CRUISE REPORT: P06W
(Updated MAR 2018)



Highlights



                              Cruise Summary Information

               Section Designation:  P06W
Expedition designation (ExpoCodes):  320620170703
                  Chief Scientists:  Sabine Mecking
                                     Isabella Rosso (Co-Chief)
                             Dates:  2017-JUL-03 to 2017-AUG-17
                              Ship:  Nathaniel B Palmer
                     Ports of call:  Sydney, Australia to Papeete, Tahiti

                                               -30.0786
             Geographic Boundaries:  153.4799             -148.9082 
                                               -32.5015

                          Stations:  144
      Floats and drifters deployed:  8 Argo/O2 floats, 2 SOCCOM floats, 14 drifters 
    Moorings deployed or recovered:  0

                                 Contact Information:

                                    Sabine Mecking
               Email: smecking@apl.washington.edu • Phone: 206-221-6570

                                    Isabella Rosso
                                    irosso@ucsd.edu

















































Cruise Report of the 2017 P06W US
GO-SHIP Reoccupation
Release Draft 1





Sabine Mecking







Nov 20, 2017


























TABLE OF CONTENTS


1 GO-SHIP P06W 2017 Hydrographic Program  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
  1.1 Programs and Principal Investigators  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
  1.2 Science Team and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
  1.3 Underwater Sampling Package . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
2 Cruise Narrative  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
  2.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
  2.2 Cruise Narrative  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
  2.3 Preliminary results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
  2.4 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
3 CTDO and Hydrographic Analysis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
  3.1 CTDO and Bottle Data Acquisition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
  3.2 CTDO Data Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
  3.3 Pressure Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
  3.4 Temperature Analysis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
  3.5 Conductivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
  3.6 CTD Dissolved Oxygen  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
4 Salinity . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
  4.1 Equipment and Techniques  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
  4.2 Sampling and Data Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
  4.3 Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
5 Nutrients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
  5.1 Summary of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
  5.2 Equipment and Techniques  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
  5.3 Nitrate/Nitrite Analysis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
  5.4 Phosphate Analysis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
  5.5 Silicate Analysis   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
  5.6 Sampling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
  5.7 Data Collection and Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
  5.8 Standards and Glassware Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
  5.9 Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
  5.10 Analytical Problems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
6 Oxygen Analysis  . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
  6.1 Equipment and Techniques  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
  6.2 Sampling and Data Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
  6.3 Volumetric Calibration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
  6.4 Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
  6.5 Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
7 Total Alkalinity . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
  7.1 Total Alkalinity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
  7.2 Total Alkalinity Measurement System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
  7.3 Sample Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
  7.4 Problems and Troubleshooting  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
  7.5 Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
8 Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC) . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .  34
  8.1 Sample collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
  8.2 Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
  8.3 DIC Analysis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
  8.4 DIC Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
  8.5 Calibration, Accuracy, and Precision  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
  8.6 Underway DIC Samples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
  8.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
9 Discrete pH Analyses (Total Scale) . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .  38
  9.1 Sampling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
  9.2 Analysis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
  9.3 Reagents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
  9.4 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
  9.5 Problems and Troubleshooting  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
  9.6 Standardization/Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40


10 CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, and SF6  . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .  41
   10.1 Sample Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
   10.2 Equipment and Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
   10.3 Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
11 Dissolved Organic Phosphorus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
12 Nitrate 𝛿15N and 𝛿18O  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
13 Dissolved Organic Carbon and Total Dissolved Nitrogen  . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
   13.1 Project Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
   13.2 Sampling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
   13.3 Standard Operating Procedure for DOC Analyses- Carlson Lab UCSB . . . . .  44
   13.4 DOC calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
   13.5 Standard Operating Procedure for TDN analyses- Carlson Lab UCSB . . . . .  45
   13.6 TDN calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
14 Carbon Isotopes in seawater (14/13C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
15 LADCP . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47
   15.1 LADCP system configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47
   15.2 Problems/Setup changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48
   15.3 Data Processing and Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  49
16 Chipods  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
   16.1 Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
   16.2 System Configuration and Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
   16.3 Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
17 Float Deployments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
   17.1 SOCCOM floats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
   17.2 SIO floats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  53
   17.3 UW floats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54
18 Drifter Deployments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  55
19 Student Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  56
   19.1 Rebecca L. Beadling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  56
   19.2 Maxime Duchet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  57
   19.3 Kimberly Gottschalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  57
   19.4 Ratnaksha Lele  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  58
   19.5 Kelly McCabe  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  58
   19.6 Natalie Zielinski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  59

CCHDO Data Processing Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  60
























1  GO-SHIP P06W 2017 HYDROGRAPHIC PROGRAM


   [image]Cruise track of P06W

The Pacific Ocean P06W repeat hydrographic line was reoccupied for the
US Global Ocean Carbon and Repeat Hydrography Program. Reoccupation of
the P06W transect occurred on the RVIB Nathaniel B Palmer from July 3,
2017 to August 17, 2017. The survey of P06W consisted of *CTDO*,
rosette, *LADCP*, chipod, water samples and underway measurements. The
ship departed from the port of Sydney, Australia and completed the
cruise in the port of Papeete on the island of Tahiti, French
Polynesia.

A total of 144 stations were occupied with one
CTDO/rosette/LADCP/chipod package. 144 stations and 150
CTDO/rosette/LADCP/chipod casts including 2 test casts were performed.
The stations were, for the most part, a reoccupation of P06W-2009 and
detailed in the following sections. 8 Argo/O2 floats were deployed on
I09N and detailed in the Argo section of the cruise report. 2 *SOCCOM*
floats were deployed on P06W and are detailed in the SOCCOM section of
the cruise report. X drifters were deployed on P06W and are detailed
in the drifter section of the cruise report.

   [image]Distrubtion of samples by longitude.

   [image]Distribution of samples by station number.

CTDO data and water samples were collected on each CTDO, rosette,
LADCP, and chipod cast, usually within 10 meters of the bottom. Water
samples were measured on board for salinity, dissolved oxygen,
nutrients, *DIC*, pH, total alkalinity and *CFCs*/*SF6*. Additional
water samples were collected and stored for shore analyses of Nitrate
Δ15N and Δ18O, *DOC*/*TDN*, 13C/14C, *POC*, *HPLC*, DOP and DON.

A sea-going science team assembled from 13 different institutions
participated in the collection and analysis of this data set. The
programs, principal investigators, science team, responsibilities,
instrumentation, analysis and analytical methods are outlined in the
following cruise document.


1.1  Programs and Principal Investigators

                                          Principal 
Program                  Affiliation      Investigator       Email 
———————————————————————  ———————————————  —————————————————  ——————————————————————————
*CTDO* Data, Salinity,   *UCSD*, *SIO*    Susan Becker,      sbecker@ucsd.edu 
Nutrients, Dissolved O2                   Jim Swift          jswift@ucsd.edu  
-----------------------  ---------------  -----------------  --------------------------
Total CO2 (DIC)          *PMEL*, *AOML*,  Richard Feely,     Richard.A.Feely@noaa.gov
                         *NOAA*           Rik Wanninkhof     Rik.Wanninkhof@noaa.gov 
-----------------------  ---------------  -----------------  --------------------------
Underway Temperature,    *AOML*, *NOAA*,  Rik Wanninkhof,    Rik.Wanninkhof@noaa.gov,
Salinity, and pCO2       *ASC*            *ASC*              admin@nbp.usap.gov      
-----------------------  ---------------  -----------------  --------------------------
Total Alkalinity, pH     *UCSD*, *SIO*    Andrew Dickson     adickson@ucsd.edu       
-----------------------  ---------------  -----------------  --------------------------
ADCP                     *UH*             Eric Firing        efiring@soest.hawaii.edu
-----------------------  ---------------  -----------------  --------------------------
*LADCP*                  *LDEO*           Andreas Thurnherr  ant@ldeo.columbia.edu   
-----------------------  ---------------  -----------------  --------------------------
*CFCs*, *SF6*            *U Miami*, *UT*  Rana Fine,         rfine@rsmas.miami.edu,  
                                          Dong-Ha Min        dongha@mail.utexas.edu    
-----------------------  ---------------  -----------------  --------------------------
*DOC*, *TDN*             *UCSB*           Craig Carlson      carlson@lifesci.ucsb.edu
-----------------------  ---------------  -----------------  --------------------------
C13 & C14                *WHOI*,          Ann McNichol,      amcnichol@whoi.edu,     
                         *Princeton*      Robert Key         key@princeton.edu       
-----------------------  ---------------  -----------------  --------------------------
Transmissometry          *TAMU*           Wilf Gardner       wgardner@ocean.tamu.edu 
-----------------------  ---------------  -----------------  --------------------------
Fluorescence and         *U Maine*        Emmanuel Boss      emmanuel.boss@maine.edu 
Backscatter (*SOCCOM*),
HPLC & POC
-----------------------  ---------------  -----------------  --------------------------
Chipod                   *OSU*            Jonathan Nash      nash@coas.oregonstate.edu
-----------------------  ---------------  -----------------  --------------------------
Nitrate δ15N and δ18O    *Princeton*      Daniel Sigman      sigman@princeton.edu     
-----------------------  ---------------  -----------------  --------------------------
DON and DOP              *FSU*            Angela Knapp       anknapp@fsu.edu           
-----------------------  ---------------  -----------------  --------------------------
Argo Floats              *UW*,            Steve Riser,       riser@ocean.washington.edu
                         *UCSD*, *SIO*    Dean Roemmich,     droemmich@ucsd.edu,       
                                          John Gilson        jegilson@gmail.com        
-----------------------  ---------------  -----------------  --------------------------
*SOCCOM* Floats          *UW*,            Steve Riser,       riser@ocean.washington.edu
                         *UCSD*, *SIO*    Lynne Talley       ltalley@ucsd.edu      
-----------------------  ---------------  -----------------  --------------------------
Surface Drifters         *NOAA*, *AOML*   Shaun Dolk         Shaun.dolk@noaa.gov       
-----------------------  ---------------  -----------------  --------------------------
Underway Bathymetry and  *ASC*            *ASC*              admin@nbp.usap.gov        
Meteorological Data        



