATA PROCESSING

Water samples collected and properties analyzed shipboard were managed
centrally in a relational database (PostgreSQL-7.4.6-2) run on one of the
Linux workstations. A web service (OpenAcs-5.1.3 and AOLServer-4.0.9-3)
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 secure 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).  Each Sample Log was also scanned and made available as a
JPEG file on the website.

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
(WOCE) Hydrographic Programme (WHP) [Joyc94].

Various consistency checks and detailed examination of the data continued
throughout the cruise.  The comments from the Sample Logs and individual
data point checking are included in the Appendix of this documentation.


E.2.  SALINITY ANALYSIS

Equipment and Techniques

Two Guildline Autosal Model 8400A salinometers (S/N 57-396 & S/N
48-266/backup), located in the aft hydro lab, were used for all salinity
measurements.  The salinometers were modified by ODF to contain an
interface for computer-aided measurement.  The water bath temperatures were
set and maintained at a value near the laboratory air temperature. They
were set to 21°C for stations 1-18 and 25-34 analyses, then switched
to 24°C for stations 19-24 and 35-111.

The salinity analyses were performed after samples had equilibrated to
laboratory temperature, usually within 8-26 hours after collection.  The
salinometers were standardized for each group of analyses (usually 1-3
casts, up to ~84 samples) using at least two fresh vials of standard
seawater per group. Salinometer measurements were made by computer, where
the analyst was prompted by software to change samples and flush.

Sampling and Data Processing

3699 salinity measurements were made and approximately 220 vials of
standard water (SSW) were used.  547 additional samples were taken by the
Trace Metals group and analyzed by STS/ODF.

Salinity samples were drawn into 200 ml Kimax high-alumina borosilicate
bottles, which were rinsed three times with sample prior to filling.  The
bottles were sealed with custom-made plastic insert thimbles and Nalgene
screw caps.  This assembly provides very low container dissolution and
sample evaporation.  Prior to sample collection, inserts were inspected for
proper fit and loose inserts replaced to insure an airtight seal.  The draw
time and equilibration time were logged for all casts.  Laboratory
temperatures were logged at the beginning and end of each run.

PSS-78 salinity [UNES81] was calculated for each sample from the measured
conductivity ratios.  The difference (if any) 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 data.  The corrected salinity data were
then incorporated into the cruise database.  The estimated accuracy of
bottle salinities run at sea is usually better than +/-0.002 PSU relative
to the particular standard seawater batch used. The 95% confidence limit
for residual differences between the bottle salinities and calibrated CTD
salinity relative to SSW batch P-144 was +/-0.0055 PSU for all salinities,
and +/-0.0018 PSU for salinities deeper than 1000db.

Three adjustments other than bath temperature changes were made to the
Autosal.  After station 20 salinity was run, it was discovered that the
amplifier gain for proper balance between suppression ranges had not been
adjusted. This was changed, and stations 1-20 salinities were recalculated.
A minor adjustment was made to the Autosal before station 47, and
maintenance was performed on the air pump before station 92 was run.

Laboratory Temperature

The temperature in the salinometer laboratory varied from 17.8 to 
24.0°C, during the cruise.  The air temperature change during 80 of the 110
sample runs was less than +/-0.4°C 25 runs had a temperature difference
of  +/-0.5°C to +/-0.9°C.

Standards

IAPSO Standard Seawater (SSW) Batch P-144 was used to standardize all
salinity measurements.


E.3.  OXYGEN ANALYSIS

Equipment and Techniques

Dissolved oxygen analyses were performed with an ODF-designed automated
oxygen titrator using photometric end-point detection based on the
absorption of 365nm wavelength ultra-violet light.  The titration of the
samples and the data logging were controlled by PC software.  Thiosulfate
was dispensed by a Dosimat 665 buret driver fitted with a 1.0 ml buret.
ODF used a whole-bottle modified-Winkler titration following the technique
of Carpenter [Carp65] with modifications by Culberson et al. [Culb91], but
with higher concentrations of potassium iodate standard (~0.012N) and
thiosulfate solution (~55 gm/l).  Pre-made liquid potassium iodate
standards were run once a day approximately every 4 stations, unless
changes were made to system or reagents.  Reagent/distilled water blanks
were determined every day or more often if a change in reagents required it
to account for presence of oxidizing or reducing agents.  The auto-titrator
performed well.

Sampling and Data Processing

3892 oxygen measurements were made.  Samples were collected for dissolved
oxygen analyses soon after the rosette was brought on board.  Using a Tygon
and silicone drawing tube, nominal 125ml volume-calibrated iodine flasks
were rinsed 3 times with minimal agitation, then filled and allowed to
overflow for at least 3 flask volumes.  The sample drawing temperatures
were measured with a small platinum resistance thermometer embedded in the
drawing tube. These temperatures were used to calculate µM/kg
concentrations, and as a diagnostic check of bottle integrity.  Reagents
were added to fix the oxygen before stoppering.  The flasks were shaken
twice (10-12 inversions) to assure thorough dispersion of the precipitate,
once immediately after drawing, and then again after about 20 minutes.

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°C.  The 20°C normalities and the blanks were
plotted versus time and were reviewed for possible problems.

The sample drawing temperature thermometer during this leg was functional
and calibrated at the beginning of the expedition.

A noisy endpoint was occasionally acquired during the analyses, usually due
to small waterbath contaminations. These endpoints were checked and
recalculated using STS/ODF designed software.

The blanks and thiosulfate normalities for each batch of thiosulfate were
smoothed (linear fits) in four groups during the cruise and the oxygen
values recalculated.

Volumetric Calibration

Oxygen flask volumes were determined gravimetrically with degassed
deionized water to determine flask volumes at STS/ODF's chemistry
laboratory.  This is 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 bottled in sterile
glass bottles at STS/ODF's chemistry laboratory prior to the expedition.
The normality of the liquid standard was determined at ODF by calculation
from weight.  A single standard batch was used during P16S 2005.
Potassium iodate was obtained from Acros Chemical Co.  and was reported by
the supplier to be >99.4% pure.  All other reagents were "reagent grade"
and were tested for levels of oxidizing and reducing impurities prior to
use.


E.4.  NUTRIENT ANALYSIS

Equipment and Techniques

Nutrient analyses (phosphate, silicate, nitrate and nitrite) were performed
on an ODF-modified 4-channel Technicon AutoAnalyzer II, generally within
one to two hour after sample collection.  Occasionally samples were
refrigerated up to 4 hours at ~4°C.  All samples were brought to room
temperature prior to analysis.

The methods used are described by Gordon et al. [Gord92].  The analog
outputs from each of the four colorimeter channels were digitized and
logged automatically by computer (PC) at 2-second intervals.

Silicate was analyzed using the technique of Armstrong et al. [Arms67].  An
acidic solution of ammonium molybdate was added to a seawater sample to
produce silicomolybdic acid which was then reduced to silicomolybdous acid
(a blue compound) following the addition of stannous chloride.  Tartaric
acid was also added to impede PO4 color development.  The sample was passed
through a 15mm flowcell and the absorbance measured at 660nm.

A modification of the Armstrong et al. [Arms67] procedure was used for the
analysis of nitrate and nitrite.  For the nitrate analysis, the seawater
sample was passed through a cadmium reduction column where nitrate was
quantitatively reduced to nitrite.  Sulfanilamide was introduced to the
sample stream followed by N-(1-naphthyl)ethylenediamine dihydrochloride
which coupled to form a red azo dye.  The stream was then passed through a
15mm flowcell and the absorbance measured at 540nm.  The same technique was
employed for nitrite analysis, except the cadmium column was bypassed, and
a 50mm flowcell was used for measurement.

Phosphate was analyzed using a modification of the Bernhardt and Wilhelms
[Bern67] technique.  An acidic solution of ammonium molybdate was added to
the sample to produce phosphomolybdic acid, then reduced to
phosphomolybdous acid (a blue compound) following the addition of
dihydrazine sulfate.  The reaction product was heated to ~55°C to
enhance color development, then passed through a 50mm flowcell and the
absorbance measured at 820nm.

Sampling and Data Processing

3806 nutrient samples were analyzed.  547 additional samples were taken by
the Trace Metals group and analyzed by STS/ODF.

Nutrient samples were drawn into 45 ml polypropylene, screw-capped "oak-
ridge type" centrifuge tubes.  The tubes were cleaned with 10% HCl and
rinsed with sample 2-3 times before filling.  Standardizations were
performed at the beginning and end of each group of analyses (typically one
cast, up to 36 samples) with an intermediate concentration mixed nutrient
standard prepared prior to each run from a secondary standard in a low-
nutrient seawater matrix.  The secondary standards were prepared aboard
ship by dilution from primary standard solutions.  Dry standards were pre-
weighed at the laboratory at ODF, and transported to the vessel for
dilution to the primary standard.  Sets of 7 different standard
concentrations were analyzed periodically to determine any deviation from
linearity as a function of absorbance for each nutrient analysis.  A
correction for non-linearity was applied to the final nutrient
concentrations when necessary.  A correction for the difference in
refractive indices of pure distilled water and seawater was periodically
determined and applied where necessary.  In addition, a "deep seawater"
high nutrient concentration check sample was run with each station as an
additional check on data quality.  The pump tubing was changed 3 times.

After each group of samples was analyzed, the raw data file was processed
to produce another file of response factors, baseline values, and
absorbances.  Computer-produced absorbance readings were checked for
accuracy against values taken from a strip chart recording.  The data were
then added to the cruise database.

Nutrients, reported in micromoles per kilogram, were converted from
micromoles per liter by dividing by sample density calculated at 1 atm
pressure (0 db), in situ salinity, and a per-analysis measured laboratory
temperature.

Standards

Primary standards for silicate (Na2SiF6) and nitrite (NaNO2) were obtained
from Johnson Matthey Chemical Co.; the supplier reported purities of >98%
and 97%, respectively. Primary standards for nitrate (KNO3) and phosphate
(KH2PO4) were obtained from Fisher Chemical Co.; the supplier reported
purities of 99.999% and 99.999%, respectively.  The efficiency of the
cadmium column used for nitrate was monitored throughout the cruise and
ranged from 99-100%.

No major problems were encountered with the measurements.  The temperature
of the laboratory used for the analyses ranged from 21.6°C to 25.8°C, 
but was relatively constant during any one station (+/-1.5°C).



REFERENCES

Arms67.
     Armstrong, F. A. J., Stearns, C. R., and Strickland, J. D. H., "The
     measurement of upwelling and subsequent biological processes by means
     of the Technicon AutoAnalyzer and associated equipment," Deep-Sea
     Research, 14, pp. 381-389 (1967).

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).

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).

UNES81.
     UNESCO, "Background papers and supporting data on the Practical

Salinity Scale, 1978," UNESCO Technical Papers in Marine Science, No.
     37, p. 144 (1981).



E.5. DISSOLVED INORGANIC CARBON (DIC)

The DIC analytical equipment was set up in a seagoing container modified for 
use as a shipboard laboratory.  The analysis was done by coulometry with two 
analytical systems (PMEL-1 and PMEL-2) operated simultaneously on the cruise by 
Dr. Christopher Sabine (PMEL) and Miss Justine Afghan (SIO).  Each system 
consisted of a coulometer (UIC, Inc.) coupled with a SOMMA (Single Operator 
Multiparameter Metabolic Analyzer) inlet system developed by Ken Johnson 
(Johnson et al., 1985,1987,1993; Johnson, 1992) of Brookhaven National 
Laboratory (BNL).  In the coulometric analysis of DIC, all carbonate species 
are converted to CO2 (gas) by addition of excess hydrogen to the seawater 
sample, and the evolved CO2 gas is carried into the titration cell of the 
coulometer, where it reacts quantitatively with a proprietary reagent based on 
ethanolamine to generate hydrogen ions.  These are subsequently titrated with 
coulometrically generated OH-.  CO2 is thus measured by integrating the total 
change required to achieve this.

The coulometers were each calibrated by injecting aliquots of pure CO2 (99.995%) 
by means of an 8-port valve outfitted with two sample loops (Wilke et al., 
1993).  The instruments were calibrated at the beginning of each station with a 
set of the gas loop injections.  Subsequent calibrations were run either in the 
middle or end of the cast if replicate samples collected from the same Niskin, 
which were analyzed at different stages of analysis, were different by more 
than 2 µmol kg-1.

Secondary standards were run throughout the cruise on each analytical system; 
these standards are Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) consisting of 
poisoned, filtered, and UV irradiated seawater supplied by Dr. A. Dickson of 
Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO), and their accuracy is determined 
shoreside manometrically.  On this cruise, the overall accuracy and precision 
for the CRMs on both instruments was -1.7±0.8 µmol kg-1 (n=63) and -2.4±0.7 µmol 
kg-1 (n=64) for PMEL-1 and PMEL-2 respectively.  Preliminary DIC data reported 
to the database have not yet been corrected to the Batch 67 CRM value, but a 
more careful quality assurance to be completed shoreside will have final data 
corrected to the secondary standard on a per instrument basis.

Samples were drawn from the Niskin-type bottles into cleaned, precombusted 300-
mL Pyrex bottles using silicone tubing.  Bottles were rinsed three times and 
filled from the bottom, overflowing half a volume, and care was taken not to 
entrain any bubbles.  The tube was pinched off and withdrawn, creating a 3-mL 
headspace, and 0.2 mL of 50% saturated HgCl2 solution was added as a 
preservative.  The sample bottles were sealed with glass stoppers lightly 
covered with Apiezon-L grease, and were stored at room temperature for a 
maximum of 24 hours prior to analysis.

DIC values were reported for 2882 samples or approximately 75% of the tripped 
bottles on this cruise.  Full profiles were completed at odd numbered stations 
on whole degrees, with replicate samples taken from the surface, oxygen 
minimum, and bottom depths.  On the even numbered (half degree) stations, as 
many samples as possible were drawn based on the current sample throughput; 
replicates were collected from the surface and bottom bottles.  Typical even 
numbered stations had between 8 and 20 bottles sampled.

Duplicate samples were drawn from 256 bottles and interspersed throughout the 
station analysis for quality assurance of the coulometer cell solution 
integrity.  The average of the absolute value of the difference between 
duplicates was 1 µmol kg-1 for both systems.  No systematic differences between 
the replicates were observed.

The only significant problem encountered on this cruise was a failure of the 
gas loop calibration system on PMEL-2 during the final week of running 
stations.  The problem was noted when calibrations started giving unusually low 
calibration values that also produced unusually low CRM results.  The problem 
was isolated to the gas sample valve but could not be repaired without 
significant loss of sample analysis time.  Instead, we manually entered a 
calibration factor based on the mean value obtained from the previous month's 
worth of calibrations.  The manually entered calibration factor was confirmed 
by analyzing CRMs with every station, comparing replicate samples between PMEL-
1 and PMEL-2, and careful inspection of deep water values analyzed on the two 
systems.  We do not believe this problem has compromised the data in any way.  



REFERENCES:

Feely, R.A., R. Wanninkhof, H.B. Milburn, C.E. Cosca, M. Stapp, and P.P. Murphy 
     (1998): A new automated underway system for making high precision pCO2 
     measurements aboard research ships. Anal. Chim. Acta, 377, 185-191.

Johnson, K.M., A.E. King, and J. McN. Sieburth (1985): Coulometric DIC analyses 
     for marine studies: An introduction. Mar. Chem., 16, 61-82.
     
Johnson, K.M., P.J. Williams, L. Brandstrom, and J. McN. Sieburth (1987): 
     Coulometric total carbon analysis for marine studies: Automation and 
     calibration. Mar. Chem., 21, 117-133.

Johnson, K.M. (1992): Operator's manual: Single operator multiparameter 
     metabolic analyzer (SOMMA) for total carbon dioxide (CT) with coulometric 
     detection. Brookhaven National Laboratory, Brookhaven, N.Y., 70 pp.

Johnson, K.M., K.D. Wills, D.B. Butler, W.K. Johnson, and C.S. Wong (1993): 
     Coulometric total carbon dioxide analysis for marine studies: Maximizing 
     the performance of an automated continuous gas extraction system and 
     coulometric detector. Mar. Chem., 44, 167-189.

Wilke, R.J., D.W.R. Wallace, and K.M. Johnson (1993): Water-based gravimetric 
     method for the determination of gas loop volume. Anal. Chem. 65, 2403-2406.
     

E.6. ALKALINITY ANALYSES 

Samples were collected and analyzed for alkalinity by personnel from the 
laboratory of Andrew G. Dickson, Scripps Institution of Oceanography.  Samples 
were collected from all Niskins at the odd numbered stations.  Two samples were 
collected and analyzed from Niskin bottle 1 (the deep bottle), Niskin 18 (an 
intermediate depth bottle) and Niskin 36 (or bottle tripped at the surface).  
On the even numbered stations, from 10 to 36 samples were collected along with 
two duplicate bottles from the surface and bottom bottles.  Sampling on the 
even numbered stations was done in conjunction with samples collected for the 
analysis of dissolved inorganic carbon (D.I.C.).

Samples of ~280 mls were collected in pyrex bottles with 20 mm serum style 
closures.  Bottles were rinsed three times before sample collection.  After 
collection, 57 microliters of a saturated mercuric chloride solution were added 
to inhibit biological activity.  An approximately 108 ml sample was delivered 
into a jacketed beaker using a calibrated glass syringe.  The beaker was 
connected to a bath set to 22.5°C.  ~0.1 molar HCl in ~0.6M NaCl (batch 
prepared December 2, 2004) was used to titrate the sample as follows:  while 
the sample was being stirred gently, an initial aliquot of ~2.7 mls of acid was 
added to the sample using a Dosimat 665 titrator.  Immediately after this 
addition the sample was stirred vigorously while CO2 free air was bubbled into 
the solution at 200 mls/min.  After 4 minutes, the titration was completed by 
the addition of 20 increments of 0.04 mls of the acid.  During the course of 
the titration, the emf of the solution was monitored using a Ross-Orion 
combination pH electrode.  At each titration point, the volume of solution 
added, the voltage and the temperature of the sample were recorded.  The 
titration data were processed using a modified Gran plot.

The accuracy of the system was monitored using Batch 67 certified reference  
materials for D.I.C. and alkalinity supplied by the Dickson laboratory.  A 
standard solution was run at least twice before and after each station.

Preliminary results for all analyses have been reported to Kristin Sanborn of  
the Oceanographic Data Facility (ODF), SIO, UCSD.

Some additional notes:

1. A saturated solution of mercuric chloride was provided by the Dickson 
   laboratory for all programs requiring mercuric chloride on this cruise: 
   D.I.C. (which used a 50% saturated solution) alkalinity, C-14, and CDOM 
   (experiments of Stuart Goldberg-UC Santa Barbara).

2. To maintain pace with the D.I.C. program, members of the alkalinity analysis 
   team were relieved of sampling responsibilities. This was turned over to 
   others available for station sampling. Without this help, 15 to 20 fewer 
   samples would have been analyzed per day.

3. Equipment operated up to expectations with the following exceptions: the 
   spare bath was substituted into the system when the first bath stopped 
   working; it was thought that one of the stirring units was causing some  
   electrical problems and this unit was replaced.

4. The computer system experienced several crashes requiring restarting.


E.7. CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-113

Sample Collection

All samples were collected from depth using 10 liter Niskin bottles.  These had 
been cleaned prior to the cruise, and all o-rings, seals and taps were removed, 
washed in deacon solution and propan-2-ol, then baked out in a vacuum oven for 
24 hours.  Of the original 36 bottles initially used, two were lost and 
replaced, and one was temporarily replaced, repaired and returned.  None of the 
Niskin bottles used showed a CFC contamination throughout the cruise.  All 
bottles in use remained inside the CTD hanger between casts.  All spare bottles 
were stored on a spare rosette under a tarp, sitting on the main deck.

CFC sampling was conducted first at each station, according to WOCE protocol.  
This reduces contamination by air introduced at the top of the Niskin bottle as 
water was being removed.  A water sample was collected directly from the Niskin 
bottle petcock using a 100 ml ground glass syringe which was fitted with a 
three-way stopcock that allowed flushing without removing the syringe from the 
petcock.  Syringes were flushed several times and great care was taken to avoid 
contamination by air bubbles.  Duplicate samples were randomly collected, 
nominally from every CTD cast.  Duplicates were not taken when time was 
constrained due to a backlog of analyses.  Air samples, pumped into the system 
using an Air Cadet pump, were run about every 2 - 4 days from a Dekoron air 
intake hose mounted high on the foremast.  These samples were used to check CFC 
saturation levels in the surface water.

Equipment and technique

Chlorofluorocarbons CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-113 were measured on 111 stations 
for a total of 3,078 samples.  Halocarbon analyses were performed on a gas 
chromatograph (GC) equipped with an electron capture detector (ECD).  Samples 
were introduced into the GC-EDC via a purge and dual trap system.  The samples 
were purged with nitrogen and the compounds of interest were trapped on a main 
Porapack N trap held at ~ -20°C with a Vortec Tube cooler.  After the sample had 
been purged and trapped for several minutes at high flow, the gas stream was 
stripped of any water vapor via a magnesium perchlorate trap prior to transfer 
to the main trap. The main trap was isolated and heated by direct resistance to 
140°C.  The desorbed contents of the main trap were back-flushed and 
transferred, with helium gas, over a short period of time, to a small volume 
focus trap in order to improve chromatographic peak shape.  The focus trap was 
also Porapak N and is held at ~ -20°C with a Vortec Tube cooler.  The focus 
trap was flash heated by direct resistance to 155°C to release the compounds of 
interest onto the analytical pre-column.  The analytical pre-column was held 
in-line with the main analytical column for the first 3 minutes of the 
chromatographic run.  After 3 minutes, all of the compounds of interest were on 
the main column, and the pre-column was switched out of line and back-flushed 
with a relatively high flow of nitrogen gas.  This prevented later eluting 
compounds from building up on the analytical column, eventually eluting and 
causing the detector baseline signal to increase. 

The syringes were stored in a flow-through seawater bath and analyzed within 8 
-12 hours after collection.  Bath temperature was recorded continuously for use 
in calculating the mass of water analyzed.  Every ten measurements were 
followed by a purge blank and a standard, gas2.68ml.  Time permitting, the 
surface sample was held after measurement and was sent through the process in 
order to "restrip" it to determine the efficiency of the purging process. 

Calibration 

For accuracy, the standard, S39, was cross-calibrated to the SIO-98 absolute 
calibration scale.  A 19 point calibration curve was run every 4-9 days for all 
three halocarbons.  Estimated accuracy is +/- 2%. Precision for CFC-12, CFC-11 
and CFC-113 is smaller than 1%.

Contamination and Problems

In large part, sample collection and measurement were very successful.  The 
integration of  the computer software with the GC-EDC system hardware made the 
procedure almost completely automated.  A few problems were encountered 
initially.  Failure of some of the optoisolator circuitry occurred, which 
required replacement.  The bow air line filled with moisture transitioning from 
the warm humid outside air to the cold, dry air-conditioned Main Lab, flooding 
the magnesium perchlorate trap associated with the pump sample line.  
Installation of an additional water trap in line just before the magnesium 
perchlorate trap cured the problem.  The rough seas played havoc with the 
particular brand of PC laptop computers integrated with the GC system, and they 
crashed several times, resulting in occasional sample losses.  Two of the glass 
syringes appeared to be contaminated with CFC-11 and CFC-113, respectively, and 
were removed from service.  How they were affected was not discovered, but 
since no other syringes were contaminated, the situation appeared isolated.  To 
our knowledge, there were no other occurrences of contamination.

Final Comments

Samples from all 111 CTD stations were analyzed for CFCs, although the 
throughput rate of the analytical system necessitated selectively not sampling 
some Niskin bottles on most casts.  The data set was minimally compromised by 
this procedure by selecting depths in mid-waters of relatively uniform 
hydrography.  The results of this cruise are preliminary and may change by a 
small percentage after final scrutiny by the principal investigator.