1.2  Science Team and Responsibilities

Duty                   Name                 Affiliation   Email Address        
—————————————————————  ———————————————————  ————————————  —————————————————————————————
Chief Scientist        Sabine Mecking       *UW*-*APL*    mecking@uw.edu         
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
Co-Chief Scientist,    Isabella Rosso       *UCSD*        irosso@ucsd.edu        
floats and drifters    
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
CTD Watchstander       Kimberly Gottschalk  *UW*          kgotts@uw.edu          
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
CTD Watchstander       Maxime Duchet        *ENSTA*       maxime.duchet@ensta-   
                                                           paristech.fr         
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
CTD Watchstander,      Ratnaksha Lele       *UCSD*        rlele@ucsd.edu
Chipods      
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
CTD Watchstander       Rebecca Beadling     *UA*          beadling@email.arizona.edu
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
CTD Watchstander,      Natalie Zielinski    *TAMU*        njzielinski@tamu.edu 
LADCP   
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
Nutrients, *ODF*       Susan Becker         *UCSD* *ODF*  sbecker@ucsd.edu          
supervisor, *SOCCOM*                 
floats                               
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
Nutrients              David Cervantes      *UCSD* *ODF*  d1cervantes@ucsd.edu      
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
CTDO Processing,       Joseph Gum           *UCSD* *ODF*  jgum@ucsd.edu
Database Management             
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
Salts, ET              John Calderwood      *UCSD* *SEG*  jcalderwood@ucsd.edu      
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
Salts                  Kelsey Vogel         *UCSD* *STS*  kdvogel@ucsd.edu          
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
Dissolved O2, Data-    Andrew Barna         *UCSD* *ODF*  abarna@ucsd.edu
base Management 
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
Dissolved O2, Data-    Courtney Schatzman   *UCSD* *ODF*  cschatzman@ucsd.edu       
base Support   
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
SADCP, *LADCP*         Alma Carolina        *UH*          acast@hawaii.edu 
                       Castillo-Trujillo           
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
*DIC*, underway pCO2   Charles              *AOML*        charles.featherstone@noaa.gov
                        Featherstone   
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
*DIC*                  Andrew Collins       *PMEL*        andrew.collins@noaa.gov   
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
*CFCs*, SF6            Jim Happell          *U Miami*     jhappell@miami.edu        
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
*CFCs*, SF6            David Cooper                       davidcooper59@gmail.com   
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
*CFCs*, SF6 student    Kelly McCabe         *FSU*         kmm12c@my.fsu.edu         
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
Total Alkalinity       Manuel Belmonte      *UCSD*        manbelmonte1@gmail.com    
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
Total Alkalinity       Derek Smith          *UCSD*        dereksmith50@gmail.com    
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
pH                     Stephanie Mumma      *UCSD*        smumma@ucsd.edu           
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
*DOC*, *TDN*, Radio    Chance English       *UCSB*        cje@umail.ucsb.edu        
  Carbon               
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
Marine Projects        Eric Hutt            *ASC*         mpc@nbp.usap.gov          
  Coordinator                                     
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
Marine Lab Technician  John Betz            *ASC*         mlt@nbp.usap.gov          
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
Marine Technician      Jennie Mowatt        *ASC*         mt@nbp.usap.gov           
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
Marine Technician      Michael Tepper-      *ASC*         mt@nbp.usap.gov 
                         Rassmusen  
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
Marine Technician      Paul Savoy           *ASC*         mt@nbp.usap.gov           
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
Electronic Technician  Barry Bjork          *ASC*         et@nbp.usap.gov           
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
Electronic Technician  George Aukon         *ASC*         et@nbp.usap.gov           
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
Network Administrator  Sean Drabant         *ASC*         admin@nbp.usap.gov        
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------
Network Administrator  Matt Pullen          *ASC*         admin@nbp.usap.gov        
---------------------  -------------------  ------------  -----------------------------



1.3  Underwater Sampling Package

CTDO/rosette/LADCP/chipod casts were performed with a package
consisting of a 36 bottle rosette frame, a 36-place carousel and 36
Bullister style niskin bottles with an absolute volume of 10.6L.
Underwater electronic components primarily consisted of a SeaBird
Electronics pressure sensor and housing unit with dual exhaust, dual
pumps, dual temperature, a reference temperature, dual conductivity,
dissolved oxygen, transmissometer, chlorophyll fluorometer and
backscatter meter, oxygen optode, and altimeter. LADCP and chipods
instruments were deployed with the CTD/rosette package and their use
is outlined in sections of this document specific to their titled
analysis.

CTD and cage were vertically mounted at the bottom of the rosette
frame, located below the carousel for all stations. The temperature,
conductivity, dissolved oxygen, respective pumps and exhaust tubing
was mounted to the CTD and cage housing as recommended by SBE. The
reference temperature sensor was mounted between the primary and
secondary temperature sensors at the same level as the intake tubes
for the exhaust lines. The transmissometer was mounted horizontally.
The fluorometer, oxygen optode, and altimeters were mounted vertically
inside the bottom ring of the rosette frames. The 150 KHz bi-
directional Broadband LADCP (RDI) unit was mounted vertically on the
bottom side of the frame. The 300 KHz bi-directional Broadband LADCP
(RDI) unit was mounted vertically on the top side of the frame. The
LADCP battery pack was also mounted on the bottom of the frame.

Equipment         Model            S/N           Cal Date      Stations          Responsible Party
————————————————  ———————————————  ————————————  ————————————  ————————————————  —————————————————
Rosette           36-place         Yellow        _             1-143             *STS*/*ODF*      
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
CTD               SBE9+            1281          _             1-143             *STS*/*ODF*      
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Pressure Sensor   Digiquartz       136428        Apr 10, 2017  1-143             *STS*/*ODF*      
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Primary           SBE3+            35844         Apr 11, 2017  1-143             *STS*/*ODF*      
Temperature                                                                                       
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Primary           SBE4C            42569         Sep 20, 2016  1-116             *STS*/*ODF*      
Conductivity                                                                                      
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Primary           SBE4C            43399         Apr 7, 2017   117-143           *STS*/*ODF*      
Conductivity                                                                                      
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Primary Pump      SBE5             54890         _             1-7               *STS*/*ODF*      
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Primary Pump      SBE5             51646         _             8-143             *ASC*            
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Secondary         SBE3+            32309         Apr 18, 2017  1-143             *STS*/*ODF*      
Temperature                                                                                       
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Secondary         SBE4C            42819         Apr 11, 2017  1-143             *STS*/*ODF*      
Conductivity                                                                                      
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Secondary Pump    SBE5             54377         _             1-10              *STS*/*ODF*      
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Secondary Pump    SBE5             55644         _             10-143            *ASC*            
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Transmissometer   Cstar            CST-1803DR    Sep 16, 2016  1-143             *TAMU*           
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Fluorometer       WetLabs          FLBBRTD-3698  Sep 23, 2014  1-143             *U Maine*        
Chlorophyll and                                                                                   
Backscatter                                                                                       
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Primary           SBE43            430255        Apr 7, 2017   901-902, 105-143  TS*/*ODF*  
Dissolved Oxygen                                                                            
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Primary           SBE43            431136        Apr 11, 2017  1-73              TS*/*ODF*  
Dissolved Oxygen                                                                            
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Primary           SBE43            430275        Mar 30, 2017  74-76             TS*/*ODF*  
Dissolved Oxygen                                                                            
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Primary           SBE43            430080        Feb 4, 2017   77-143            *ASC*      
Dissolved Oxygen                                                                            
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Oxygen Optode     RINKO            0251          Dec 21, 2015  1-143             *STS*/*ODF*
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Reference         SBE35            0035          Apr 13, 2017  1-143             *STS*/*ODF*
Temperature                                                                                 
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Carousel          SBE32            0187          _             1-12              *STS*/*ODF*
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Carousel          SBE32            1178          _             13-143            *STS*/*ODF*
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Altimeter         Tritech LPA200   _             _             901, 4-5, 7       *STS*/*ODF*
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Altimeter         Benthos PSA-916  _             _             901-3, 6          *ASC*      
----------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------  -----------------
Altimeter         Valeport 500     _             _             8-143             *ASC*      


The DUSH5 baltic room winch deployment system was successfully used
for all stations. The rosette system was suspended from a UNOLS-
standard three-conductor 0.322" electro-mechanical sea cable. The sea
cable was terminated at the beginning of P06W-2017. An electrical and
mechanical termination was completed after station/cast 106/01 due to
a small kink in the wire.

The deck watch prepared the rosette 10-30 minutes prior to each cast.
The bottles were cocked and all valves, vents and lanyards were
checked for proper orientation. LADCP technician would check for LADCP
battery charge, prepare instrument for data acquisition and disconnect
cables. The chipod battery was monitored for charge and connectors
were checked for fouling and connectivity. Every 20 stations, the
transmissometer windows were cleaned and an on deck blocked and un-
blocked voltage readings were recorded prior to the cast. Once stopped
on station, the Marine Technician would check the sea state prior to
cast and decide if conditions were acceptable for deployment.

Recovering the package at the end of the deployment was essentially
the reverse of launching. The rosette, CTD and carousel were rinsed
with fresh water frequently. CTD maintenance included flushing fresh
water through both plumbed sensor lines between casts. The rosette was
routinely examined for valves and o-rings leaks, which were maintained
as needed.

Some complications were overcome to complete CTDO/rosette/LADCP/chipod
station casts for I09N. Mounting sea state due to storms caused two
kinks in the wire on different stations shortly after retermination on
station/cast 106/01. The kinks were inspected for severity, bent back
into shape, and then redeployed without retermination. The storms
caused casts to proceed slower than normal, limiting deployment speed
to 20 meters per minute for the first 1000 meters on some stations
during storms.




2  CRUISE NARRATIVE


2.1  Summary

A hydrographic survey (P06, leg 1) was conducted in the South Pacific
Ocean from 3 July - 17 August 2017 aboard the RVIB Nathaniel B.
Palmer. The icebreaker belongs to Edison Chouest Offshore (ECO) and is
operated by NSF’s U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) via a contract with
the Antarctic Support Contractors (ASC). A total of 143 CTD rosette
casts were occupied on a transect running along 32.50°S (30.08°S at
the beginning off the Australian Coast) from 153.48°E to 148.91°W with
port calls in Sydney, Australia and Papeete, French Polynesia at the
beginning and the end of the cruise, respectively. CTD casts extended
to within about 10 meters of the seafloor, and up to 36 water samples
were collected in Niskin bottles (with Bullister modifications)
throughout the water column on all casts. In addition to the CTD
(conductivity, temperature, depth/pressure) sensors, two oxygen (O)
sensors, upward and downward looking LADCPs (lowered acoustic Doppler
current profilers), a transmissometer, a fluorometer (including
backscatter sensor), and an altimeter were mounted onto the rosette
frame. In addition, 4 UW Argo floats, 2 SIO SOLO floats, 3 SIO Deep
SOLO floats, 2 SOCCOM floats, and 14 drifters were deployed on the
2017 P06, leg 1 occupation.

Salinity and dissolved oxygen samples, drawn from all Niskin bottles
that were closed on each cast, were analyzed and used to calibrate the
CTDO conductivity and oxygen sensors. Water samples were also analyzed
onboard the ship for nutrients (nitrate, nitrite, phosphate,
silicate), total CO2/TCO2 (aka dissolved inorganic carbon/DIC), pH,
total alkalinity, and transient tracers (chlorofluorocarbons/CFCs and
sulfur hexafluoride/SF6).

Additional samples were collected for onshore analysis: radiocarbon
δ13C/δ14C), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), dissolved organic
phosphorus (DOP), nitrogen and oxygen isotopes of nitrate δ15N,
Δ18O), phytoplankton pigment using high performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC), and particulate organic carbon (POC).

Underway measurements included GPS navigation, multibeam and Knudsen
bathymetry, ADCP, meteorological parameters, and sea surface
measurements (including temperature, conductivity/salinity, dissolved
oxygen, fluorescence, and pCO2) and gravity.


2.2  Cruise Narrative

The GO-SHIP 2017 P06 repeat hydrography cruise across the South
Pacific subtropical gyre is a repeat of earlier section occupations
that were conducted in 1992 as part of the U.S. WOCE program, in 2003
as part of the Japanese BEAGLE cruises, and in 2009/2010 as part of
the U.S. CLIVAR/CO2 Repeat Hydrography program. Goals of the repeat
sections include the monitoring of oceanic inventories of CO2, heat,
and freshwater, examination of changes in ocean transports and
ventilation fluxes, and combining observations of a plethora of
oceanic properties with global models, for a better prediction of the
future state of the ocean and the atmosphere.

Mobilization for leg 1 of the P06 cruise began in Sydney on 28 June
(all dates are local times/dates) when most of the science gear was
loaded onto the RVIB Nathaniel B. Palmer (NBP), docked in the White
Bay section (terminal 4) of Sydney Harbor. Only the ODF van and some
missing sample bottles were left for loading on 29 June. All the
measurement groups started setting up in the labs, running tests, and
trouble-shooting as soon as their items were on board. The NBP left
Sydney on 3 July at 10:00am with 24 science party members from seven
countries on board (plus the ASC and ECO crews), heading north to the
first station of leg 1. Along the way, on the morning of 4 July, a
test station was conducted in Australian waters (as permitted by the
clearance request) at ~31.5S, 153.5E, in about 3830m of water. In
order to test the equipment and to give both watches practice with the
CTD console procedures, two casts were performed. The first cast went
to a depth of 100m without any bottles fired. On the second cast, the
rosette was lowered to 2000m, and all 36 bottles were closed at this
depth. Measurement groups could choose how many of these bottles to
sample for their own test purposes.