E.8. TRACE METALS

Water Column Profiles

Sea water samples for on board trace metal determinations were collected using 
12 L Go-Flo bottles on a 12-place rosette system equipped with a SeaBird 911 
CTD and oxygen sensor and a Wet Labs FL-1 fluorometer. The rosette package was 
deployed from the stern of the ship with the Go-Flo bottles in the open 
configuration using a 4 conductor Kevlar cable sheathed in polyurethane.  The 
package was lowered at ~ 50 m/min to 10-30m below the target depth of the 
deepest bottle.  As the package was raised back through the water column the 
Go-Flo bottles were tripped individually at pre-assigned depths while the 
package was moving at ~ 10-20 m/min.  The depths that the bottles were tripped 
was one of three sampling patterns that were designed to match the three 
sampling schemes used by the main hydrography program. 

Upon package recovery the Go-Flo bottles were taken from the rosette into the 
trace metal sampling van for sub-sampling.  Unfiltered sub-samples were 
collected directly from each bottle for salinity and nutrient determinations 
and also to ensure that each Go-Flo bottle had closed at the correct depth.  
Unfiltered samples were collected from every third station for archive purposes 
at UH and FSU. Filtered sub-samples were collected from each bottle through a 
47mm in-line Nuclepore polycarbonate track-etched disc filters, 0.4 _m, after 
attaching the bottles to a 10 psi filtered air supply. 

Filtered samples were collected from each depth for ship-board analysis of 
dissolved Fe and Al using the University of Hawaii flow-injection system. 
Unfiltered and filtered subsamples were collected for return to FSU for 
analysis of iron by Fe-57 isotope dilution Inductively-Coupled Plasma Mass 
Spectrometry (ICPMS).  

During the cruise a total of 46 stations were occupied, yielding a total of 552 
samples. A complete data set for dissolved Fe and Al was obtained from the UH 
FIA analytical system. In addition dissolved Mn was determined at many of the 
stations.  Dissolved Fe concentrations were extremely low throughout the 
section with values dropping from 0.5 nM near Tahiti to 60 pM at 56°S.  Values 
remained at these extremely low levels all the way to 71°S.  Deep water Fe 
levels, also showed a southerly decrease.  Values of 1nM around Tahiti quickly 
decreased  to less than 0.5 nM by 36°S.  These low deep water values persisted 
all the way to southernmost station, reflecting the lack of surface water Fe to 
be vertically transported to the deep waters by biological processes. Dissolved 
Al also showed relatively low values throughout the transect.  Surface waters 
near Tahiti were relatively enriched with values of ~ 3-4 nM, these values 
dropped rapidly to the south with another maximum of 3-4 nM around 30°S.  
Thereafter surface values dropped again reaching ~1nM by 40°S and then stayed 
extremely low to 71°S.  Implied mean dust deposition to the surface ocean 
calculated from these Al values ranges from 0.2 to 0.4 g mineral dust m -2 yr -1 
between 16°S and 34°S.  Poleward of 40°S dust estimates drop to 0.010 -0.050 
g mineral dust m -2 yr -1., among the lowest seen anywhere in the oceans.  Deep 
and mid water Al values follow a similar trend with the mid water enrichment 
seen at the beginning of the transit disappearing by 37°S, and deep waters 
resembling surface water values by ~ 54°S

Mn data show uniformly low values (< 0.1 nM--our methodological zero) in deep 
water throughout the section.  Surface waters show values of 0.5 to 1 nM in the 
upper 100m from 16°S to 30°S, south of this latitude values decrease rapidly 
and are close to the methodological zero from 54°S to 68°S.

Initial results of the on board Fe, Al and Mn determinations have already been 
submitted to the shipboard data base.  Final data will be submitted to the data 
base by February 20th, 2006.



E.9. DOM BIOGEOCHEMISTRY AND GLOBAL CDOM
     PROJECT TITLE: Biogeochemistry of Dissolved Organic Matter (DOM)
     PI's:          C. Carlson, University of California, Santa Barbara
     Support:       NSF

Project Goals

Our goal is to evaluate dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and nitrogen (DON) 
concentrations over a variety of spatial sections of the repeat hydrography 
program. During the P16S cruise, A type casts were specifically targeted in 
order to overlap with the TCO2 sampling program.

Activities on P16S

The Carlson group collected samples for dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen 
(DOC/DON) analyses. The samples were collected by Meredith Meyers of the 
University of California, Santa Barbara. These samples will be processed at 
shore based laboratories to ensure the highest quality data set. Dr. Carlson 
will be responsible for analysis of these DOM samples. On the P16S cruise, 
samples were collected from 24-36 depths for every other station. The depths 
and station from which these samples were collected coincided with samples and 
depths collected for dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC). DOC and DON samples were 
passed through an inline filter holding a combusted GF/F filter attached 
directly to the Niskin for samples in the top 500m of each cast. This was done 
to eliminate particles > 0.7 um from the sample. Samples were collected at sea 
and stored frozen at -20°C and transported frozen to UCSB.

Data for DOC will be available in approximately ~9-12 months from their arrival 
at UCSB. Additional time may be required to complete DON samples.

Instruments and Methods

Samples will be analyzed via the high temperature combustion technique using 
Shimadzu TOC-V systems with total nitrogen chemiluminescent detection. Samples 
will be sparged of inorganic carbon by acidification with HCl and sparging with 
CO2 free gas for several minutes. A minimum of triplicate injections of 100ul of 
sample will be injected onto a Pt alumina combustion catalyst heated to 680°C. 
The CO2 signal will then be detected with a non-dispersive infrared detector. 
Total nitrogen is converted to NOx and detected via chemiluminescence. 



E.10. PROJECT TITLE: CHROMOPHORIC DOM: AN IGNORED PHOTOACTIVE TRACER OF GEOCHEMICAL PROCESSES
      PI's:          D. Siegel, N. Nelson, C. Carlson, University of California, 
                     Santa Barbara
      Support:       NSF (2/3) and NASA

Project Goals

Our goals are to determine chromophoric dissolved organic matter (CDOM) 
distributions along a variety of CO2/Clivar Repeat Hydrography survey and to 
quantify and parameterize CDOM production and destruction processes with the 
goal of mathematically constraining the cycling of CDOM. CDOM is a poorly 
characterized organic matter pool that interacts with sunlight, leading to the 
production of climate-relevant traces gases, attenuation of solar ultraviolet 
radiation in the water column, and has impacts on ocean color that can be 
quantified using satellite imagery. We believe that the global distribution of 
CDOM is controlled by microbial production and solar bleaching in the upper 
water column. We are testing these hypotheses using a combination of field 
observations and controlled experiments. We are also interested in the deep sea 
reservoir of CDOM and its origin and connection to surface waters and are 
making the first large scale surveys of CDOM abundance in the deep ocean. 

Activities on P16S

We collected seawater samples for absorption spectroscopy on one deep ocean 
cast (24-36 depths) each day. CDOM is typically quantified for as the 
absorption coefficient at a particular wavelength or wavelength range (we are 
using 325nm). We determined CDOM at sea by measuring absorption spectra (280-
730 nm) of 0.2 um filtrates using a liquid wavelength spectrophotometer with a 
0cm cell. We concurrently collected samples for prokaryotic abundance and 
production rates, and carbohydrates to compare the distribution of these 
quantities to that of DOM (see above) and CDOM. In surface waters (300m) we are 
also estimating microbial productivity of field samples by measuring the uptake 
of bromo-deoxyuridine (BrdU), a non radiotracer assay. On selected stations 
(n=10), DNA was collected for further molecular analyses to indentify bacterial 
community structure. This in situ prokaryotic community will be compared to 
that which developed in incubation experiments used to assess CDOM production 
(see below).

Because of the connections to light availability and remote sensing, we 
collected samples for pigment analysis (HPLC), mycosporine-like amino acids 
(MAAs) and particulate absorption (AP) (spectrophotometric) from the surface 
intake 1x day.  Sea and sky-state permitting, we deployed a Satlantic free-fall 
profiling spectroradiometer (SPMR) once daily between 1000 and 1400 local on 
the starboard side midships. An additional spectroradiometer mounted to the 02 
deck provided surface solar irradiance measurements as a reference for the 
underwater light cast.  Details of cast times and locations are presented 
below.  


Dates, start times and locations of SPMR profiles

                      Date    Start Time (UTC)  Station #
                      ------  ----------------  ---------
                      011005        2032          002
                      011105        2132          006
                      011205        2032          010
                      011305        2213          014
                      011405        2222          017
                      011505        2111          021
                      011605        2305          025
                      011705        2144          028
                      011905        2137          035
                      012005        2151          039
                      012105        2306          042
                      012205        2132          045
                      012305        2212          049
                      012405        2255          052
                      012505        2022          055
                      012605        2311          059
                      020205        2316          081
                      020305        2328          085
                      020605        2304          096
                      020805        2116          106


Chlorophyll-a (fluorometric) samples were collected daily for the upper 200m at 
the same station at which a radiometer profile was executed (typically from a B 
cast).  Fluorometric chlorophyll analyses were done at sea following a 24-hour 
extraction protocol.

Process Experiments:  At selected stations we collected extra seawater for a) 
microbial culture experiments carried out at sea and b) solar bleaching 
experiments carried out later on shore.  Water was collected from short casts 
within the surface 250m from stations 009, 031, 061, 093.  In these experiments 
we examine the rate of CDOM production relative to microbial productivity in 
culture.  The quantum yield of photolytic destruction of CDOM in the surface 
and 80m from these "experimental casts" will be determined in laboratory 
experiments utilizing a solar simulator.

MICROBIAL GROWTH EXPERIMENTS

Four microbial cultures were conducted over the course of the cruise with water 
collected from 4 shallow casts to 250m. Experiments were conducted with water 
collected from 20, 32, 46, and 62o S. Each experiment comprised 5 different 
treatments of varying organic matter mixture and was incubated at in situ 
temperatures over the course of 5-15 days. The objective was to monitor 
microbial biomass production, DOM consumption, shifts in the microbial 
community and temporal variability of CDOM through the microbial growth curves. 
Culture activity was monitored by microscopic direct counts. Preliminary 
results suggest that all treatments, except unamended deep controls, showed 
significant growth. Further analysis of CDOM, DOM, and molecular composition of 
the prokaryotic community will be conducted in the laboratory.


F. AEROSOL SAMPLING PROGRAM

Aerosol samples were collected each day (24-hour integrated) using the FSU 
aerosol sampling tower. Wind sector and wind speed control was used to 
immediately shut off the sampling when the wind brings ship's exhaust towards 
the bow. Bulk aerosols were collected on 47 mm, 0.4 _m polycarbonate filters 
for shore-based analysis of total trace elements using energy dispersive X-ray 
fluorescence (Joe Resing, University of Washington and NOAA/PMEL). Replicate 
samples on 0.45 _m polypropylene filters were leached with DI water or surface 
seawater to measure soluble Fe(II) (ship-board), and for shore-based analysis 
of total soluble Fe and Al, and soluble anions and cations. 

Three-day integrated samples of size-fractionated aerosols were collected using 
a Micro Orifice Uniform Deposition Impactor (MOUDI). Size cutoffs of 3.1, 1.0, 
0.56, and 0.056 _m were used. Those filters were also leached with DI water for 
shore-based analysis of total soluble Fe and Al, and soluble anions and 
cations.  Due to flooding of the aerosol pumps on 29-JAN-05, we were reduced to 
deploying only two filters per day, and the MOUDI sampling was halted. After 
installing our backup pump, aerosol sampling re-commenced on 1-FEB-05. 

The soluble aerosol Fe(II) concentrations ranged from 0.1-5.3 pmol/m3 of 
filtered air. These concentrations cannot be placed in perspective until after 
the shore-based analysis of total aerosol Fe and total soluble aerosol Fe has 
been completed. From visual inspection of the aerosol filters, it is clear that 
the total aerosol loads in the atmosphere between Tahiti and Antarctica are 
extremely low.

Results from the aerosol sampling program will be submitted to the data base by 
February 20th 2006.





____________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
                                               P16S_2005a • Sloyan/Swift • R/V Roger Revelle





APPENDIX: COMMENTS FOR BOTTLE DATA

This appendix contains remarks for deleted samples, missing samples, PI
data comments, and WOCE codes other than 2 from this cruise.  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).  Comments from the Sample Logs
and the results of ODF's investigations are included in this report.  Units
stated in these comments are degrees Celsius for temperature, Practical
Salinity Units for salinity, and unless otherwise noted, milliliters per
liter for oxygen and micromoles per liter for Silicate, Nitrate, Nitrite,
and Phosphate.  The first number before the comment is the cast number
(CASTNO) times 100 plus the bottle number (BTLNBR).


STATION 1

  214      Three readings before two agreed. Used the last reading,
           appears that cell may not have been flushed enough after a
           low conductivity sample run.

  301      Leave as is, within the accuracy of measurement. Adjusted
           beginning F1 factors for no3 and re-processed. N:P data
           looks good.  Oxygen for bottles 1 and 2 appears a little
           high, but agrees with historical data. Leave as is.  At the
           first stations, decreasing gradually as we moved south, from
           150-500 meters NO3 is a little low relative to PO4. This is
           exactly as expected from the subsurface water masses in that
           region, which have experienced denitrification. The effect
           is subtle, but consistent.

  301-336  SBE35 not reset prior to cruise, buffer filled up. Data
           lost.  Oxygen signal offset/cut out multiple times during
           cast, cable to sensor replaced after cast; CTD oxygen
           unusable.

  303-304  PO4 about 0.02 low with respect to NO3. Code 3 or leave as
           code 2? Nutrient analyst rechecked peaks, data are
           acceptable, leave as code 2.

  308-318  PO4 about 0.02 low with respect to NO3. Code 3 or leave as
           code 2? Nutrient analyst rechecked peaks, data are
           acceptable, leave as code 2.

  314      Pylon latch broken; no samples.

  324      Leaky bottom when vented, major leak flowing freely from
           bottom; o-ring came out. Got salinity and nutrient samples.
           No other samples were drawn. Salinity too high,
           contaminated. Footnote bottle 3, leaking, samples bad.

  325      Oxygen appears high compared with CTD and with Station 2.
           Reviewed data with JHS, code oxygen questionable, 4, there
           were some bubble problems reported while doing standards
           until Station 15.

  330      Salinity low compared with CTD, no analytical problem noted.
           Salinity is acceptable.

  335      Pylon latch broken; no samples.


STATION 2

  101      It was discovered that oxygen analyst was rinsing the acid
           tube with DI water before adding acid to sample. The
           practice was found to have happened on Stations 2, 3, 6, and
           bottles 1-24 on 7. These stations were reviewed with this
           consideration with JHS and were found not to be a problem.

  101-108  Oxygen signal odd, sensor replaced after station 11; CTD
           oxygen questionable.

  104      Sdiff D-C = 0.004; SALT a little high for deep water with
           low gradient; outside 0.003 spec so change code to 4? Code
           salinity 4, bad.

  105      Oxygen sample was overtitrated and backtitrated. Data are
           acceptable.

  106      Oxygen sample was overtitrated and backtitrated. Data are
           acceptable.

  109      Oxygen signal offset, sensor replaced after station 11; CTD
           oxygen bad.

  110-117  Oxygen signal odd, sensor replaced after station 11; CTD
           oxygen questionable.

  112      Nutrient samples were not drawn in error.

  118-136  Oxygen signal odd/offset several times top 1200db, sensor
           replaced after station 11; CTD oxygen bad.

  127      Sdiff D-C = -0.021; probably related to incompletely flushed
           Niskin. Leave as code 2.

  134      Oxygen appears high as compared with CTD and station
           profiles, reviewed data with JHS; decided to code data 3,
           questionable.  There were some bubble problems reported
           while doing standards until Station 15, this could account
           for an error.  Salinity appears high as compared with CTD,
           no analytical problem noted. Salinity is acceptable.

  135      Bottom end cap leaking, code 3 - no sample.


STATION 3

  101      High bottom nutrients are unusual but PO4, NO3, and SIO3
           show the same feature. O2 is higher at bottom, which is
           opposite the usual tendency compared to nutrient change.
           Probably leave as Code 2. Nutrient analyst rechecked peaks,
           data are acceptable.  It was discovered that oxygen analyst
           was rinsing the acid tube with DI water before adding acid
           to sample. The practice was found to have happened on
           Stations 2, 3, 6, and bottles 1-24 on 7. These stations were
           reviewed with this consideration with JHS and were found not
           to be a problem.

  101-124  Oxygen signal odd/high, sensor replaced after station 11;
           CTD oxygen questionable.

  103      Is 103 O2 a little high?  Or is 102 O2 a little low?
           Comparison to CTDO suggests 103 is a little high. Code 3,
           questionable.  Nutrients seem high -not yet investigated.
           JHS: Nutrients look okay.

  110      Sample was overtitrated and backtitrated. Oxygen is
           acceptable.

  125-136  Oxygen signal offset several times top 600db, sensor
           replaced after station 11; CTD oxygen bad.

  136      Salinity and nutrients not drawn per sampling schedule.


STATION 4

  101-124  Oxygen signal response problems, sensor replaced after
           station 11; CTD oxygen questionable.

  102      Sdiff D-C = -0.007; bottle salt is low; code 4.

  125-136  Oxygen signal odd/response problems, sensor replaced after
           station 11; CTD oxygen bad.


STATION 5

  101-133  Oxygen signal low/response problems, sensor replaced after
           station 11; CTD oxygen questionable.

  116      Oxygen may be 0.02 high. JHS review: This is very small and
           there is no reason to suspect the value. Oxygen is
           acceptable.

  121      Release valve not tight.  JHS: No CTDO of sufficient quality
           to compare with the bottle O2. No CFC sample. But CTDS vs.
           SALT OK considering the gradient, and nutrients are on the
           local gradient. Thus can keep bottle as code 2.

  129      Salinity is low compared with CTD, no analytical problem
           noted. Salinity is acceptable.

  130      Salinity is low compared with CTD, no analytical problem
           noted. Salinity is acceptable.


STATION 6

  101      Nutrients high? JHS: No CTDO of sufficient quality to
           compare with bottle O2 (bottle oxygen is somewhat high and
           could possibly be code 3). Nutrients look okay.  It was
           discovered that oxygen analyst was rinsing the acid tube
           with DI water before adding acid to sample. The practice was
           found to have happened on Stations 2, 3, 6, and bottles 1-24
           on 7. These stations were reviewed with this consideration
           with JHS and were found not to be a problem.

  101-136  Oxygen signal low/response problems, sensor replaced after
           station 11; CTD oxygen questionable.

  104      Oxygen appears 0.02 high.  O2 profile matches NO3 and PO4
           profiles, i.e. NO3 and PO4 are slightly low this bottle. So
           oxygen is correct for water mass.

  134      Spigot was pushed in before sampling began. Salinity and
           oxygen are acceptable. JHS review:  No CTDO of sufficient
           quality to compare with the bottle O2.  CFC OK for gradient.
           CTDS vs. SALT OK considering the gradient, and nutrients are
           on the local gradient.  Thus can keep bottle as code 2.

  136      No salinity, oxygen or nutrients; surface samples for CDOM
           program.


STATION 7

  101      It was discovered that oxygen analyst was rinsing the acid
           tube with DI water before adding acid to sample. The
           practice was found to have happened on Stations 2, 3, 6, and
           bottles 1-24 on 7. These stations were reviewed with this
           consideration with JHS and were found not to be a problem.
           Oxygen may be low. JHS review: This O2 more or less matches
           near-bottom O2 at station 009, on similar slope near ridge,
           and near-bottom O2 at 008 is only a small amount higher.  O2
           is more or less consistent with oceanography and can be left
           code 2, acceptable.

  101-130  Oxygen signal low/response problems, sensor replaced after
           station 11; CTD oxygen questionable.

  102      Oxygen may be low. JHS review: This O2 more or less matches
           near-bottom O2 at station 009, on similar slope near ridge,
           and near-bottom O2 at 008 is only a small amount higher.  O2
           is more or less consistent with feasible oceanography and
           can be left code 2, acceptable.

  111      Nutrients seem low. JHS: The nutrients do not look low. But
           the bottle oxygen does look low and does not fit the
           gradient. Unfortunately there is no CTDO of sufficient
           quality to check, though the CTDO profile available shows no
           feature at this level. The SALT-CTDS difference is OK, so it
           does not appear to be a bottle problem.  Probably consider
           code 3 or 4 for oxygen, code 2 for bottle, nutrients, and
           salt.  O2 low by > 0.07 ml/l; should change QC to 3 or 4. No
           analytical problem noted, code as 3, questionable.

  125      Oxygen could be high. JHS review: It is true that the value
           looks high, but by how much is difficult to state. CTDO down
           trace does not show a peak near this depth, though does show
           broad maximum.  Oxygen section shows reasonable connection
           to higher-oxygen waters immediately to the south of station
           007.  Oxygen is acceptable.

  130      Oxygen could be high. JHS review: It is true that the value
           looks high, but by how much is difficult to state.  CTDO
           down trace does not show a peak near this depth.  But bottle
           oxygen section shows reasonable connection to higher-oxygen
           waters immediately to the south and north of station 007.
           Oxygen is acceptable.

  131-136  Oxygen signal low/response problems, sensor replaced after
           station 11; CTD oxygen bad.

  135      Salinity high compared with CTD. No analytical problems,
           okay as is.  Oxygen could be high.   CTDO down trace does
           show a peak near this depth.  Bottle oxygen is reasonable.
           Oxygen is acceptable.


STATION 8

  101-130  Oxygen signal low/response problems, sensor replaced after
           station 11; CTD oxygen questionable.

  111      O2 high by ca. 0.07 ml/l; should change QC code to 3 or 4?
           No analytical problem noted, code 3, questionable.

  131-136  Oxygen signal low/response problems, sensor replaced after
           station 11; CTD oxygen bad.

  133      Thio bubbles!. Oxygen appears to be high, code as 3,
           questionable.  Nutrients seem high. JHS review: The
           nutrients do not look high.  They appear to fit the local
           structure. But the O2 looks high.  Unfortunately there is no
           CTDO of sufficient quality to check, though the CTDO profile
           available shows only a weak maximum feature near this level.
           The SALT-CTDS difference is OK, so it does not appear to be
           a bottle problem.  Probably consider code 3 or 4 for oxygen,
           code 2 for bottle, nutrients, and salt.


STATION 9

  101      Special DOM Cast; no salinity, oxygen, nutrients.

  301      Oxygen flask 1464 got titrated VERY slowly - unable to reach
           endpoint. Sample was lost.

  301-318  Oxygen signal very low/response problems, sensor replaced
           after station 11; CTD oxygen questionable.

  305      Sdiff D-C = 0.006; bottle salt too high; code 4.

  319-336  Oxygen signal very low/response problems, sensor replaced
           after station 11; CTD oxygen bad.

  329      Bottle salinity high compared to CTD, salinity agrees with
           station profiles, gradient area. Salinity is acceptable.


STATION 10

  201-222  Oxygen signal very low/response problems, sensor replaced
           after station 11; CTD oxygen questionable.

  202      Oxygen is high compared to 201. CTDO does not show this
           feature and suggests 202 is high. Code 3, questionable.

  208      Sample lost, forgot to add acid.

  218      Didn't close properly. A bungy cord from the LADCP system
           got caught on the top cap. Salinity and oxygen high; low for
           po4 and no3; real. Code bottle leaking and samples bad.

  221      Bottles appear to have been switched in the case. Samples
           were analyzed correctly; agrees with CTD and station
           profiles.

  222      Salinity bottles appear to have been switched in the case.
           Samples were analyzed correctly; agrees with CTD and station
           profiles.

  223-236  Oxygen signal very low/response problems, sensor replaced
           after station 11; CTD oxygen bad.

  226      Salinity slightly high compare with CTD, gradient, agrees
           with adjoining station profiles.


STATION 11

  201-236  Oxygen signal very low/response problems, sensor replaced
           after station 11; CTD oxygen unusable.

  221      Salinity appears high compared with CTD. No analytical
           problems noted, salinity agrees with station profiles.


STATION 12

  101      CTDO2 Processor: 3-minute stop near 4780db down: rawoxy
           signal dropped, okay after despike. Code CTDO 7, despiked.

  121      Bottle O2 higher than CTD O2 by 0.465. No CTDO max was seen
           at this level in the down trace, and there were no nutrient
           lows at this level.  (However, other O2 extrema which were
           seen in both CTDO and bottle data at this cast do not have
           matching nutrient features, so that is not definitive.)
           Examine oxygen records.  Possibly code 3 for this O2 value?
           No analytical problem noted, does not fit bottle data
           station profiles comparison. Code as 3, questionable.