Based on analysis of test station samples, the CFC group reported
elevated SF6 concentrations. Since the rosette was brand new,
including the Niskin bottles, the suspicion was that there could be
some contamination coming from the bottles. Thus, seven Niskin bottles
(first seven odd ones) were exchanged against old ones from the back-
up rosette. However, analysis of samples from double-fired bottles at
subsequent stations indicated that the bottles were not the issue.
Instead, adjustment of flushing times and trap temperatures on the CFC
system could fix the SF6 problem.

The first "real" station was occupied on the evening of 4 July at
30.09°S, 153.48°E, a few miles off the Australian Coast, in just 84m
of water. From there on, the cruise track of P06, leg 1 followed an
eastward path across the northern part of the Tasman Basin, the Lord
Howe Rise, the New Caledonia Trough and a couple of other ridges and
troughs until the South Fiji Basin, with station depths ranging from
100-5100m.

During the initial stations, as soon as water depths started becoming
deeper, a few more hiccups had to be dealt with. At station 7
(30.08°S, 153.92°E; 2900m), the communication between the LADCP and
its console became intermittent until it completely stopped at station
10 (30.08°S, 154.16°E; 4599m). Most cables had been exchanged by then,
in order to solve the issue. However, only the removal of the
magnetometer, which turned out to be flooded, finally fixed the
problem after station 13 (30.08S, 155.49E), and the LADCP operated
well for the rest the cruise. First problems with Niskin bottles not
closing and mistrips occurred at station 6 (30.08°S, 153.84°E; 1985m).
By station 12 (30.08°S, 155.00°E; 4707m), seven bottles stayed open
despite confirmation on the console that they had been fired. Even
though there were no obvious signs of leaking or deterioration within
the pylon’s solenoids, the carousel was exchanged against SIO’s new
36-place pylon (that was meant for the new rosette, but did not arrive
in time for assembly) right after station 12. The new carousel
functioned pretty much flawlessly for the remainder of the cruise.

On departure from station 12, the first float of leg 1, a UW Argo
float was deployed, followed by several more floats and drifters
throughout the cruise.

The cruise track diverted slightly to the south for station 26
(30.33°S, 158.08°S) to maintain sufficient distance to the Elizabeth
Reef. After that, stations continued along 30.08°S.

Within the South Fiji Basin, after station 76 at 30.08°S, 176.50°E,
the cruise track deflected to the southeast, until station 82 at
32.50°S, 178.91°E. From station 82 onward, the cruise track continued
straight eastward again along the 32.50°S latitude band. This change
in latitude from 30.08°S to 32.50°S occurs on all P06 occupations and
is dictated by moored current meter arrays that were deployed during
the time of WOCE, just poleward of 30°S within the East Australia
Current (off Australia) and along 32.50°S within the deep western
boundary current (DWBC) region, east of the Tonga Kermadec Ridge (TKR,
~179°W) (WOCE PCM9 array). One of the goals of the P06 WOCE occupation
in 1992 was to perform hydrographic surveys along these arrays.

Within the South Fiji Basin, we also encountered the first seriously
bad weather that interrupted operations on 20 July, after station 76.
Wind gusts of >50 knots meant that the NBP could not hold station.
Station 77 (30.53°S, 176.94°E) could not be deployed until the next
day (21 July) in the afternoon. After that, operations were stopped
again through the night. By the morning of 22 July, waves were even
higher. We were also informed that a medevac was necessary for one of
the ECO crew members. What followed was a bumpy ride to New Zealand,
with wave heights at 6-8m and some even bigger rollers, and evacuation
of the ill seaman by helicopter, about 100nm north of New Zealand. By
10:00am on 23 July, we were back on our way to the South Fiji Basin.
Station 78 at 30.98°S, 177.40°E was finally occupied at 6am on 24
July. A total of ~3.5 days of station time had been lost due to
weather and medevac at this point.

With several days of delay, we crossed the Lau Basin on 25 July,
including the International Dateline at ~11:30pm. The corresponding
set-back of clocks by a day gave us the opportunity to enjoy a "full
48 hours of Tuesday, July 25" (the Captain's words).

After the Lau Basin and the adjacent TKR (to the east), followed the
crossing of the DWBC and its recirculation between the TKR and
Louisville Seamount Chain at ~188.2°W. The eastern flank of the TKR
descends into the Kermadec Trench where the deepest stations of P06,
leg 1 were encountered. With a maximum depth of 10,047m, the Kermadec
Trench is known as the deepest ocean trenches in the world. At
stations 93 (32.50°S, 177.67°W) and 94 (32.50S, 176.75W), the trench
stations, bottom depth readings from the Knudsen exceeded 7000m. The
CTD rosette, however, was only lowered to 6000m depth, because of some
of the sensor’s pressure ratings.

On the weekend of 20-30 July, just before and during the crossing of
the Louisville Seamount Chain, the weather turned rougher again.
Operations did not have to be stopped, but wire tension readings were
pretty low (double digits) during the descent of the rosette on
several stations, despite reduced wire speeds. A kink was noticed in
the wire upon recovery at station 106 (32.50°S, 171.12°W). Wire (no
loose strands) and electronic transmissions were still intact.
However, with more than 100 stations completed, it was about time to
re-terminate anyway, and thus it was decided to perform a re-
termination. It took about 4 hours, a little bit longer than usual,
because new technicians, some staying on for leg 2, were being trained
on the procedures. With the stations across the Louisville Seamount
Chain pretty close together (8-17nm), the measurements groups were
happy to have a little bit of time to catch up again on samples!

To the east of the Louisville Seamount Chain began the still very deep
(5000-6000m), but flatter stretch of the Southwest Pacific Basin. A
particular deep fracture zone was encountered at station 119 (32.50°S,
165.16°W; 6364m) where elevated CFC concentrations had been observed
on past cruises and were also found on 2017 P06, leg 1. Because of the
time lost earlier in the cruise, it was unfortunately not possible to
reduce station spacing around this fracture zone, as originally
planned.

Bad weather caught up with us again on the evening of 3 August, just
after some smooth sailing, reminding us that it was the height of
winter in the southern hemisphere after all. A particularly persistent
low pressure system hovered to the east of us for pretty much the next
four days. Wind speeds gusted >40 knots some of the time, but it was
mostly the big and often confused swells that provided problems. Sea
states were continuously examined by scientists and ASC staff, and
whenever the waves looked reasonable, the CTD rosette was deployed.
Two casts had to be aborted and retried later because of continuously
low wire tensions and large spikes on the downcast (at station 121,
32.50°S, 163.83°W, and station 126, 32.50°S, 160.46°W). Two more small
kinks appeared in the wire after stations 123 and 126, luckily at a
safe distance from each other (more than 100 wire diameters). After
thorough examination, neither kink was deemed serious enough to
warrant another re-termination immediately.

During the four days of the storm, only seven stations could be
completed (121-127), resulting in about two more days of station time
lost due to weather. The option of doing stations slowly, however, was
still more efficient than trying to steam eastward past the (large)
low pressure system and doing stations in reverse order, as sometimes
it is done to escape storms.

On 8 August, operations were back to normal, although wire speeds on
the down casts often still had to be kept very low (20m/min until
1000-1500m). During the last five days of station work on p06, leg 1,
the last SOCCOM float and the last Deep SOLO float, as well as several
drifters, were deployed. The last station, station #143 at 32.50°S,
148.91°W, was completed on 13 August early in the morning (5:15am),
followed by the last float, a UW Argo float. A "drop dead" time of
5:00am had been given to us by the Captain. Thus, another station, as
hoped for to put less burden of leg 1 stations onto leg 2 (4 instead
of 5 stations from original station plan), was unfortunately not
possible.

While there were a lot of delays on this cruise due to weather and the
medevac, with a total of about 5.5 days of station time lost, we were
happy that we could nevertheless make it just past the longitude of
Tahiti (~150°W), our port call between legs 1 and 2. Station spacing
at the end of leg 2 was 33.9nm, only slightly up from the 30nm in the
original plan.

There were also some things that went remarkably well and that helped
make up time. The winch in the Baltic room performed pretty much
flawlessly, even with 49 of the 143 stations at depths >5000m,
allowing for fast station times when the weather was good. There were
no communication/data transfer problems with the CTD package, and the
new SIO 36-place carousel, once installed, also operated without any
further bottle-closing issues. Station positioning, despite the large
size of the ship, was pretty speedy most of the time and within the
0.1-minute accuracy (in lat/lon) we had asked from the bridge. The
steam speed of the NBP was somewhat faster (>9 knots) than planned for
which also helped.

In general, station spacing on p06, leg 1 varied between 2.1nm and
38.8nm. 109 stations were at a distance of less than 30nm from the
prior station because the cruise crossed a lot of “interesting
topography” (a quote from the chief scientist, often repeated on the
cruise) that required tight station spacing. For the remaining 34
stations, a spacing of 30nm, the typically desired distance between
stations on GO-SHIP cruises, or more was used. To make up for time
lost due to weather/medevac, station spacing was increased beyond 30nm
over flat topography for a few stations in the South Fiji Basin
(~36nm; stations 78-80) and in the Southwest Pacific Basin to the east
of 169°W for all but one station (stations 114-129, 131-143). In the
latter case, the typical spacing was around 34nm. A few stations
(stations 127-129) had significantly larger spacing (~38nm), matching
the location of three WOCE stations here. An attempt was generally
made to match up the 2017 p06 stations with either WOCE or CLIVAR 2009
stations unless the spacing during those earlier programs seemed too
large (e.g. east of 158°W). Particular attention was given to the DWBC
region between the TKR and Louisville Seamount Chain and a couple of
degrees to the east of the seamounts (stations 88-112), where the WOCE
PCM9 current meter array had been. Station locations here were kept
the same as during WOCE/CLIVAR 2009 except for one station that was
added on the western flank of the seamount chain (station 105,
32.50°S, 172.09°E) and two stations further to the west (station 101,
32.50°S, 173.86°E, and station 102, 32.50°S, 173.38°E) that were
rearranged to obtain more regular station spacing here.

Leg 1 ended in Papeete, Tahiti (~17.5°S, 149.6°E) after an about 960m
steam from the last station on the 32.50S transect. The ship arrived
early on 17 August, 2017, meeting the pilot boat at about 5:00am and
clearing customs by 8:00am. A meeting with the chief and co-chief
scientists of leg 2, Kevin Speer and Lena Schulze, had been arranged
for 10:00am to hand over all important leg 1 information. After 46
days at sea, we were then able to set foot on land again, to gather
for a post-cruise party at the Three Brothers pub, and to explore
Tahiti.


2.3  Preliminary results

We find that the preliminary salinity and oxygen data collected and
processed by ODF show the typical signatures of Antarctic Bottom Water
(AABW; low salinity, high oxygen) and Circumpolar Deep Water (CDW;
higher salinity, lower oxygen), that have been observed in the DWBC
and the adjacent basin on prior P06 occupations. There is a strong CFC
signal associated with the DWBC, showing an increase in concentrations
compared to 2009. We also observed the typical characteristics of the
water masses of the upper ocean, in particular Subantarctic Mode Water
(SAMW; low stratification) at about 750m and Antarctic Intermediate
Water (AAIW; low salinity) at about 1000m depth. Changes in both
bottom/deep water properties and thermocline/intermediate water
properties were looked at on board during the cruise and will be the
subject of future investigations.