  122-129  Odd O2 structure here, but is sensible on vertical section.
           Leave as code 2.


STATION 14

  201      Oxygen-Acid not purged+bubbles in thio, sample bad.

  210      Bottle salinity is about 0.001 low compared with the rest of
           the station and the CTD. No analytical problem found.

  232      Leaking at bottom, problem with o-ring. Oxygen as well as
           other parameters appear reasonable.


STATION 15

  205      Bottle salt high by 0.006 relative to CTDS. Code 4, bad.

  219      Salinity high compared to CTD and station profiles, no
           analytical problems noted. Code salinity 3, questionable.

  232      Slow leak from bottom end cap when air vent is open. JHS:
           Bottle salt, O2, and nutrients appear reasonable for local
           conditions. Keep code 2 for bottle and these parameters.

  235      Bottle salt low by 0.11 relative to CTDS1/CTDS2. High
           gradient. Salinity is the same as bottle 34, suspect drawing
           error. Salinity is bad.


STATION 16

  106      Oxygen could be high. JHS review: It is a little higher than
           the CTD oxygen, but by approximately the same amount as
           bottles 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, and 110.  Hence there
           appears to be no problem with the bottle oxygens.  Oxygen is
           acceptable.

  125      Very slow bottom cap leak when air vent and spigot are
           opened. Data are acceptable.


STATION 17

  212-201  Possibly low for both po4 and no3, data checked and appear
           acceptable. JHS review: Agree that both PO4 and NO3 appear
           to be low for these bottles with respect to nearby stations.
           No other deep feature of NO3 and PO4 sections quite like
           this.  No matching feature in O2 section, though SIO3
           section also shows somewhat low concentrations for these
           bottles at this station.  Interesting.  Nutrient analyst
           should determine if these remain code 2 (probably), or
           become code 3.

  236      Tripping of bottle delayed because there were particles
           floating on the surface.


STATION 20

  126      Three attempts for a good reading. Could not resolve high
           salinity, salinity should be coded 4, bad.


STATION 22

  102      PO4 low by 0.01. This is a very small offset, but these last
           three casts all show this effect, whereas previous stations
           do not. NO3/PO4 relationship suggests that it is the PO4
           which is low on 2, rather than high on 1, or rather than NO3
           being high. Is this an indicator of rust on spring or other
           contaminant in 2? Analyst rechecked data found no problems.
           Before Station 25, bottle was inspected and grease was found
           on the inside top cap.

  123      Large nutrient spike not reflected in O2 profile. Either
           nutrients were accidentally drawn from 117 (an excellent
           match), the sample was contaminated, or (?). Code 4, bad.
           Nutrient analyst rechecked peak, sample must have been
           contaminated.


STATION 23

  202      PO4 low by 0.01. This is a very small offset, but these last
           three casts all show this effect, whereas previous stations
           do not.  NO3/PO4 relationship suggests that it is the PO4
           which is low on 2, rather than high on 1, or rather than NO3
           being high.  Is this an indicator of rust on spring or other
           contaminant in 2? Analyst rechecked data found no problems.
           Before Station 25, bottle was inspected and grease was found
           on the inside top cap.


STATION 24

  102      PO4 low by 0.01. This is a very small offset, but these are
           the last three casts for which I have data and all show this
           effect, whereas previous stations do not.  NO3/PO4
           relationship suggests that it is the PO4 which is low on 2,
           rather than high on 1, or rather than NO3 being high. Is
           this an indicator of rust on spring or other contaminant in
           2? Grease was found on the inside of the top cap. Analyst
           rechecked data found no problems. Before Station 25, bottle
           was inspected and grease was found on the inside top cap.

  132      Slow leak. JHS: Bottle salt, O2, and nutrients appear
           reasonable for local conditions. Keep code 2 for bottle and
           these parameters.


STATION 25

  306      Oxygen program error - no oxygen data.

  314      Top vent open, freon and helium did not sample. Oxygen as
           well as other samples are acceptable.


STATION 26

  103      Nutrients were not drawn, found nutrient sampling tube empty
           when sample run started.

  116      Salinity: Three attempts for a good reading. JHS: Bottle
           salt 0.038 lower than CTD salt. Slight problem during
           analyses; salinity was rerun, rerun value was more
           realistic, 0.003 higher than CTD, code salinity bad.

  131      Samples may be compromised because lanyard was hooked on top
           cap during recovery. JHS: Bottle salt, O2, and nutrients
           appear reasonable for local conditions. Keep code 2 for
           bottle and these parameters.

  132      Salinity is low compared with CTD, no analytical problems
           noted. Salinity is acceptable.


STATION 27

  110      Salinity high compared with CTD, looks okay on station
           profile. Within limits of measurements, no analytical
           problems noted.

  112      Salinity high compared with CTD, looks okay on station
           profile. Within limits of measurements, no analytical
           problems noted.

  117-118  Bottles 17 and 18 tripped at same pressure. Samples were not
           taken from bottle 18.

  130      Low for all nutrients and high for o2 recheck peaks data is
           real.  Although there is a significant bottle minus CTD
           oxygen difference, this occurs in a level of the CTD down
           cast marked by fine structure. Leave bottle O2 as code 2.


STATION 28

  101      Suspect SSW wrong; was taken from an unopened box and it was
           warmer than the salinometer bath. Changed ending SSW value
           so there was no machine drift.

  118      Nutrient data taken from salinity bottle, data are bad.  NO3
           is maybe 0.4 (or a little more?) low with respect to PO4.
           No matching signal seen in PO4, SiO3, or O2.  Within
           precision so keep code 2 but perhaps examine peak? Nutrient
           sample taken from salt bottle. Nutrients are bad.


STATION 30

  112      Nutrient analyst: Low for po4 and no3 high for sil and O2
           rechecked peak data is real. JHS review: NO3 and PO4 are
           significantly lower than samples above and below, and SiO3
           is same as sample above.  O2 is significantly higher than
           samples above and below.  Bottle salt is 0.03 off.  There is
           no trace of an intrusive feature at this level in the down
           CTDO cast data.  Therefore all non-CTD parameters for this
           bottle should be code 4 and the bottle should be coded 3,
           leaking.


STATION 34

  132      Bottle has slow leak. Oxygen as well as other parameters are
           acceptable. (2 trips triggered at 250m; btl 32 one level
           deeper than planned - mcj)

  133-136  2 trips triggered at 250m; btls 32-36 one level deeper than
           planned.  No surface bottle.

  136      Sample was overtitrated and backtitrated. Oxygen is
           acceptable.  Lost nutrient samples, sample spilled.


STATION 35

  128      Salinity was not suppose to be drawn from 28 nor 33. They
           appear to have been drawn, but 28 was too high. Sampler must
           have turned the bottle right side up in the box. 33 sample
           appears to be okay. Code salinity 4, bad.


STATION 36

  120-121  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and station
           profile. Salinity from 20 appears to have been drawn from 19
           and 21 appears to have been drawn from 20. Code salinity 4,
           bad.

  123      Sample was overtitrated and backtitrated. Oxygen is
           acceptable.


STATION 37

  203-209  CTDO2 Processor: ctdoxy up to 0.03 ml/l low compared to
           bottles in this area. Code CTDO 3, questionable.

  207      Bottom vent is sticky.

  222      Stopcock is leaking. Bottle salinity is acceptable. JHS:
           Bottle salt, O2, and nutrients appear reasonable for local
           conditions.  Keep code 2 for bottle and these parameters.


STATION 38

  121      Four attempts for a good reading. Tried the first reading,
           still a little high with CTD and station profiles, suspect
           salinity crystal. Code salinity 3, questionable.


STATION 39

  329      po4 and no3 seem high vs. pot temp. recheck data 329=328
           exactly for all nuts? real? JHS: Nutrients not literally
           _exactly_ the same for all nuts in the data file, but that
           is a fine point.  Oxygen has decent gradient and nutrients
           do not fit nutrient gradient.  Looks like a double draw on
           nutrients, with both drawn from number 28.  Code 3 for
           nutrients.


STATION 40

  112      Four attempts for a good reading. Apparently there was a
           salt crystal that made the readings climb. Tried the first
           reading and the salinity is still too high, although it did
           bring it to within the accuracy of the measurement. Code
           salinity 4, bad.


STATION 41

  103-106  CTDO2 Processor: ctdoxy up to 0.03 ml/l low compared to
           bottles in this area. Code CTDO 3, questionable.


STATION 46

  101      Bottom salinity appears a little high compared to CTD. No
           analytical problem noted. "Leak" checked the bottle and
           integrity appears good. Looks like bottle 1 "fits" at bottle
           2 and bottle 2 came from bottle 1; switched and 1 looks
           good, 2 too high. JHS review: The salinity gradient near
           bottom is about 0.001 per 200 meters, the approximate
           spacing between 101 and 102.  This is too small of a
           gradient to definitively make a judgement that the salt
           bottles were switched.  Leave both salts as is, and leave
           both as code 2.

  106      SiO3 value seems high vs pot temp and adjacent stations. JHS
           review: The SIO3 section contours through this and
           neighboring stations are almost identical in form to the
           CTDS contours from the full-resolution CTD data.  SIO3 is
           thus correct for water mass. SiO3 are acceptable.

  107      SiO3 value seems high vs pot temp and adjacent stations. JHS
           review: The SIO3 section contours through this and
           neighboring stations are almost identical in form to the
           CTDS contours from the full-resolution CTD data.  SIO3 is
           thus correct for water mass. SiO3 are acceptable.

  108      Value seems high vs pot temp and adjacent stations. JHS
           review: The SIO3 section contours through this and
           neighboring stations are almost identical in form to the
           CTDS contours from the full-resolution CTD data.  SIO3 is
           thus correct for water mass. SiO3 are acceptable.


STATION 47

  205-208  CTDO2 Processor: ctdoxy up to 0.04 ml/l low compared to
           bottles in this area; but same small inflections near 4000db
           also on upcast. Code CTDO 3, questionable.


STATION 48

  103-107  CTDO2 Processor: ctdoxy up to 0.03 ml/l low compared to
           bottles in this area. Code CTDO 3, questionable.

  106      SiO3 value seems high vs pot temp and adjacent stations,
           106-108. JHS review: The SIO3 section contours through this
           and neighboring stations are almost identical in form to the
           CTDS contours from the full-resolution CTD data.  SIO3 is
           thus correct for water mass. SiO3 is acceptable.

  116      Three attempts for a good reading. High compared with CTD
           also. There must have been a salt crystal, the first reading
           did not make the salinity lower. Code salinity 3,
           questionable.

  133      Salinity and oxygen appears low compared with CTD and
           station profile. JHS review: Bottle is in fine structure
           zone.  Salt is OK.  Salinity and oxygen are acceptable. JHS
           re-review: The D-C salt difference (0.024) is large enough
           to be suspicious, even though the difference is in the
           correct sense for the gradient and a flushing problem.  But
           other salinity samples in this gradient do not show such a
           large offset from the CTD salinity.  Hence this bottle salt
           may be a code 3 (questionable).

  135      CTDC2 high by 0.25mS/cm relative to CTDC1. High gradient.
           CTDT2 high by 0.25°C relative to CTDT1. High gradient.
           Salinity appears high compared with CTD and station profile,
           oxygen looks reasonable. JHS review: Salt difference is OK
           for this layer. Salinity is acceptable.


STATION 50

  107      Top valve left open. JHS review: All bottle parameters
           appear to be okay.

  135      CTDT2 high by 0.08°C relative to CTDT1/RefT. High
           gradient. Code secondary temperature 3, questionable.


STATION 51

  102      O2 value low vs pot temp, no analytical problem noted. JHS
           review: Bottle O2 is only about 0.010-0.014 ml/l low base on
           bottle-minus-CTDO above and below.  Within specs. Oxygen is
           acceptable.


STATION 52

  101      Sample was overtitrated and backtitrated. Agrees with
           station profile and CTD, oxygen is acceptable.  Three
           attempts for a good reading. Agrees with CTD data and
           station profile, salinity is acceptable.

  104-107  CTDO2 Processor: ctdoxy up to 0.03 ml/l low compared to
           bottles in this area. Code CTDO 3, questionable.

  107      Top valve slightly open. Oxygen as well as other parameters
           are acceptable.

  109      Six attempts for a good reading. Tried the first reading,
           salinity still too high, must have had a salt crystal. Code
           salinity 4, bad.

  113      Sample was overtitrated and backtitrated. Agrees with
           station profile and CTD, oxygen is acceptable.

  115      Sample was overtitrated and backtitrated. Agrees with
           station profile and CTD, oxygen is acceptable.


STATION 53

  235      Four attempts for a good reading. Used first reading,
           salinity still very high, must have gotten a salt crystal.
           Code salinity 4, bad.


STATION 55

  112      Salinity appears a little high compared to CTD, gradient,
           data is acceptable.


STATION 56

  108      Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, also low on
           stations comparisons. No analytical problems noted, code
           salinity 3, questionable.

  129      Oxygen sample lost (perhaps improperly pickled and no
           endpoint).


STATION 59

  130      Top vent screw was not tight, open. Oxygen is acceptable.


STATION 60

  108      High for all nuts recheck peaks, real, data good.  NO3 and
           PO4 108 and 109 are nearly identical.  SIO3 lower on 109
           than 108.  Bottle salt and CTDS are nearly the same at both
           bottles.  O2 on 109 is code 4 so cannot be used for check.
           No neighboring stations show this structure.  Bottle 109 is
           nominal at 3144 db and 108 at 3348 db.  CTDS and CTDO on
           down trace at station 060 show low-oxygen, low-salinity deep
           intrusion/finestructure in pressure range 3032-3560 db.
           Conclusion is that the samples from both 108 and 109 (except
           for O2 on 109) are all correct for oceanography and thus
           code 2.

  109      ABORT. Could not come up with end point flask 1001 - did not
           titrate, nor overtitrate (pickling problem?). Oxygen sample
           lost.

  123      Top vent open.  JHS review: Bottle data looks okay.

  124      Top vent open. JHS review: Bottle data looks okay.

  136      Bottle tripped at about 700 meters, suspect that the
           carousel "latch" let loose. Code bottle 4 and all samples
           bad, did not trip as scheduled.  Low for o2 high for nuts,
           niskin mistrip.


STATION 61

  201      Special CDOM cast, 9 bottles, no salinity, oxygen or
           nutrients.

  317-318  Oxygen appears high as compared with station profiles.
           Vertical sections indicate a subtle, but similar feature in
           Sio3 and salinity. JHS review: At first these two oxygen
           values appeared suspicious.  In several different types of
           plots, they did stand out.  But the excellent agreement with
           the CTDS section indicated that we just crossed a little
           eddy or whatever in the water. Oxygen is acceptable.


STATION 63

  101-102  Oxygen samples lost due to equipment problem.

  101-103  CTDO2 Processor: odd ctdoxy rise near bottom: no bottle data
           or nearby cast data available to peg it down. Code CTDO 3,
           questionable.

  109-112  Line got caught on recovery, top cap of one of the bottles.
           Might have been opened briefly.  JHS Review: No sign of data
           problem in any of these bottles.

  123      Spigot found partially open. JHS review: Although bottle
           oxygen is 0.069 ml/l higher than CTD oxygen, this is not
           unusual for this gradient.  Data are acceptable.

  136      Surface bottle tripped on the fly due to choppy seas; used
           shorter average for CTD trip info to omit out-of-water data.
           Data are acceptable.


STATION 64

  101      This is another of the stations with slightly higher NO3
           relative to PO4.  Does this coincide with any changes in the
           NO3 analyses?  The data remain code 2 as this is only a
           point of interest. Nutrient analyst: the Cd column was
           topped off but the std factors are reasonable on the deep
           check sample was good.

  106      Four attempts for a good reading. Used first reading, still
           a little low, code salinity 4, bad.


STATION 65

  107      Vent was open. JHS review: Bottle oxygen difference with CTD
           is same as nearby bottles, other parameters are OK too. Data
           are acceptable.

  136      Surface bottle tripped on the fly. Data are acceptable.


STATION 66

  106      Salinity appears slightly high compared to CTD and station
           profile. Salinity bottle was run before 7, but it does not
           appear that these samples were switched. The salinity for
           bottle 7 does not fit the CTD salinity at the bottle 6
           level. JHS review: "Slightly high" appears to mean
           "0.001-0.002".  That is normal and within spec. Data
           Processor: Code salinity 3, questionable.

  119      Although the O2 D-C difference (0.065 ml/l) is larger than
           for nearby samples, this sample was taken in an intrusion
           (seen easily on CTD trace) and so the difference is
           sensible.  Leave as code 2 (good).

  136      Surface bottle tripped on the fly. Data are acceptable.


STATION 67

  136      Surface bottle tripped on the fly. Data are acceptable.


STATION 68

  117      Salinity is high compared with CTD, gradient area, salinity
           is acceptable.


STATION 69

  116      One of these bottles, 16-21 were "caught" with hook on
           recovery and opened slightly. Oxygen is high on bottle 16,
           this may have been the "hooked" bottle.  SiO3 value high,
           peak is real, but data is questionable. Code as 4, bad,
           bottle was "leaking".  Nutrient analyst: Only high for SiO3.
           NO3 and PO4 looked good. Since it was determined that the
           bottle was contaminated all samples should be coded 4.
           Salinity is ~0.06 high compared with CTD. Code 4, bad.

  125      Spigot leaking. JHS review: Data are acceptable.

  136      Three attempts for a good reading. Agreement with CTD is
           reasonable; salinity is acceptable.  Surface bottle tripped
           on the fly. Data are acceptable.


STATION 70

  216      Bottle 16 was found to start leaking on Station 75. JHS
           reviewed data specifically on Stations 70-74, checking for
           leaking. The bottle did not leak on this station.

  236      Surface bottle tripped on the fly. Data are acceptable.


STATION 71

  113      Salinity ~0.02 high compared with CTD and station profile.
           No analytical problems noted, but previous observations
           indicated that salinity bottles are sitting in the wash of
           the deck. Code salinity 4, bad. Oxygen appears reasonable.
           JHS review: Nutrients and oxygen look reasonable.

  116      Bottle 16 was found to start leaking on Station 75. JHS
           reviewed data specifically on Stations 70-74, checking for
           leaking. The bottle did not leak on this station.

  136      Surface bottle tripped on the fly. Data are acceptable.


STATION 72

  101      Four attempts for a good reading. Tried to use first
           reading, still too high, salt crystal must have gotten in
           the sample. Code salinity 4, bad.

  114      Four attempts for a good reading. Tried to use first
           reading, still too high, salt crystal must have gotten in
           the sample. Code salinity 4, bad.

  116      Bottle 16 was found to start leaking on Station 75. JHS
           reviewed data specifically on Stations and 70-74, checking
           for leaking. The bottle did not leak on this station.

  136      Surface bottle tripped on the fly. Data are acceptable.


STATION 73

  101      Air vents were sheared off when rosette hit the side of the
           ship. Oxygen appears to be acceptable.

  116      Three attempts for a good reading. Tried to use first
           reading, salinity still too high, salt crystal must have
           gotten in the sample. Salinity is high compared with CTD.
           Code salinity 3, questionable.  Bottle 16 was found to start
           leaking on Station 75. JHS reviewed data specifically on
           Stations 70-74, checking for leaking. The bottle did not
           leak on this station.

  131      Oxygen and salinity show same feature as did CTD, and CTD
           and bottle are in reasonable agreement for fine structure.
           Code 2.

  135      Air vents were sheared off when rosette hit the side of the
           ship during recovery. Oxygen appears low, salinity high,
           nutrients are reasonable. JHS review: Samples, including O2,
           show no ill effects.  Code 2 for bottle and associated
           parameters.

  136      Surface bottle tripped on the fly. Data are acceptable.


STATION 74

  103      Oxygen low, analytical problem, check endpoint. Code oxygen
           4, bad.

  112      JHS review: Note from KMS regards 113 O2 and PO4 as low and
           SIO3 as high, or 112 O2 as high and SIO3 as low.
           Examination shows good agreement between CTD and bottle
           oxygens on both 112 and 113; code 2.  The SIO3 value at 112
           does appear to be low by ca. 4 µM, for example on SIO3 vs
           NO3 plot.  Suggest reexamination of SIO3 peaks.  If there
           are no corrections forthcoming, consider making 112 SIO3
           code 3. Nutrient analyst: The problem is bottle 113.  This
           was noted as high.  The peak was rechecked and the data is
           real.  Leave as code 2.

  113      Oxygen low compared to adjoining stations. Code oxygen 3,
           questionable.

  116      Nutrient sample tube found empty, bottles were dumped before
           the error was found.  Bottle 16 was found to start leaking
           on Station 75. JHS reviewed data specifically on Stations
           70-74, checking for leaking. The bottle did not leak on this
           station.

  124      Four attempts for a good reading. Analyst lost track of
           number of flushes, sample 23 was analyzed twice. Code
           salinity 4, bad, could actually be removed from data set.

  136      Surface bottle tripped on the fly. Data are acceptable.


STATION 75

  116      Oxygen high, SiO3 high, NO3 and PO4 low. There were no notes
           that the bottle was hooked on recovery, also strange that
           the SiO3 is high. Bottle was inspected and replaced before
           Station 078, new bottle is 37, until 16 can be repaired.
           Code bottle leaking and samples bad.

  136      Surface bottle tripped on the fly. Data are acceptable.


STATION 76

  101      Top cap leak. JHS review: Top cap leak.  Samples, including
           O2, show no ill effects.  Code 2 for bottle and associated
           parameters.

  116      Bottle appears to have leaked, was eventually replaced
           before Station 78. Code bottle 3, leaking and samples 4,
           bad.


STATION 77

  203      Tag line hook got caught on lanyard; not certain if bottle
           opened. JHS review: Samples, including O2, show no ill
           effects.  Code 2 for bottle and associated parameters.

  216      Bottle leaking, either o-ring or valve. Found that the
           lanyard was stretched. Replaced the bottle with number 37.
           Code bottle 3, leaking and samples 4, bad.

  229      Oxygen draw temperature lower by 0.5 from deeper bottle and
           0.2 from shallower bottle. JHS review:  This is in good
           agreement with CTD profile, which showed a T minimum at this
           level.


STATION 78

  118      Top vent left open. JHS review:  Oxygen data show no unusual
           high value.  Also, bottle sample was taken near a portion of
           the profile with finestructure containing relatively high
           oxygen, so bottle oxygen is not unusual even if slightly
           high.  The nutrients are, however, interesting, with
           relatively high SIO3 yet low NO3 and PO4, an unusual
           combination.  That type of nutrient structure is not seen at
           adjacent stations, but the deviations are small enough to
           probably leave all nutrients for this bottle as code 2.
           Also, leave bottle code 2. Nutrient analyst: This is not an
           unusual combo; deeper in the profile shows (the no3 and po4
           is lower and sio3 higher).  Contamination from deeper
           somehow??

  137      Prior to this cast bottle 16 was removed from service and
           replaced by bottle 37.


STATION 80

  112      Small leak, air vent. JHS review: Bottle and all parameters
           are good.


STATION 81

  223      Oxygen flask 1326: could not open flask; Broke and replaced
           with flask 1033, sample lost.


STATION 84

  104      Bottle was open, did not trip, no samples.


STATION 85

  107      Vent was open. JHS review: O2 - CTDO appears to be
           reasonable, as so all other parameters.  Code 2.

  131      O2 opened the bottle before CFC sampled.


STATION 87

  107      Small leak on bottom end cap. JHS review: O2 minus CTDO a
           little larger (0.039) than for neighboring bottles
           (typically near 0.02-0.03).  Could indicate effect of a
           leak.  Code bottle 3, sample 4, bad.

  108      Sample tube was empty, nutrient samples not drawn.


STATION 88

  103      Salinity low compared with CTD, no analytical problems
           noted. Code salinity 3, questionable.

  104      Did not trip, no samples.

  123      Four attempts for a good reading. Analyst got mixed up on
           the sample, corrected data files and salinity is acceptable.

  126      Six attempts for a good reading. Analyst got mixed up on the
           sample, corrected data files and salinity is acceptable.