2.4  Acknowledgments

There are many thanks to give for a successful completion of P06, leg
1. Jim Swift, Lynne Talley, and Alison Macdonald were essential in
organizing the cruise. The GO-SHIP exec committee and PIs gave advice
when needed. ODF, under the lead of Susan Becker, provided the brand
new rosette and related equipment, and made sure everything was
working well on board. We are grateful for the funding provided by NSF
and NOAA for the GO-SHIP program. Pre-cruise planning was done in
collaboration with ASC (Adam Jenkins and Brad Fabling) who were
enjoyable to work with. ASC was also responsible for marine
operations while at sea, and we appreciate all the professional
support we received from the ASC techs, in particular with the
deployment and recovery of the rosette. ECO was in charge of keeping
the ship running and did a great job. Meetings with Captain Brandon
Bell (ECO) and Marine Projects Coordinator Eric Hutt (ASC) every day
at 12:30pm on the bridge to discuss weather and day-to-day operations
were fun and productive. All scientists on board worked extremely
hard, kept spirits high, and were great to be with. Much thanks to
all!




3  CTDO AND HYDROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS


PIs
   * Susan Becker
   * James Swift

Technicians
   * Joseph Gum


3.1  CTDO and Bottle Data Acquisition

The CTD data acquisition system consisted of an SBE-11+ (V2) deck unit
and a networked generic PC workstation running Windows 7. SBE SeaSave7
v.7.26.1.8 software was used for data acquisition and to close bottles
on the rosette.

CTD deployments were initiated by the console watch operators (CWO)
after the ship had stopped on station. The watch maintained a CTD Cast
logs for each attempted cast containing a description of each
deployment event.

Once the deck watch had deployed the rosette, the winch operator would
lower it to 10 meters. The CTD sensor pumps were configured to start
10 seconds after the primary conductivity cell reports salt water in
the cell. The CWO checked the CTD data for proper sensor operation,
waited for sensors to stabilize, and instructed the winch operator to
bring the package to the surface in good weather or no more than 5
meters in high seas. The winch was then instructed to lower the
package to the initial target wire-out at no more than 30m/min to 100m
and no more than 60m/min after 100m depending on sea-cable tension and
the sea state.

The CWO monitored the progress of the deployment and quality of the
CTD data through interactive graphics and operational displays. The
altimeter channel, CTD pressure, wire-out and center multi-beam depth
were all monitored to determine the distance of the package from the
bottom. The winch was directed to slow decent rate to 40m/min 100m
from the bottom and 20m/min 30m from the bottom. The bottom of the CTD
cast was usually to within 10-20 meters of the bottom determined by
altimeter data. For each up-cast, the winch operator was directed to
stop the winch at up to 36 predetermined sampling pressures. These
standard depths were staggered every station using 3 sampling schemes.
The CTD CWO waited 30 seconds prior to tripping sample bottles, to
ensure package shed wake had dissipated. An additional 15 seconds
elapsed before moving to the next consecutive trip depth, which
allowed for the SBE35RT to record bottle trip temperature averaged
from 14 samples.

After the last bottle was closed, the CWO directed winch to recover
the rosette. Once the rosette was out of the water and on deck, the
CWO terminated the data acquisition, turned off the deck unit and
assisted with rosette sampling.

Additionally, the watch created a sample log for the deployment which
would be later used to record the depths bottles were tripped and
correspondence between rosette bottles and analytical samples drawn.

Normally the CTD sensors were rinsed after each station using a fresh
water tap connected to Tygon tubing. The tubing was left on the CTD
between casts, with the temperature and conductivity sensors immersed
in fresh water.

Each bottle on the rosette had a unique serial number, independent of
the bottle position on the rosette. Sampling for specific programs
were outlined on sample log sheets prior to cast recovery or at the
time of collection. The bottles and rosette were examined before
samples were drawn. Any abnormalities were noted on the sample log,
stored in the cruise database and reported in the APPENDIX.


3.2  CTDO Data Processing

Shipboard CTD data processing was performed after deployment using
SIO/ODF python CTD processing software v. 0.1. CTD acquisition data
were copied onto a OS X system, and then processed. CTD data at bottle
trips were extracted, and a 2-decibar down-cast pressure series
created. The pressure series data set was submitted for CTD data
distribution after corrections outlined in the following sections were
applied.

A total of 144 CTD stations were occupied including one test station.
A total of 150 CTDO/rosette/LADCP/chipod casts were completed. 144
standard CTDO/rosette/LADCP/chipod casts and one test cast completed
with a single 36-place (CTD #1281) rosette was used for all
station/casts.

CTD data were examined at the completion of each deployment for clean
corrected sensor response and any calibration shifts. As bottle
salinity and oxygen results became available, they were used to refine
shipboard conductivity and oxygen sensor calibrations.

Temperature, salinity and dissolved O2 comparisons were made between
down and up casts as well as between groups of adjacent deployments.
Vertical sections of measured and derived properties from sensor data
were checked for consistency.

A number of issues were encountered during P06W-2017 that directly
impacted CTD analysis. Issues that directly impacted bottle closures,
such as slipping guide rings, were detailed in the Underwater Sampling
Package section of this report. Temperature, conductivity and oxygen
analytical sensor issues are detailed in the following respective
sections.


3.3  Pressure Analysis

Laboratory calibrations of CTD pressure sensors were performed prior
to the cruise. Dates of laboratory calibration are recorded on the
underway sampling package table and calibration documents are provided
in the APPENDIX.

The Paroscientific Digiquartz pressure transducer S/N: 831-99677 was
calibrated on November 17th, 2015 at the SIO Calibration Facility. The
lab calibration coefficients provided on the calibration report were
used to convert frequencies to pressure. Initially SIO pressure lab
calibration slope and offsets coefficients were applied to cast data.
A shipboard calibration offset was applied to the converted pressures
during each cast. These offsets were determined by the pre and post-
cast on-deck pressure offsets. The pressure offsets were applied per
configuration cast sets.


* CTD Serial 1281-99677; Station Set 1 - 143

                 Start P (dbar)  End P (dbar)            
                 ——————————————  ————————————
Min                   0.0          -0.1      
Max                   0.3           0.2       
Average               0.2           0.1       
Applied Offset                      0.1081    


An offset of 0.1081 was applied to every cast performed by CTD 1281.
On-deck pressure reading for CTD 831 varied from 0.0 to 0.3 dbar
before the casts, and -0.1 to 0.2 dbar after the casts. Before and
after average difference was 0.2 and 0.1 dbar respectively. The
overall average offset before and after cast was 0.1081 dbar.


3.4  Temperature Analysis

Laboratory calibrations of temperature sensors were performed prior to
the cruise at the SIO Calibration Facility. Dates of laboratory
calibration are recorded on the underway sampling package table and
calibration documents are provided in the APPENDIX.

The pre-cruise laboratory calibration coefficients were used to
convert SBE3plus frequencies to ITS-90 temperature. Additional
shipboard calibrations were performed to correct sensor bias. Two
independent metrics of calibration accuracy were used to determine
sensor bias. At each bottle closure, the primary and secondary
temperature were compared with each other and with a SBE35RT reference
temperature sensor.

The SBE35RT Digital Reversing Thermometer is an internally-recording
temperature sensor that operates independently of the CTD. The SBE35RT
was located equidistant between the two SBE3plus temperature sensors.
The SBE35RT is triggered by the SBE32 carousel in response to a bottle
closure. According to the manufacturer’s specifications, the typical
stability is 0.001°C/year. The SBE35RT was set to internally average
over a 15 second period.

A functioning SBE3plus sensor typically exhibit a consistent
predictable well modeled response. The response model is second order
with respect to pressure, a first order with respect to temperature
and a first order with respect to time. The functions used to apply
shipboard calibrations are as follows.

   T_{cor} = T + D_1 P_2 + D_2 P + D_3 T_2 + D_4 T + \text{Offset}

                    T_{90} = T + tp_1 P + t_0

     T_{90} = T + a P_2 + b P + c T_2 + d T + \text{Offset}

Corrected temperature differences are shown in the following figures.

   [image]SBE35RT-T1 by station (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

   [image]Deep SBE35RT-T1 by station (Pressure ≥ 2000dbar).

   [image]SBE35RT-T2 by station (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

   [image]Deep SBE35RT-T2 by station (Pressure ≥ 2000dbar).

   [image]T1-T2 by station (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

   [image]Deep T1-T2 by station (Pressure ≥ 2000dbar).

   [image]SBE35RT-T1 by pressure (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

   [image]SBE35RT-T2 by pressure (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

   [image]T1-T2 by pressure (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

The 95% confidence limits for the mean low-gradient (values -0.002°C
≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C) differences are ±0.0068°C for SBE35RT-T1,
±0.0067°C for SBE35RT-T2 and ±0.0042°C for T1-T2. The 95% confidence
limits for the deep temperature residuals (where pressure ≥
2000dbar) are ±0.00086°C for SBE35RT-T1, ±0.0010°C for SBE35RT-T2 and
±0.0008°C for T1-T2.

Minor complications impacted the temperature sensor data used for the
P06W cruise.

   • The SBE35RT was unconfigured at the beginning and set to
     average and record one sample (one second) per trip.

   • This was noticed and fixed to average 14 samples (15 seconds)
     before station 19.

   • The SBE35RT sensor data was not uploaded before cast for
     stations 7 and 8, with no data reported for those casts.

   • The SBE35RT sensor memory was partially full, and there are
     partial data reported for casts on stations 6 and 12.

   • Storms caused tripping on the fly in the upper 100 meters on
     many stations, leading to some surface SBE35RT averaging periods
     out of the water.

The resulting affected sections of data have been coded and documented
in the quality code APPENDIX.


3.5  Conductivity Analysis

Laboratory calibrations of conductivity sensors were performed prior
to the cruise at the SeaBird Calibration Facility. Dates of laboratory
calibration are recorded on the underway sampling package table and
calibration documents are provided in the APPENDIX.

The pre-cruise laboratory calibration coefficients were used to
convert SBE4C frequencies to mS/cm conductivity values. Additional
ship-board calibrations were performed to correct sensor bias.
Corrections for both pressure and temperature sensors were finalized
before analyzing conductivity differences. Two independent metrics of
calibration accuracy were examined. At each bottle closure, the
primary and secondary conductivity were compared with each other. Each
sensor was also compared to conductivity calculated from check sample
salinities using CTD pressure and temperature.

The differences between primary and secondary temperature sensors were
used as filtering criteria to reduce the contamination of conductivity
comparisons by package wake. The coherence of this relationship is
shown in the following figure.

   [image]Coherence of conductivity differences as a function of
   temperature differences.

Uncorrected conductivity comparisons are shown in figures Uncorrected
CBottle - C1 by station (-0.002 mS/cm  BTLCOND-C1  0.002 mS/cm).
through Uncorrected C1-C2 by station (-0.002 mS/cm  C1-C2  0.002
mS/cm)..

   [image]Uncorrected C_Bottle - C1 by station (-0.002 mS/cm ≤
   BTLCOND-C1 ≤ 0.002 mS/cm).

   [image]Uncorrected C_Bottle - C2 by station (-0.002 mS/cm ≤
   BTLCOND-C2 ≤ 0.002 mS/cm).

   [image]Uncorrected C1-C2 by station (-0.002 mS/cm ≤ C1-C2 ≤
   0.002 mS/cm).

The residual conductivity differences after correction are shown in
figures Corrected CBottle - C1 by station (-0.002 mS/cm  BTLCOND-C1
0.002 mS/cm). through Corrected C1-C2 by conductivity (-0.002 mS/cm
C1-C2  0.002 mS/cm)..

   [image]Corrected C_Bottle - C1 by station (-0.002 mS/cm ≤
   BTLCOND-C1 ≤ 0.002 mS/cm).

   [image]Deep Corrected C_Bottle - C1 by station (Pressure >=
   2000dbar).

   [image]Corrected C_Bottle - C2 by station (-0.002 mS/cm ≤
   BTLCOND-C2 ≤ 0.002 mS/cm).

   [image]Deep Corrected C_Bottle - C2 by station (Pressure >=
   2000dbar).