STATION 89

  301      Cast 1 and cast 2 were aborted. On cast 1, it was diagnosed
           that the pump had a problem, it was replaced with 3277 and
           the cast was redeployed as cast 2. On cast 2, bottles 33 and
           35 were lost when package was brought out of the water just
           after deployment because a tag line was caught. The package
           was two-blocked. These bottles were replaced with 37 and 38,
           respectively.

  319      Bottle did not trip. Trip arm cleaned after the cast.

  329      Salinity high compared with CTD, no analytical problems
           found, agrees with adjacent stations.  Primary CTD sensors
           contaminated by organic matter, used secondary T/S for CTD
           bottle values

  330      Salinity high compared with CTD, no analytical problems
           found, agrees with adjacent stations.


STATION 91

  109      Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD. No analytical
           problem noted. Other parameters look reasonable. Code
           salinity 4, bad.


STATION 92

  102      Adjustment on autosal made the samples run a little too
           fast, causing high conductivity readings. Analyst corrected
           for the fast flow by the fifth sample. Code salinity 3,
           questionable.

  119      Salt D-C of 0.005 is a bit large for this portion of the
           water column.  May be code 3? Processor review: Suspect
           drawing error with 20, no other analytical problems noted.
           Code salinity 3, questionable.


STATION 94

  223      Large difference with CTD, gradient area, salinity is
           acceptable.


STATION 96

  304      Oxygen flask 1156, stopper 616 mixup. Code oxygen 4, bad.

  305      Oxygen flask 616, stopper 1156 mixup. Code oxygen 4, bad.
           Salinity is high compared with CTD and station profiles.
           Appears to be a drawing error. Code salinity 4, bad. Other
           parameters appears acceptable.

  312      Salinity is high compared with CTD and station profiles.
           Code salinity 4, bad. Other parameters appears acceptable.

  328      UV noise interference; no data. Oxygen was lost.


STATION 97

  118      Top vent open. Oxygen as well as other data appear
           reasonable.

  119      Three attempts for a good reading. All readings are close to
           one another, first reading makes salinity even higher. Code
           salinity 4, bad.

  121      Top vent open. Oxygen as well as other data appear
           reasonable.


STATION 98

  125      Large difference with CTD, gradient area, salinity is
           acceptable.


STATION 100

  215      Salinity is high compared with CTD by about 0.002. No
           analytical problem noted.

  229      Bottle accidentally tripped on the fly. Oxygen as well as
           other parameters are acceptable.


STATION 101

  104      Salinity appears slightly low compared with CTD and station
           profile.  JHS review: Salt was coded 3 because it was seen
           as "slightly low compared with CTD and station profile".
           But, salinity agrees in third decimal place with CTDS and
           both fit profile.  Change to code 2.


STATION 102

  103      Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and station
           profiles. No analytical problems noted. Code salinity 3,
           questionable. JHS review: There is a small D-C salt
           difference (0.003 for 103).  This exceeds the 0.002 standard
           for deep water.  Okay to leave as code 3.

  104      Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and station
           profiles. No analytical problems noted. Code salinity 3,
           questionable. JHS review: There is a small D-C salt
           difference (0.002 for 104).  But this is noticeable only
           because variability in the deep water is so small.  The size
           of the difference relative to the expected data quality
           (which ODF appears to be routinely improving upon) would
           argue for a code 2. Salinity is acceptable.

  105      Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and station
           profiles. No analytical problems noted. Code salinity 3,
           questionable. JHS review: There is a small D-C salt
           difference (0.002 for 105).  But this is noticeable only
           because variability in the deep water is so small.  The size
           of the difference relative to the expected data quality
           (which ODF appears to be routinely improving upon) would
           argue for a code 2. Salinity is acceptable.

  111      Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and station
           profiles. No analytical problems noted. Code salinity 3,
           questionable.

  126      Three attempts for a good reading. First reading made little
           difference; leave as is. Gradient, salinity is acceptable.


STATION 103

  107      Check endpoint; UV noise. Data was checked and recalculated.
           Oxygen is acceptable.  Bottle salinity is high compared with
           CTD and station profiles. No analytical problems noted. Code
           salinity 3, questionable. JHS review: There is a small D-C
           salt difference (0.002).  But this is noticeable only
           because variability in the deep water is so small.  The size
           of the difference relative to the expected data quality
           (which ODF appears to be routinely improving upon) would
           argue for a code 2. Data Processor: Code salinity 3,
           questionable.

  125      Three attempts for a good reading. Readings were very close
           made little difference, leave as is. Gradient, salinity is
           acceptable.


STATION 104

  205      Salinity is low compared with CTD and station profile could
           have been a poor seal. Code salinity 3, questionable. JHS
           review: There is a small D-C salt difference (0.002 for
           205).  But this is noticeable only because variability in
           the deep water is so small.  The size of the difference
           relative to the expected data quality (which ODF appears to
           be routinely improving upon) would argue for a code 2.


STATION 105

  104      Salinity low compared to CTD and station profile. Rechecked
           bottles in case B and bottles appear dirty. Code salinity 3,
           questionable.  JHS review: There is a small D-C salt
           difference (0.002 for 104).  But this is noticeable only
           because variability in the deep water is so small.  The size
           of the difference relative to the expected data quality
           (which ODF appears to be routinely improving upon) would
           argue for a code 2. Salinity is acceptable.

  105      Salinity low compared to CTD and station profile. Rechecked
           bottles in case B and bottles appear dirty. Code salinity 3,
           questionable. JHS review: There is a small D-C salt
           difference (0.002 for 104).  But this is noticeable only
           because variability in the deep water is so small.  The size
           of the difference relative to the expected data quality
           (which ODF appears to be routinely improving upon) would
           argue for a code 2. Salinity is acceptable.


STATION 106

  119      Leaks at bottom end cap. Oxygen as well as other parameters
           are acceptable.

  128      Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, gradient area
           salinity is okay.


STATION 107

  108      Salinity high compared to CTD and station profiles. No
           analytical problems noted. Other parameters are acceptable.
           Code salinity 3, questionable.

  117-118  Bottles tripped together as per sampling schedule.

  119      Top vent open. Oxygen as well as other samples are
           acceptable.


STATION 108

  303      Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and station
           profiles Other parameters are acceptable. Code salinity 3,
           questionable. JHS review: A most unfortunate group of deep
           water bottle salts.  No analytical or sampling problems, but
           many of the deep salts on this station are simply not up to
           expected data quality.  There is no evidence in the CTDS
           profile of the salinity structure illustrated by these
           bottle salinities. Suggest coding salinity 4, bad.

  305      Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and station
           profiles Other parameters are acceptable. Code salinity 3,
           questionable. JHS review: A most unfortunate group of deep
           water bottle salts.  No analytical or sampling problems, but
           many of the deep salts on this station are simply not up to
           expected data quality.  There is no evidence in the CTDS
           profile of the salinity structure illustrated by these
           bottle salinities. Suggest coding salinity 4, bad.

  307-309  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and station
           profiles Other parameters are acceptable. Code salinity 3,
           questionable. JHS review: A most unfortunate group of deep
           water bottle salts.  No analytical or sampling problems, but
           many of the deep salts on this station are simply not up to
           expected data quality.  There is no evidence in the CTDS
           profile of the salinity structure illustrated by these
           bottle salinities. Suggest coding salinity 4, bad.

  311      Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and station
           profiles Other parameters are acceptable. Code salinity 3,
           questionable. JHS review: A most unfortunate group of deep
           water bottle salts.  No analytical or sampling problems, but
           many of the deep salts on this station are simply not up to
           expected data quality.  There is no evidence in the CTDS
           profile of the salinity structure illustrated by these
           bottle salinities. Suggest coding salinity 4, bad.

  312      Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and station
           profiles. Other parameters are acceptable. Code salinity 3,
           questionable.

  317      Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and station
           profiles. Other parameters are acceptable. Code salinity 3,
           questionable.

  320      Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and station
           profiles. Other parameters are acceptable. Code salinity 3,
           questionable.


STATION 110

  101      Sample was overtitrated and backtitrated. Oxygen is
           acceptable.

  103      Sample was overtitrated and backtitrated. Oxygen is
           acceptable.

  106      Three attempts for a good reading. Used first reading,
           salinity crystal must have gotten in the sample. Salinity is
           acceptable.

  108      Salinity 0.002 high compared to CTD and station profile.
           There was some confusion on the analyst's part and this
           sample was run out of order. Suspect that issue was not
           resolved. Code salinity 4, bad.

  110      Top vent open. Oxygen is acceptable.  JHS review: All
           parameters look normal.  No effect from top vent open.

  119-129  Bottles fired on the fly; large growler on starboard side.
           JHS review: No unusual data problems noted from closing
           bottles on the fly.  O2 D-C differences are perhaps a small
           amount larger than normal, but there are no data problems
           warranting a code 3 or 4.

  122      Five attempts for a good reading. Used first reading,
           salinity crystal must have gotten in the sample. Salinity is
           acceptable.

  124      Four attempts for a good reading. Used first reading,
           salinity crystal must have gotten in the sample. Salinity is
           about 0.001 high, but within measurement limits.


STATION 111

  201      Tag line caught in lids and opened bottles on recovery. JHS
           review: No oxygen data problems noted from interference of
           tag line with top caps during recover.  Oxygen D-C values
           are normal.

  202      Salinity is low compared to station profile and CTD
           comparison. No analytical problem noted. Code salinity 4,
           bad.

  203      Salinity is low compared to station profile and CTD
           comparison. No analytical problem noted. Code salinity 4,
           bad.

  205      Tag line caught in lids and opened bottles on recovery. JHS
           review: No oxygen data problems noted from interference of
           tag line with top caps during recover.  Oxygen D-C values
           are normal.

  207      Tag line caught in lids and opened bottles on recovery. JHS
           review: No oxygen data problems noted from interference of
           tag line with top caps during recover.  Oxygen D-C values
           are normal.

  214      Salinity is low compared to station profile and CTD
           comparison. No analytical problem noted. Code salinity 4,
           bad.





____________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
                                               P16S_2005a • Sloyan/Swift • R/V Roger Revelle