   [image]Corrected C1-C2 by station (-0.002 mS/cm ≤ C1-C2 ≤
   0.002 mS/cm).

   [image]Deep Corrected C1-C2 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

   [image]Corrected C_Bottle - C1 by pressure (-0.002 mS/cm ≤
   BTLCOND-C1 ≤ 0.002 mS/cm).

   [image]Corrected C_Bottle - C2 by pressure (-0.002 mS/cm ≤
   BTLCOND-C2 ≤ 0.002 mS/cm).

   [image]Corrected C1-C2 by pressure (-0.002 mS/cm ≤ C1-C2 ≤
   0.002 mS/cm).

   [image]Corrected C_Bottle - C1 by conductivity (-0.002 mS/cm ≤
   BTLCOND-C1 ≤ 0.002 mS/cm).

   [image]Corrected C_Bottle - C2 by conductivity (-0.002 mS/cm ≤
   BTLCOND-C2 ≤ 0.002 mS/cm).

   [image]Corrected C1-C2 by conductivity (-0.002 mS/cm ≤ C1-C2
   ≤ 0.002 mS/cm).

A functioning SBE4C sensor typically exhibit a predictable modeled
response. Offsets for each C sensor were determined using C_Bottle -
C_CTD differences in a deeper pressure range (500 or more dbars).
After conductivity offsets were applied to all casts, response to
pressure, temperature and conductivity were examined for each
conductivity sensor. The response model is second order with respect
to pressure, second order with respect to temperature, second order
with respect to conductivity and a first order with respect to time.
The functions used to apply shipboard calibrations are as follows.

Corrections made to all conductivity sensors are of the form:

   C_{cor} = C + cp_2 P^2 + cp_1 P + cc_2 C^2 + cc_1 C + Offset

Salinity residuals after applying shipboard P/T/C corrections are
summarized in the following figures. Only CTD and bottle salinity data
with "acceptable" quality codes are included in the differences.
Quality codes and comments are published in the APPENDIX of this
report.

   [image]Salinity residuals by station (-0.002 mPSU ≤ SALNTY-C1SAL
   ≤ 0.002 mPSU).

   [image]Salinity residuals by pressure (-0.002 mPSU ≤ SALNTY-
   C1SAL ≤ 0.002 mPSU).

   [image]Deep Salinity residuals by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

The 95% confidence limits for the mean low-gradient (values -0.002
mPSU ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002 mPSU) differences are ±0.0411 mPSU for
salinity-C1SAL. The 95% confidence limits for the deep salinity
residuals (where pressure ≥ 2000dbar) are ±0.0028 mPSU for
salinity-C1SAL.

A number of issues affected conductivity and calculated CTD salinities
during this cruise.

   • Primary conductivity sensor (S/N: 2569) failed shortly after
     the bottom of cast 116/01. Inspection after recovery showed goo
     inside the cell.

   • Bottle salinity analysis was complicated due to problems with
     the two Autosals, leading to knock-on problems when attempting to
     calibrate conductivity against bottle salinity.

   • Salinity lab temperatures were unstable during the time of
     analysis for stations 134-142. Further details on lab temperature
     complications are outlined in the Salinity section of this
     report.

The resulting affected sections of data have been coded and documented
in the quality code APPENDIX.


3.6  CTD Dissolved Oxygen

Laboratory calibrations of the dissolved oxygen sensors were performed
prior to the cruise at the SBE calibration facility. Dates of
laboratory calibration are recorded on the underway sampling package
table and calibration documents are provided in the APPENDIX.

The pre-cruise laboratory calibration coefficients were used to
convert SBE43 frequencies to µmol/kg oxygen values for acquisition
only. Additional shipboard fitting were performed to correct for the
sensors non-linear response. Corrections for pressure, temperature and
conductivity sensors were finalized before analyzing dissolved oxygen
data. The SBE43 sensor data were compared to dissolved O2 check
samples taken at bottle stops by matching the down cast CTD data to
the up cast trip locations along isopycnal surfaces. CTD dissolved O2
was then calculated using Clark Cell MPOD O2 sensor response model
for Beckman/SensorMedics and SBE43 dissolved O2 sensors. The residual
differences of bottle check value versus CTD dissolved O2 values are
minimized by optimizing the SIO DO sensor response model coefficients
with a Levenberg-Marquardt non-linear least-squares fitting procedure.

The general form of the SIO DO sensor response model equation for
Clark cells follows Brown and Morrison [Mill82] and Owens [Owen85] SIO
models DO sensor secondary responses with lagged CTD data. In-situ
pressure and temperature are filtered to match the sensor responses.
Time constants for the pressure response (τ_p), a slow τ_{Tf}
and fast τ_{Ts} thermal response, package velocity τ_{dP},
thermal diffusion τ_{dT} and pressure hysteresis τ_h are fitting
parameters. Once determined for a given sensor, these time constants
typically remain constant for a cruise. The thermal diffusion term is
derived by low-pass filtering the difference between the fast response
T_s and slow response T_l temperatures. This term is intended to
correct non-linearity in sensor response introduced by inappropriate
analog thermal compensation. Package velocity is approximated by low-
pass filtering 1st-order pressure differences, and is intended to
correct flow-dependent response. Dissolved O2 concentration is then
calculated:


                        P_h                       /                       dO_c      dP        \
                    C_2 ————                     | C t  + C t  + C P + C  ———— + C  ——— + C dT |
O ml/l = [C · V  · e    5000 + C_3] · ƒ   (T,P)·e \ 4 1    4 s    7 l   6  dT     8 dTt    9  /
 2         1   DO                      sat


Where:

• O2 ml/l     Dissolved O2 concentration in ml/l

• V_DO        Raw sensor output

• C_1         Sensor slope

• C_2         Hysteresis ronse coefficient

• C_3         Sensor offset

• f_sat       (T , P)|O2| saturation at T,P (ml/l)

• T           In-situ temperature (°C)

• P           In-situ pressure (decibars)

• P_h         Low-pass filtered hysteresis pressure (decibars)

• T_l         Long-ronse low-pass filtered temperature (°C)

• T_s         Short-ronse low-pass filtered temperature (°C)

• P_l         Low-pass filtered pressure (decibars)

• dO_c / dt   Sensor current gradient (¬µamps/sec)

• dP/dt       Filtered package velocity (db/sec)

• dT          Low-pass filtered thermal diffusion estimate (T_s - T_l)

• C_4 - C_9   Ronse coefficients


CTD dissolved O2 residuals are shown in the following figures O2
residuals by station (-0.01 µmol/kg  OXYGEN-BTLOXY  0.01 µmol/kg).
through Deep O2 residuals by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar)..

   [image]O2 residuals by station (-0.01 µmol/kg ≤ OXYGEN-BTLOXY
   ≤ 0.01 µmol/kg).

   [image]O2 residuals by pressure (-0.01 µmol/kg ≤ OXYGEN-BTLOXY
   ≤ 0.01 µmol/kg).

   [image]Deep O2 residuals by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

The standard deviations of 5.21 (µmol/kg) for all dissolved oxygen
bottle data values and 3.52 (µmol/kg) for deep dissolved oxygen values
are only presented as general indicators of the goodness of fit.
CLIVAR GO-SHIP standards for CTD dissolved oxygen data are < 1%
accuracy against on board Winkler titrated dissolved O2 lab
measurements.

A number of complications arose with the acquisition and processing of
CTD dissolved oxygen data.

   • New software used to fit the data is not working as intended,
     and the data will be re-fit post cruise after a thorough checking
     of the code.

   • SBE43 (S/N: 430255) failed on the test station, spiking and
     subsequently reporting negative values at 200 db.

   • SBE43 (S/N: 431136) was placed on the CTD before station 1 and
     replaced at station 73 due to growing noise in the signal.

   • SBE43 (S/N: 430275) was placed on the CTD before station 74
     until station 76 and was noted to have a similarly noisy signal.

   • SBE43 (S/N: 430080) was borrowed from ASC and put on the CTD
     before station 77 until the end of the cruise.

   • Technicians rerouted the exhaust lines from the primary sensors
     for a straighter fit before station 72.

All compromised data signals were recorded and coded in the data
files. The bottle trip levels affected by the signals were coded and
are included in the bottle data comments section of the APPENDIX.

[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).




4  SALINITY


PIs
   * Susan Becker
   * James Swift

Technicians
   * John Calderwood
   * Kelsey Vogel


4.1  Equipment and Techniques

Two Guildline Autosals, model 8400B salinometer (S/N 69-180) and model
8400A salinometer (S/N 57-526) located in salinity analysis room, were
used for all salinity measurements. Autosal model 8400B was serviced
prior to NBP1701 and remained on ship. Autosal model 8400A was
serviced prior to P06W and sent with other equipment in June. The
salinometer readings were logged on a computer using in house LabView
program developed by Carl Mattson. The Autosal water bath temperature
was set to 24°C. The laboratory’s temperature was also set and
maintained to 22°C. This is to ensure stabilize reading values and
improve accuracy. Salinity analyses were performed after samples had
equilibrated to laboratory temperature range of 22-25°C, usually 6
hours after collection. The salinometer was standardized for each
group of samples analyzed (usually 2 casts and up to 72 samples) using
two bottles of standard seawater: one at the beginning and end of each
set of measurements. The salinometer output was logged to a computer
file. The software prompted the analyst to flush the instrument’s cell
and change samples when appropriate. Prior to each run a sub-standard
flush, approximately 200 ml, of the conductivity cell was conducted to
flush out the DI water used in between runs. For each calibration
standard, the salinometer cell was initially flushed 2 times before a
set of conductivity ratio reading was taken. For each sample, the
salinometer cell was initially flushed at least 2 times before a set
of conductivity ratio readings were taken.

IAPSO Standard Seawater Batch P-160 was used to standardize all casts.

   [image]


4.2  Sampling and Data Processing

The salinity samples were collected in 200 ml Kimax high-alumina
borosilicate bottles that had been rinsed at least three times with
sample water 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. Laboratory temperature
was also monitored electronically throughout the cruise. PSS-78
salinity [UNESCO1981] was calculated for each sample from the measured
conductivity ratios. The offset between the initial standard seawater
value and its reference value was applied to each sample. Then the
difference (if any) between the initial and final vials of standard
seawater was applied to each sample as a linear function of elapsed
run time. The corrected salinity data was then incorporated into the
cruise database.


4.3  Narrative

Autosal 69-180 was left on the ship in good working condition, however
upon return for P06W the autosal was not circulating water. The stir
motor drive was blown and pumps were not pulling water. The stir motor
drive was fixed with a replaced rubber band on the motor. The pumps
not pulling water was fixed by cleaning the air filter, straightening
kinks in tubing, and reattaching sampling tubing to tubing to sample
chamber. Autosal 57-526 was then used from station 1 to 65, when water
was noticed in the manifold. Analysis then returned to Autosal 69-180
from stations 66 to 75, when higher than normal readings were reported
and lack of drawing water from sample bottle. Autosal 57-526 was then
used from stations 76 to 80 until suppression switch stopped working
on Autosal 57-526. The problem on Autosal 69-180 was hypothesized to
be oxidation accumulating on the connectors, which was fixed by
disconnecting and reconnecting connectors multiple times. Autosal
69-180 was then used from stations 81 to 123, when Autosal 57-526
appeared to be working again. Autosal 57-526 was then used from
stations 124 to 135, when readings were unstable, possibly related to
earlier switch issues, and subsequently not used. Autosal 69-180 was
used from stations 136-143, and ended the cruise in good working
order. Autosal 57-526 has been deemed to need servicing before further
samples can be run on it.


Autosal 69-180  Autosal 57-526  UTC Time Date Swapped
——————————————  ——————————————  —————————————————————
Stations Run    Stations Run    -                    
--------------  --------------  ---------------------
-               1-65            2017-07-05           
--------------  --------------  ---------------------
66-75           -               2017-07-18           
--------------  --------------  ---------------------
-               76-80           2017-07-21           
--------------  --------------  ---------------------
81-123          -               2017-07-25           
--------------  --------------  ---------------------
-               124-135         2017-08-08           
--------------  --------------  ---------------------
136-143         -               2017-08-11           
--------------  --------------  ---------------------
**Total: 58**   **Total: 85**   -                    

[UNESCO1981] UNESCO 1981. Background papers and
             supporting data on the Practical Salinity Scale, 1978.
             UNESCO Technical Papers in Marine Science, No. 37 144.



5  NUTRIENTS


PIs
   * Susan Becker
   * James Swift

Technicians
   * Susan Becker
   * David Cervantes


5.1  Summary of Analysis

• 4816 samples from 144 CTD stations, including the test station

• The cruise started with new pump tubes and they were changed 3
  times, before stations 031, 081, and 122.

• 7 sets of Primary/Secondary standards were made up over the course
  of the cruise.

• The cadmium column efficiency was check periodically and ranged
  between 93%-100%.  The column was replaced in/when the efficiency
  dropped below 96%.


5.2  Equipment and Techniques

Nutrient analyses (phosphate, silicate, nitrate+nitrite, and nitrite)
were performed on a Seal Analytical continuous-flow AutoAnalyzer 3
(AA3). The methods used are described by Gordon et al [Gordon1992]
Hager et al. [Hager1972], and Atlas et al. [Atlas1971]. Details of
modification of analytical methods used in this cruise are also
compatible with the methods described in the nutrient section of the
GO-SHIP repeat hydrography manual (Hydes et al., 2010) [Hydes2010].


5.3  Nitrate/Nitrite Analysis

A modification of the Armstrong et al. (1967) [Armstrong1967]
procedure was used for the analysis of nitrate and nitrite. For
nitrate analysis, a seawater sample was passed through a cadmium
column where the nitrate was reduced to nitrite. This nitrite was then
diazotized with sulfanilamide and coupled with
N-(1-naphthyl)-ethylenediamine to form a red dye. The sample was then
passed through a 10mm flowcell and absorbance measured at 540nm. The
procedure was the same for the nitrite analysis but without the
cadmium column.

**REAGENTS**

Sulfanilamide
   Dissolve 10g sulfamilamide in 1.2N HCl and bring to 1 liter volume.
   Add 2 drops of 40% surfynol 465/485 surfactant. Store at room
   temperature in a dark poly bottle.

   Note: 40% Surfynol 465/485 is 20% 465 plus 20% 485 in DIW.

N-(1-Naphthyl)-ethylenediamine dihydrochloride (N-1-N)
   Dissolve 1g N-1-N in DIW, bring to 1 liter volume. Add 2 drops 40%
   surfynol 465/485 surfactant. Store at room temperature in a dark
   poly bottle. Discard if the solution turns dark reddish brown.

Imidazole Buffer
   Dissolve 13.6g imidazole in ~3.8 liters DIW. Stir for at least 30
   minutes to completely dissolve. Add 60 ml of CuSO4 + NH4Cl mix (see
   below). Add 4 drops 40% Surfynol 465/485 surfactant. Let sit
   overnight before proceeding. Using a calibrated pH meter, adjust to
   pH of 7.83-7.85 with 10% (1.2N) HCl (about 10 ml of acid, depending
   on exact strength). Bring final solution to 4L with DIW. Store at
   room temperature.

NH4Cl + CuSO4 mix
   Dissolve 2g cupric sulfate in DIW, bring to 100 m1 volume (2%).
   Dissolve 250g ammonium chloride in DIW, bring to l liter volume.
   Add 5ml of 2% CuSO4 solution to this NH4Cl stock. This should last
   many months.


5.4  Phosphate Analysis

Ortho-Phosphate was analyzed using a modification of the Bernhardt and
Wilhelms (1967) [Bernhardt1967] method. Acidified ammonium molybdate
was added to a seawater sample to produce phosphomolybdic acid, which
was then reduced to phosphomolybdous acid (a blue compound) following
the addition of dihydrazine sulfate. The sample was passed through a
10mm flowcell and absorbance measured at 820nm (880nm after station
59, see section on analytical problems for details).

**REAGENTS**

Ammonium Molybdate H2SO4 sol'n
   Pour 420 ml of DIW into a 2 liter Ehrlenmeyer flask or beaker,
   place this flask or beaker into an ice bath. SLOWLY add 330 ml of
   conc H2SO4. This solution gets VERY HOT!! Cool in the ice bath.
   Make up as much as necessary in the above proportions.

   Dissolve 27g ammonium molybdate in 250ml of DIW. Bring to 1 liter
   volume with the cooled sulfuric acid sol'n. Add 3 drops of 15% DDS
   surfactant. Store in a dark poly bottle.

Dihydrazine Sulfate
   Dissolve 6.4g dihydazine sulfate in DIW, bring to 1 liter volume
   and refrigerate.


5.5  Silicate Analysis

Silicate was analyzed using the basic method of Armstrong et al.
(1967). Acidified ammonium molybdate was added to a seawater sample to
produce silicomolybdic acid which was then reduced to silicomolybdous
acid (a blue compound) following the addition of stannous chloride.
The sample was passed through a 10mm flowcell and measured at 660nm.

**REAGENTS**

Tartaric Acid
   Dissolve 200g tartaric acid in DW and bring to 1 liter volume.
   Store at room temperature in a poly bottle.

Ammonium Molybdate
   Dissolve 10.8g Ammonium Molybdate Tetrahydrate in 1000ml dilute
   H2SO4. (Dilute H2SO4 = 2.8ml conc H2SO4  or 6.4ml of H2SO4 diluted
   for PO4 moly per liter DW) (dissolve powder, then add H2SO4) Add
   3-5 drops 15% SDS surfactant per liter of solution.

Stannous Chloride
   stock: (as needed)

   Dissolve 40g of stannous chloride in 100 ml 5N HCl. Refrigerate in
   a poly bottle.

   NOTE: Minimize oxygen introduction by swirling rather than shaking
   the solution. Discard if a white solution (oxychloride) forms.

   working: (every 24 hours) Bring 5 ml of stannous chloride stock to
   200 ml final volume with 1.2N HCl. Make up daily - refrigerate when
   not in use in a dark poly bottle.


5.6  Sampling

Nutrient samples were drawn into 40 ml polypropylene screw-capped
centrifuge tubes. The tubes and caps were cleaned with 10% HCl and
rinsed 2-3 times with sample before filling. Samples were analyzed
within 1-3 hours after sample collection, allowing sufficient time for
all samples to reach room temperature. The centrifuge tubes fit
directly onto the sampler.


5.7  Data Collection and Processing

Data collection and processing was done with the software (ACCE ver
6.10) provided with the instrument from Seal Analytical. After each
run, the charts were reviewed for any problems during the run, any
blank was subtracted, and final concentrations (micro moles/liter)
were calculated, based on a linear curve fit. Once the run was
reviewed and concentrations calculated a text file was created. That
text file was reviewed for possible problems and then converted to
another text file with only sample identifiers and nutrient
concentrations that was merged with other bottle data.


5.8  Standards and Glassware Calibration

Primary standards for silicate (Na2SiF6), nitrate (KNO3), nitrite
(NaNO2), and phosphate (KH2PO4) were obtained from Johnson Matthey
Chemical Co. and/or Fisher Scientific. The supplier reports purities
of >98%, 99.999%, 97%, and 99.999 respectively.

All glass volumetric flasks and pipettes were gravimetrically
calibrated prior to the cruise. The primary standards were dried and
weighed out to 0.1mg prior to the cruise. The exact weight was noted
for future reference. When primary standards were made, the flask
volume at 20C, the weight of the powder, and the temperature of the
solution were used to buoyancy-correct the weight, calculate the exact
concentration of the solution, and determine how much of the primary
was needed for the desired concentrations of secondary standard.
Primary and secondary standards were made up every 7-10days. The new
standards were compared to the old before use.

All the reagent solutions, primary and secondary standards were made
with fresh distilled deionized water (DIW).

Standardizations were performed at the beginning of each group of
analyses with working standards prepared every 10-12 hours from a
secondary. Working standards were made up in low nutrient seawater
(LNSW). two different batches of LNSW were used on the cruise. LNSW,
was collected off shore of coastal California and treated in the lab.
The water was first filtered through a 0.45 micron filter then re-
circulated for ~8 hours through a 0.2 micron filter, passed a UV lamp
and through a second 0.2 micron filter. The actual concentration of
nutrients in this water was empirically determined during the
standardization calculations.

The concentrations in micro-moles per liter of the working standards
used were:


                  -  N+N    PO_4  SIL   NO2   NH_4 
                     (uM)   (uM)  (uM)  (uM)  (uM)
                  —  —————  ————  ————  ————  ————
                  0  0.0    0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0 
                  3  15.50  1.2   60    0.50  2.0 
                  5  31.00  2.4   120   1.00  4.0 
                  7  46.50  3.6   180   1.50  6.0 



5.9  Quality Control

All final data was reported in micro-moles/kg. NO^3, PO_4, and NO2
were reported to two decimals places and SIL to one. Accuracy is based
on the quality of the standards the levels are:

                
                 NO^3   0.05 µM (micro moles/Liter)
                 PO_4   0.004 µM                   
                 SIL    2-4 µM                    
                 NO2    0.05 µM                    


As is standard ODF practice, a deep calibration "check" sample was run
with each set of samples to estimate precision within the cruise. The
data are tabulated below.


                Parameter  Concentration (µM)  stddev
                —————————  ——————————————————  ——————
                NO^3       34.14                0.18  
                PO_4       2.40                 0.01  
                SIL        96.7                 0.4   



Reference materials for nutrients in seawater (RMNS) were also used as
a check sample run once a day. The RMNS preparation, verification, and
suggested protocol for use of the material are described by
[Aoyama2006] [Aoyama2007], [Aoyama2008] and Sato [Sato2010]. RMNS
batch BV was used on this cruise, with each bottle being used once or
twice before being discarded and a new one opened. Data are tabulated
below.


            Parameter  Concentration  stddev  assigned conc
            -          (µmol/kg)      -         (µmol/kg)    
            —————————  —————————————  ——————  —————————————
            NO^3       36.1           0.12        36.19        
            PO_4       2.54           0.02        2.56         
            Sil        105.1          0.4         104.6        
            NO2        0.06           0.00        0.05         



5.10  Analytical Problems

No major analytical problems.

   [image]

[Armstrong1967] Armstrong, F.A.J., Stearns, C.A., 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).

[Atlas1971] Atlas, E.L., Hager, S.W., Gordon, L.I., and
            Park, P.K., "A Practical Manual for Use of the Technicon
            AutoAnalyzer in Seawater Nutrient Analyses Revised,"
            Technical Report 215, Reference 71-22, p.49, Oregon State
            University, Department of Oceanography (1971).

[Aoyama2006] Aoyama, M., 2006: 2003 Intercomparison
             Exercise for Reference Material for Nutrients in Seawater
             in a Seawater Matrix, Technical Reports of the
             Meteorological Research Institute No.50, 91pp, Tsukuba,
             Japan.

[Aoyama2007] Aoyama, M., Susan B., Minhan, D., Hideshi,
             D., Louis, I. G., Kasai, H., Roger, K., Nurit, K., Doug,
             M., Murata, A., Nagai, N., Ogawa, H., Ota, H., Saito, H.,
             Saito, K., Shimizu, T., Takano, H., Tsuda, A., Yokouchi,
             K., and Agnes, Y. 2007. Recent Comparability of
             Oceanographic Nutrients Data: Results of a 2003
             Intercomparison Exercise Using Reference Materials.
             Analytical Sciences, 23: 1151-1154.