DATA PROCESSING NOTES



Date      Contact     Data Type      Data Status Summary
--------  ----------  -------------  -------------------------------------------
03/21/05  Johnson     CTD/BTL/SUM    Submitted Preliminary Data & CTD Report
          Updated March 21, 2005
          CLIVAR - P16S-2005
          PRELIMINARY CTD + BOTTLE DATA AND ODF DOCUMENTATION
            Preliminary CTD and Bottle data are available in both WHP90.1 format 
            (.sum/.hyd/.ctd) and WHP-exchange format (_hy1.csv/_ct1.csv). 
            Descriptions of both formats can be found at "http://whpo.ucsd.edu" 
            by clicking in the "Formats" section. (Note that the filename 
            extensions on the WHPO/CLIVAR website may be out of date.)
          The files named "P16S-2005*.zip" were created with the Linux zip 
            (v2.3) utility for the benefit of PC users. The data can be expanded 
            into the directory "./P16S-2005" using "unzip" or "pkunzip" 
            utilities. Note that pkunzip 2.04g/unzip 5.0p1 (or later versions) 
            must be used to extract files produced by pkzip 2.04 or zip 2.3. 
            Earlier versions are not compatible.
          CONTENTS of the directory ./P16S-2005 (approximately 39 Mbytes 
            expanded), broken down by .zip-file contents:
          P16S-2005-hy+misc.zip (5.7 megabytes expanded)
          README.P16S      comments regarding prelim. data release/documentation
          P16SDoc.pdf      prelim. documentation in Adobe pdf format
          P16SDoc.ps       prelim. documentation in PostScript format
          P16SDoc.txt      prelim. doc. in ascii/plain text - no figures
          p16s.sum         WHP90-1/rev.2 (WOCE) format station-cast description file
          p16s.hyd         WHP90-1/rev.2 (WOCE) format bottle data
          p16s_hy1.csv     WHP-Exchange format bottle data
          p16s-tm_hy1.csv  WHP-Exchange format Trace Metal bottle data
            (sss = station number    cc = cast number)
          P16S-2005_ctd.zip      (16.5 megabytes expanded)
          p16s_ssscc.ctd         WHP90-1/rev.2 (WOCE) format CTD data (stns 1-111)
          115 casts              (2 each for stas 9,31,61,93)
          P16S-2005_ct1.zip      (15.7 megabytes expanded)
          p16s_ssscc_ct1.csv     WHP-Exchange format CTD data (stations 1-111)
          115 casts              (2 each for stas 9,31,61,93)
          P16S-2005-TM_ct1.zip   (1.1 megabytes expanded)
          p16s-tm_ssscc_ct1.csv  WHP-Exchange format Trace Metal CTD data
                                   45 casts (stations 1-111)
          Note that there is no Trace Metal CTD data for station 00102:
              the data were lost after the cast.
          Non-standard parameter numbers used in .sum file (samples taken but 
            measurements not reported yet) are listed below:
              101  Carbohydrates 
              102  CDOM (Chromophoric Dissolved Organic Material)
              104  Chlorophyll
              106  Represents two measurements (taken on same station/bottle):
                   Particulate Absorption Spectra and Microsporin Like Amino 
                   Acids
                   High-Pressure Liquid Chromatography Phytoplankton Pigments
              107  Bacteria Growth Rate
              111  N-15
          All other parameter numbers are taken directly from Appendix G from 
            the WHPO 90-1/rev.2 manual (see http://whpo.ucsd.edu/manuals.htm).
          Bottle and CTD data and quality codes, plus calibration and 
            processing comments and figures in the documentation, were last 
            updated at the end of the cruise, before the ship reached port. All 
            these data and documentation, including possible future updates to 
            ODF data, are also available at the ODF cruise website:
                        http://sts.ucsd.edu/cruises/p16s/hydro
          Logging in may be required in order to access the ODF data; updates 
            to cruise data should be made directly to the CLIVAR/WHPO office.
          The ".pdf" documentation file can be printed out using Adobe Acrobat 
            Reader, freely available at the following website:
                  http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html
          The ".txt" version of the documentation is available for those who 
          cannot use the ps/pdf versions. Note that figures in the 
          documentation can only be printed with the ps/pdf versions and do not 
          appear in the ascii version. Also, the ascii files are intended to be 
          printed out at 80 lines per page with a 90-character page width - 
          typically elite print. The right margin of the ascii version is 
          staggered and lines do not begin with any white space at the request 
          of PIs who wish to merge parts of the ascii file into other cruise 
          documentation.
          QUESTIONS:
            Chief Scientist:                       Co-Chief Scientist:
              Dr. Bernadette Sloyan                  Dr. James H. Swift
              Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution   SIO/PORD, Mail Code 0214
              Woods Hole, MA 02543                   UC San Diego
              Mailstop: 21                           9500 Gilman Drive
              phone: (508) 289-2404                  La Jolla, CA 92093-0214
              email: bsloyan@whoi.edu                phone: (858) 534-3387
                                                     email: jswift@ucsd.edu
          Questions regarding ODF data should be directed to:
            Bottle:                                CTD:
              Kristin M. Sanborn                     Mary Carol Johnson
              STS/ODF, Mail Code 0214                (same address)
              SIO/UC San Diego                       phone: (858) 534-1906
              9500 Gilman Drive                      email: mary@odf.ucsd.edu
              La Jolla, CA 92093-0214                
              phone: (858) 534-1903                
              email: ksanborn@ucsd.edu                


Date      Contact     Data Type      Data Status Summary
--------  ----------  -------------  -------------------------------------------
03/22/05  Sloyan      Cruise Report  Submitted
          Attached is the Chief and Co-Chief Scientists report for P16S 2005  -  
          CCHDO/WHPO expedition code 33RR200501 (Sloyan and Swift).

03/31/05  Kappa       Cruise Report  ASCII and PDF Versions made
          Both Include PI and ODF reports 

04/28/05  Diggs       Cruise Report  New cruise report online
          The new doc file is now linked into the P16s 2005 webpage on CCHDO.

04/28/05  Diggs       CTD/BTL/SUM    Data Online
          The cruise p16s 2005 (33RR200501) is now online at the CCHDO website. 
          Work still needs to be done on particular file names and the NetCDF 
          files, but the data is at least available to the public. 

10/04/05  Willey      CFCs           Submitted
          I have attached P16S CFC data in a csv file and I've also included an 
          ascii text file with a note about the data.e. 

10/07/05  Anderson    CFCs           Website Updated; Data Merged into OnLine File
          Merged CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-113 submitted by D. Willey on Oct. 4, 
            2005 into online file. In the file she sent sta. 78, cast 1 had a 
            bottle 16 at 1186.0 db but the online file had bottle 37. I compared 
            the cfc values in her file with those in the online file. The values 
            were the same so I changed the bottle number in her file to 37 and 
            merged the data.
          No other apparent problems.
          Made exchange and netcdf files.

06/15/06  Greeley  DIC               Submitted; as csv files
          I've just uploaded final DIC data and QC Flags to the web site: 
          http://cchdo.ucsd.edu/ . I did this for Dr's Feely and Sabine. They 
          were uploaded as separate csv files. Please let me know if there are 
          problems and/or questions.

08/01/06  Kozyr    TCARBN            Submitted; Data are Final
          Here is attached the final TCO2 (TCARBN) data and quality flags for 
          Repeat Hydrography section P16S_2005, EXPOCODE 33RR200501. Please, 
          merge the data into the final hydrographic file. Could you please send 
          me a note that the data was merged 

08/02/06  Kozyr       TCARBN         Data Update
          We made some corrections to the data files I've sent you yesterday 
          (P16N_2006 and P16S_2005). The new files are attached. Please, discard 
          both yesterday's files. 

11/15/06  Kozyr        CO2           Status update
          Here are the latest update on the Carbon Data status at CCHDO and 
           CDIAC.
          P16S_2005:
           TCO2 - final data were not merged at CCHDO (data sent to CCHDO on 
           8/1/2006 by email);
          TALK - no final data from Dickson;
          DOC - no final data from Hansell. 


Date      Contact     Data Type      Data Status Summary
--------  ----------  -------------  -------------------------------------------
11/20/06  Carlson     DOC            Submitted; Data are Final
          File: P16S DOC 11-20-06 submitted.txt Type: BOT Status: Public
          Name: Carlson, Craig
          Institute: University of California Santa Barbara
          Country: USA
          Expo:33RR200501 Line: P16S
          Date: 01/2005
          Action:Place Data Online

12/01/06  Kozyr       TCARBN/DOC     Submitted; Data are Final
          File: p16s_2005a_TCO2_DOC_final.csv Type: ASCII Status: Public
          Name: Kozyr, Alex
          Institute: CDIAC/ORNL
          Country: USA
          Expo:33RR200501 Line: P16S_2005
          Date: 01/2005
          Action:Merge Data,Place Data Online,Updated Parameters
          Notes:
          These are the final DOC and TCO2 data for merging into the 
          hydrographic file. Note, that the data was changed since Craig Carlson 
          last submitted the file to CCHDO and CDIAC. The TCO2 data was not 
          changed since I submitted the file to CCHDO. 

11/15/07  Carlson     DCNS           Submitted; data are public
          DCNS data.txt Type: Status: public
          Name: Carlson, Craig
          Institute: UCSB
          Country: USA
          Expo:P16S_33RR200501 Line: P16S
          Date: 2005/01/01
          Action:Merge Data
          Notes:These are ancillary dissoved combined neutral sugar data for the 
          core CDOM data already submitted

11/16/07  Carlson     BRDU           Submitted; data are public
          BrdU 11-16-07.txt Type: Status: public
          Name: Carlson, Craig
          Institute: UCSB
          Country: USA
          Expo:P16S_33RR200501 Line: P16S
          Date: 2005/01/01
          Action:Merge Data
          Notes:These data are Bacterial Production data as measure by 
          bromodioxyuridine (BrdU) incorporation. These data are ancillary to 
          the core CDOM data set already submitted. The data are expressed in 
          pmol/L/hr. 

06/18/08  Nelson      CDOM           Submitted Correction of previous data file
          This replaces previously submitted data based on new instrument 
          calibration.

08/18/08  Kozyr       ALKALI         Submitted; Data are Final
          Here are the final ALKALI numbers from Andrew Dickson. Please, merge 
          the data into the HYD file. I noticed that DOC data have not been 
          merged yet. I submitted the DOC numbers last year. TCO2 data are OK.

10/09/08  Key         C13/C14        Submitted


Date      Contact     Data Type      Data Status Summary
--------  ----------  -------------  -------------------------------------------
01/13/09  Bartolocci  BTL            Website Updated; Several new params added
          I have finished merging the following parameters into the P16s_2005a 
          bottle file. I have placed all new files online and run the web_update 
          script without any issues. Below are merging notes, please let me know 
          if you have any questions. No netCDF files could be made at this time.
          Parameters merged:
          TCARBN, ALKALI , DOC, DELC14, C14ERR, DELC13, FUCO, RHAM, ARABA, GALA
          GLUC, MAN, DCNS, BRDU, CDOM325, CDOM340, CDOM380, CDOM412, CDOMSL
          CDOMSN
          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
          12.15.2008 DBK
          Merging Notes for P16s_2005a
          Attempts to merge various data files using JOA merge tool failed. Data 
            was merged using mrgsea into WOCE-formatted bottle file.
          Files to be merged:
            ALKALI: p16s_2005a_TALK_final_08182008.csv sent by Alex Kozyr. File 
            was .csv and was converted to fixed width spaced file in order to 
            use in mrgsea software. Edited file is 
            p16s_2005a_TALK_final_08182008_edt.txt Parameter mnemonic was edited 
            from TALK to ALKALI upone merging.
          TCARBN, DOC: p16s_2005a_TCO2_DOC_final.csv and p16s_2005a_TCO2_DOC_ 
            final.csv.Readme sent by Alex Kozyr. File was .csv and was converted 
            to fixed width spaced file in order to use in mrgsea software. 
            Missing value for DOC was edited from -999.0000 t -9.0000 due to 
            total number of sigificant digits and bytes exceeding WOCE format's 
            limit of 8byte field width. Mrgsea would not merge successfully 
            otherwise. Parameter mnemonic was edited from TCO2 to TCARBN. Edited 
            file is p16s_2005a_TCO2_DOC-9_final_edt.txt
          DELC14, C14ERR, DELC13: p16s_c14c13.csv was sent by Bob Key. File was 
            .csv format and was converted to fixed width for use with mrgsea. 
            Edited file is p16s_c14c13_edt.txt
          DCNS and other sugars: p16s_dcns.txt was sent by Craig Carlson. An 
            update was sent on 2008.01.06 by Carlson. File was tab delimited. 
            Converted to fixed width. Edited blank spaces to missing value of -
            9.0. Rounded all data values to nearest whole number as per PI. 
            However, in order to merge, values were whole numbers with a 
            precision of 1 decimal place set to zero. Edite file is 
            p16s_dcns_test.txt Sugar parameters merged from file are: FUCO, 
            RHAM, ARABA, GALA, GLUC, MAN, DCNS
          BRDU: p16s_brdu_11.2007.txt was sent by Craig Carlson. An update was 
            sent on 08.01.06 by Carlson. File was tab delimited. Converted to 
            fixed width. Edited blank spaces to missing value of -9.0. Precision 
            was set to 2 decimal places. Edited file is p16s_brdu_11_2007_edt.txt
          CDOM: p16scdom_s7a_resubmitted.txt was sent by Norm Nelson. File was 
            tab delimited. Converted to fixed width and edited missing value 
            from -999.0000 to -9.0000 in order to adhere to WOCE format field 
            width constraints. Kept maximum precision of data which was 
            submitted as 4 decimal places. Currently, no information exists on 
            precision of these data. Edited file is 
            p16scdom_s7a_resubmitted_edt.txt Parameters merged from file are: 
            CDOM325, CDOM340, CDOM380, CDOM412, CDOMSL, CDOMSN
          All parameters merged without error once files were formatted to be 
            accepted by mrgsea. WOCE-format checking could not be completed due 
            to the presence of non-WOCE parameters which are not recognized by 
            the format-checking software.
          The file was converted to exchange format with no apparent errors. All 
            parameters were included in the exchange file. This file was checked 
            with JOA and no apparent errors were detected.
          The file could not convert to netcdf due to the presence of 
            unrecognized non-WOCE parameters within the file. The WOCE and 
            exchange formatted files were moved to the cruises parent directory. 
            All previous versions of the bottle file were renamed and moved to 
            the original directory.
          A copy of this notes file was emailed to Jerry Kappa.