[Aoyama2008] Aoyama M., J. Barwell-Clarke, S. Becker, M.
             Blum, Braga E. S., S. C. Coverly,E. Czobik, I. Dahllof,
             M. H. Dai, G. O. Donnell, C. Engelke, G. C. Gong, Gi-Hoon
             Hong, D. J. Hydes, M. M. Jin, H. Kasai, R. Kerouel, Y.
             Kiyomono, M. Knockaert, N. Kress, K. A. Krogslund, M.
             Kumagai, S. Leterme, Yarong Li, S. Masuda, T. Miyao, T.
             Moutin, A. Murata, N. Nagai, G.Nausch, M. K. Ngirchechol,
             A. Nybakk, H. Ogawa, J. van Ooijen, H. Ota, J. M. Pan, C.
             Payne, O. Pierre-Duplessix, M. Pujo-Pay, T. Raabe, K.
             Saito, K. Sato, C. Schmidt, M. Schuett, T. M. Shammon, J.
             Sun, T. Tanhua, L. White, E.M.S. Woodward, P. Worsfold,
             P. Yeats, T. Yoshimura, A.Youenou, J. Z. Zhang, 2008:
             2006 Intercomparison Exercise for Reference Material for
             Nutrients in Seawater in a Seawater Matrix, Technical
             Reports of the Meteorological Research Institute No. 58,
             104pp.

[Bernhardt1967] 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).

[Gordon1992] Gordon, L.I., Jennings, J.C., Ross, A.A.,
             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).

[Hager1972] Hager, S.W.,  Atlas, E.L., Gordon L.I.,
            Mantyla, A.W., and Park, P.K., " A comparison at sea of
            manual and autoanalyzer analyses of phosphate, nitrate,
            and silicate ," Limnology and Oceanography, 17,pp.931-937
            (1972).

[Hydes2010] Hydes, D.J., Aoyama, M., Aminot, A., Bakker,
            K., Becker, S., Coverly, S., Daniel,A.,Dickson,A.G.,
            Grosso, O., Kerouel, R., Ooijen, J. van, Sato, K., Tanhua,
            T., Woodward, E.M.S., Zhang, J.Z., 2010. Determination of
            Dissolved Nutrients (N, P, Si) in Seawater with High
            Precision and Inter-Comparability Using Gas-Segmented
            Continuous Flow Analysers, In: GO-SHIP Repeat Hydrography
            Manual: A Collection of Expert Reports and Guidelines.
            IOCCP Report No. 14, ICPO Publication Series No 134.

[Kerouel1997] Kerouel, R., Aminot, A., “Fluorometric
              determination of ammonia in sea and estuarine waters by
              direct segmented flow analysis.” Marine Chemistry, vol
              57, no. 3-4, pp. 265-275, July 1997.

[Sato2010] Sato, K., Aoyama, M., Becker, S., 2010. RMNS as
           Calibration Standard Solution to Keep Comparability for
           Several Cruises in the World Ocean in 2000s. In: Aoyama,
           M., Dickson, A.G., Hydes, D.J., Murata, A., Oh, J.R.,
           Roose, P., Woodward, E.M.S., (Eds.), Comparability of
           nutrients in the world’s ocean. Tsukuba, JAPAN: MOTHER
           TANK, pp 43-56.




6  OXYGEN ANALYSIS


PIs
   * Susan Becker
   * James Swift

Technicians
   * Andrew Barna
   * Courtney Schatzman


6.1  Equipment and Techniques

Dissolved oxygen analyses were performed with an SIO/ODF-designed
automated oxygen titrator using photometric end-point detection based
on the absorption of 365nm wavelength ultra-violet light. The
titration of the samples and the data logging were controlled by PC
LabView software. Thiosulfate was dispensed by a Dosimat 765 buret
driver fitted with a 1.0 ml burette. ODF used a whole-bottle modified-
Winkler titration following the technique of Carpenter [Carpenter1965]
with modifications by [Culberson1991] but with higher concentrations
of potassium iodate standard approximately 0.012N, and thiosulfate
solution approximately 55 gm/l. Pre-made liquid potassium iodate
standards were run every day (approximately every 4-5 stations),
unless changes were made to the 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.


6.2  Sampling and Data Processing

4790 oxygen measurements were made. Samples were collected for
dissolved oxygen analyses soon after the rosette was brought on board.
Using a silicone drawing tube, nominal 125ml volume-calibrated iodine
flasks were rinsed 3 times with minimal agitation, then filled and
allowed to overflow for at least 3 flask volumes. The sample drawing
temperatures were measured with an electronic resistance temperature
detector (RTD) embedded in the drawing tube. These temperatures were
used to calculate umol/kg concentrations, and as a diagnostic check of
bottle integrity. Reagents (MnCl_2 then NaI/NaOH) 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 30-40 minutes.

The samples were analyzed within 2-14 hours of collection, and the
data incorporated into the cruise database.

Thiosulfate normalities were calculated for 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 blanks and
thiosulfate normalities for each batch of thiosulfate were stable
enough that no smoothing was necessary.


6.3  Volumetric Calibration

Oxygen flask volumes were determined gravimetrically with degassed
deionized water to determine flask volumes at ODF's chemistry
laboratory. This is done once before using flasks for the first time
and periodically thereafter when a suspect 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.


6.4  Standards

Liquid potassium iodate standards were prepared in 6 liter batches and
bottled in sterile glass bottles at ODF's chemistry laboratory prior
to the expedition. The normality of the liquid standard was determined
by calculation from weight. The standard was supplied by Alfa Aesar
and has a reported purity of 99.4-100.4%. All other reagents were
"reagent grade" and were tested for levels of oxidizing and reducing
impurities prior to use.


6.5  Narrative

Setup occurred in Sydney, Australia starting June 29th, 2017. The
equipment was already on board the RV Palmer from NBP1701 in January.
During setup it was discovered that the 4 large reagent jugs (~4L
each) were not present. This had the effect of limiting the amount of
reagents which could be made in advance. The primary consequence of
this is that each batch of Thiosulfate would be independent. Setup
otherwise went smoothly and the analysis rig was running, secured, and
standardizing before leaving port on July 3rd.

Scientific stations occurred within 24 hours of leaving port. Issues
were minor, occasional communication issues occurred between the
analytical computer and the 1ml burette, resulting in the restart of
the computer. The communication problems did not result in any lost
sample analysis. On station 14, deep samples (bottles 2-7) showed
significant discrepancies from the CTD O2 profile and from adjacent
bottles, the cause was not identified.

Around station 112 a KIO3 standard (2017B.2) change resulted in an out
of spec jump in the Thiosulfate normality. The existing thiosulfate
was subsequently standardized with both and OSIL Oxygen standard
(0.1N) and a second ODF oxygen standard. It was determined that the
2017B.2 standard which had been swapped in was the source of the jump.
This batch was reported to the shore calibration facility which
observed a similar thiosulfate normality discrepancy when some of
standard 2017B.2 was rerun.

An OSIL oxygen standard was run against the usual ODF oxygen standard
in the process of troubleshooting. The OSIL standardization resulted
in a thiosulfate normality within specifications of the last accepted
good standardization using the ODF oxygen standard. The OSIL
standardization followed the same procedures as normal with the
exception of using an Eppendorf pipette to dispense the standard.

A standardization run after station 134 resulted in constantly
increasing thiosulfate titration values, with detectable increases
even in the minutes between each titration. The likely cause of which
was a decreasing concentration of thiosulfate from an infection. The
existing thiosulfate was subsequently discarded and all glassware,
burettes, and tubing was acid washed. A new batch of thiosulfate was
made and used for the remaining stations for the cruise. While the
normal rest period for a new batch of thiosulfate could not be done,
the normality as reported by each standardization run (approx. every
24 hours) showed excellent stability.

The necessity of smoothing the normality of each batch of thiosulfate
was considered separately for each batch. There was no drift or trend
observed in any of the batches, so no smoothing procedure was
performed. A total of 5 batches were made and used throughout the
cruise.

   [image]Preliminary dissolved oxygen section of P06W

[Carpenter1965] Carpenter, J. H., “The Chesapeake Bay
                Institute technique for the Winkler dissolved oxygen
                method,” Limnology and Oceanography, 10, pp. 141-143
                (1965).

[Culberson1991] Culberson, C. H., Knapp, G., Stalcup,
                M., Williams, R. T., and Zemlyak, F., “A comparison of
                methods for the deter mination of dissolved oxygen in
                seawater,” Repor t WHPO 91-2, WOCE Hydrographic
                Programme Office (Aug 1991).


7  TOTAL ALKALINITY


PI
   * Andrew G. Dickson - Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Technicians
   * Manuel Belmonte
   * Derek Smith


7.1  Total Alkalinity

The total alkalinity of a sea water sample is defined as the number of
moles of hydrogen ion equivalent to the excess of proton acceptors
(bases formed from weak acids with a dissociation constant K ≤
10-4.5 at 25°C and zero ionic strength) over proton donors (acids with
K > 10-4.5) in 1 kilogram of sample.


7.2  Total Alkalinity Measurement System

Samples are dispensed using a Sample Delivery System (SDS) consisting
of a volumetric pipette, various relay valves, and two air pumps
controlled by LabVIEW 2012. Before filling the jacketed cell with a
new sample for analysis, the volumetric pipette is cleared of any
residual from the previous sample with the aforementioned air pumps.
The pipette is then rinsed with new sample and filled, allowing for
overflow and time for the sample temperature to equilibrate. The
sample bottle temperature is measured using a DirecTemp thermistor
probe inserted into the sample bottle and the volumetric pipette
temperature is measured using a DirecTemp surface probe placed
directly on the pipette. These temperature measurements are used to
convert the sample volume to mass for analysis.

Samples are analyzed using an open cell titration procedure using two
250 mL jacketed cells. One sample is undergoing titration while the
second is being prepared and equilibrating to 20°C for analysis. After
an initial aliquot of approximately 2.3-2.4 mL of standardized
hydrochloric acid (~0.1M HCl in ~0.6M NaCl solution), the sample is
stirred for 5 minutes while air is bubbled into it at a rate of 200
scc/m to remove any liberated carbon dioxide gas. A Metrohm 876
Dosimat Plus is used for all standardized hydrochloric acid additions.
After equilibration, ~19 aliquots of 0.04 ml are added. Between the pH
range of 3.5 to 3.0, the progress of the titration is monitored using
a pH glass electrode/reference electrode cell, and the total
alkalinity is computed from the titrant volume and e.m.f. measurements
using a non-linear least-squares approach ([Dickson2007]). An Agilent
34970A Data Acquisition/Switch Unit with a 34901A multiplexer is used
to read the voltage measurements from the electrode and monitor the
temperatures from the sample, acid, and room. The calculations for
this procedure are performed automatically using LabVIEW 2012.


7.3  Sample Collection

Samples for total alkalinity measurements were taken at all P06W
Stations (1-143) except for stations 16, 20, 56, 60, 69 and 72. Two
Niskin bottles at each station were sampled twice for duplicate
measurements except for stations where 24 or less Niskin bottles were
sampled. Using silicone tubing, the total alkalinity samples were
drawn from Niskin bottles into 250 mL Pyrex bottles, making sure to
rinse the bottles and Teflon sleeved glass stoppers at least twice
before the final filling. A headspace of approximately 3 mL was
removed and 0.12 mL of saturated mercuric chloride solution was added
to each sample for preservation. After sampling was completed, each
sample’s temperature was equilibrated to approximately 20°C using a
Thermo Scientific RTE water bath.


7.4  Problems and Troubleshooting

The RVIB Nathaniel B. Palmer is a fantastic research vessel. However,
our electrodes appeared to continually pick up larger than expected
interference from the lab’s neighboring instruments or the ship
itself. Electrode plots could show increased electrode sensitivity
over time. Luckily, enough electrodes were brought on P06W and
replacing them minimized bad measurements. Any unusual measurements
(poor electrode plot / profile outlier) were reran when possible.

Normally after samples are collected, they are placed into a water
bath to equilibrate the sample temperature near 20°C, the temperature
at which the sample is measured. This is normally fine when the lab
temperature is within 2°C of 20°C. The lab temperature for P06W ranged
from 19°C to 25°C due to some air conditioning issues. At the
beginning of the cruise, before the air conditioning was fixed, lab
temperatures ranged from 20°C to 25°C. Once the air conditioning was
fixed, the temperature ranged from 19°C to 22°C. This constantly
delayed the titration start times. To remedy the situation, we
equilibrated the sample temperatures to about 22.5°C at the start of
the cruise and 20°C after the lab temperatures were more stable. This
strategy enabled most of the sample temperatures to not exceed a 0.2°C
range while being titrated.

Throughout the cruise, varying issues resulted from the Sample
Delivery System. At the start of the cruise (during station 5), Sample
Delivery System B would not fill the pipette completely so it was
replaced with Sample Delivery System A. About a third of the way into
the cruise (before station 55), a shift in Sample Delivery System A’s
delivery volume was noticed causing smaller samples sizes to be
dispensed: A calibration using a manual pipette resolved this issue.
Once again, towards the end of the cruise (during station 140) Sample
Delivery Station A’s dispensed volume shifted and another calibration
was performed. Lastly, throughout the cruise, the Sample Delivery
System’s program would freeze in Deliver Sample mode or Prepare
Pipette mode and caused a few sample bottles to be emptied. This
resulted in lost samples due to the novice operators. Despite these
issues, a minimal amount of samples were lost, and the amount of
samples that were suspected of being low in volume were reran or
flagged if a rerun was not possible.


7.5  Quality Control

Dickson laboratory Certified Reference Material (CRM) Batch 165 was
used to determine the accuracy of the total alkalinity analyses. The
total alkalinity certified value for this batch is:

• Batch 165 2214.09 ± 0.41 µmol/kg (32;16)

The cited uncertainties represent the standard deviation. Figures in
parentheses are the number of analyses made (total number of analyses;
number of separate bottles analyzed).

At least one reference material was analyzed at every I09N stations
resulting in 110 reference material analyses. On I09N, the measured
total alkalinity value for each batch is:

• Batch 165 2213.37 ± 3.94 µmol kg-1 (179) [mean ± std. dev. (n)]

If greater than 24 Niskin bottles were sampled at a station, two
Niskin bottles on that station were sampled twice to conduct duplicate
analyses. If 24 or less Niskin bottles were sampled at a station, only
one Niskin on that station was sampled twice for duplicate analyses.
The standard deviation for the duplicates measured on P06W is:

Duplicate Standard Deviation ± 3.52 µmol kg-1 (196) [± std. dev. (n)]

The total alkalinity measurements for each P06W stations have not been
compared to measurements taken from the neighboring P06W 2017 stations
and the P06W 2009 stations of similar if not identical coordinates.

3136 total alkalinity values were submitted for P06W. The total
alkalinity of the entire transect is shown as a section in P06W
Alkalinty Section. Although most corrections have been applied and it
is unlikely that any additional corrections will need to be performed,
this data should be considered preliminary until a more thorough
analysis of the data can take place on shore, especially during the
stations where the SDS Pipette Boards were having problems.

   [image]P06W Alkalinty Section

   Section of total alkalinity along P06W (Stations 1 to 143).




8  DISSOLVED INORGANIC CARBON (DIC)


PI’s
   * Rik Wanninkhof (NOAA/AOML)
   * Richard A. Feely (NOAA/PMEL)

Technicians
   * Andrew Collins (NOAA/PMEL)
   * Charles Featherstone (NOAA/AOML)


8.1  Sample collection

Samples for DIC measurements were drawn (according to procedures
outlined in the PICES Publication, *Guide to Best Practices for Ocean
CO2 Measurements* [Dickson2007]) from Niskin bottles into 294 ml
borosilicate glass bottles using silicone tubing. The flasks were
rinsed once and filled from the bottom with care not to entrain any
bubbles, overflowing by at least one-half volume. The sample tube was
pinched off and withdrawn, creating a 6 ml headspace, followed by 0.16
ml of saturated HgCl_2 solution which was added as a preservative. The
sample bottles were then sealed with glass stoppers lightly covered
with Apiezon-L grease and were stored at room temperature for a
maximum of 12 hours.


8.2  Equipment

The analysis was done by coulometry with two analytical systems (AOML
3 and AOML 4) used simultaneously on the cruise. Each system consisted
of a coulometer (CM5015 UIC Inc) coupled with a Dissolved Inorganic
Carbon Extractor (DICE). The DICE system was developed by Esa Peltola
and Denis Pierrot of NOAA/AOML and Dana Greeley of NOAA/PMEL to
modernize a carbon extractor called SOMMA ([Johnson1985],
[Johnson1987], [Johnson1993], [Johnson1992], [Johnson1999]).

The two DICE systems (PMEL 1 and PMEL 2) were set up in a seagoing
container modified for use as a shipboard laboratory on the aft main
working deck of the RVIB Nathaniel B. Palmer.


8.3  DIC Analysis

In coulometric analysis of DIC, all carbonate species are converted to
CO2 (gas) by addition of excess hydrogen ion (acid) to the seawater
sample, and the evolved CO2 gas is swept into the titration cell of
the coulometer with pure air or compressed nitrogen, where it reacts
quantitatively with a proprietary reagent based on ethanolamine to
generate hydrogen ions. In this process, the solution changes from
blue to colorless, triggering a current through the cell and causing
coulometrical generation of OH^- ions at the anode. The OH^- ions
react with the H^+ and the solution turns blue again. A beam of light
is shone through the solution, and a photometric detector at the
opposite side of the cell senses the change in transmission. Once the
percent transmission reaches its original value, the coulometric
titration is stopped, and the amount of CO2 that enters the cell is
determined by integrating the total change during the titration.


8.4  DIC Calculation

Calculation of the amount of CO2 injected was according to the CO2
handbook [DOE1994]. The concentration of CO2 ([CO2]) in the samples
was determined according to:


                         (Counts - Blank * Run Time) * K µmol/count
   [CO2] = Cal. Factor * ——————————————————————————————————————————
                            pipette volume * density of sample


where Cal. Factor is the calibration factor, Counts is the instrument
reading at the end of the analysis, Blank is the counts/minute
determined from blank runs performed at least once for each cell
solution, Run Time is the length of coulometric titration (in
minutes), and K is the conversion factor from counts to micromoles.

The instrument has a salinity sensor, but all DIC values were
recalculated to a molar weight (µmol/kg) using density obtained from
the CTD’s salinity. The DIC values were corrected for dilution due to
the addition of 0.12 ml of saturated HgCl_2 used for sample
preservation. The total water volume of the sample bottles was 305.55
ml (calibrated by Dana Greeley, AOML). The correction factor used for
dilution was 1.0004. A correction was also applied for the offset from
the CRM. This additive correction was applied for each cell using the
CRM value obtained at the beginning of the cell. The average (± SD)
correction was 0.97 ± 1.22 µmol/kg for PMEL 1 and 1.00 ± 1.00 µmol/kg
for PMEL 2.

The coulometer cell solution was replaced after 25 - 28 mg of carbon
was titrated, typically after 9 - 12 hours of continuous use. The
average (± SD) blanks for PMEL 1 and PMEL 2 were 17.8 ± 5.8 and 18.3 ±
5.8 counts, respectively.


8.5  Calibration, Accuracy, and Precision

The stability of each coulometer cell solution was confirmed three
different ways.

1. Gas loops were run at the beginning of each cell

2. CRM’s supplied by Dr. A. Dickson of SIO, were measured near the
   beginning; middle and end of each cell

3. Duplicate samples from the same niskin were run throughout the
   life of the cell solution.

Each coulometer was calibrated by injecting aliquots of pure CO2
(99.999%) by means of an 8-port valve [Wilke1993] outfitted with two
calibrated sample loops of different sizes (~1ml and ~2ml). The
instruments were each separately calibrated at the beginning of each
cell with a minimum of two sets of these gas loop injections.

The accuracy of the DICE measurement is determined with the use of
standards (Certified Reference Materials (CRMs), consisting of
filtered and UV irradiated seawater) supplied by Dr. A. Dickson of
Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO). The CRM accuracy is
determined manometrically on land in San Diego and the DIC data
reported to the data base have been corrected to this batch 165 CRM
value. The CRM certified value for this batch is 2064.33 µmol/kg.

The precision of the two DICE systems can be demonstrated via the
replicate samples. Approximately 11.5% of the niskins sampled were
duplicates taken as a check of our precision. These replicate samples
were interspersed throughout the station analysis for quality
assurance and integrity of the coulometer cell solutions. The average
absolute difference from the mean of these replicates is 0.6 µmol/kg -
No major systematic differences between the replicates were observed.

The pipette volume was determined by taking aliquots of distilled
water from volumes at known temperatures. The weights with the
appropriate densities were used to determine the volume of the
pipettes.
Calibration data during this cruise:


 UNIT    L Loop    S Loop    Pipette        Ave CRM1    Std Dev  Dupes    
——————  ————————  ————————  ——————————  ——————————————  ———————  —————
PMEL 1  1.002533  1.006530  27.5812 ml  2064.13, N= 82    1.22   1.56     
PMEL 2  1.004927  1.002611  26.3417 ml  2065.25, N= 68    1.24   1.45     



8.6  Underway DIC Samples

Underway samples were collected from the flow thru system in the Hydro
Lab during transit. Discrete DIC samples were collected approximately
every 4 hours with duplicates every fifth sample. A total of 80
discrete DIC samples including duplicates were collected while
underway. The average difference for replicates of underway DIC
samples was 1.24 µmol/kg and the average standard deviation was 0.88.


8.7  Summary

The overall performance of the analytical equipment was good during
the cruise. Several small leaks were fixed in the HSG during the
cruise.

Including the duplicates, 3,889 samples were analyzed from 143 CTD
casts for dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) which means that there is a
DIC value for approximately 81% of the niskins tripped. The
distribution of DIC with depth along the 2017 cruise track can be seen
in Figure 1, while differences in DIC distributions observed between
2009 and 2017 can be seen in Figure 2. The DIC data reported to the
database directly from the ship are to be considered preliminary until
a more thorough quality assurance can be completed shore side.

   [image]Distribution of dissolved inorganic carbon measured during
   the 2017 GO-SHIP P06 research expedition.

   [image]Changes observed in the distributions of dissolved inorganic
   carbon measured during the 2017 P06 occupation compared to those
   measured during the 2009 P06 occupation.

[DOE1994] DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). (1994). *Handbook
          of Methods for the Analysis of the Various Parameters of the
          Carbon Dioxide System in Seawater*. Version 2.0.
          ORNL/CDIAC-74. Ed. A. G. Dickson and C. Goyet. Carbon
          Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National
          Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.

[Dickson2007] Dickson, A.G., Sabine, C.L. and Christian,
              J.R. (Eds.), (2007): *Guide to Best Practices for Ocean
              CO2 Measurements*. PICES Special Publication 3, 191 pp.

[Feely1998] 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.

[Johnson1985] Johnson, K.M., A.E. King, and J. McN.
              Sieburth (1985): *"Coulometric DIC analyses for marine
              studies: An introduction."* Mar. Chem., 16, 61-82.

[Johnson1987] 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.

[Johnson1992] 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.

[Johnson1993] 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.

[Johnson1999] Johnson, K.M., K√∂rtzinger, A.; Mintrop,
              L.; Duinker, J.C.; and Wallace, D.W.R. (1999).
              *Coulometric total carbon dioxide analysis for marine
              studies: Measurement and interna consistency of underway
              surface TCO2 concentrations.* Marine Chemistry
              67:123-44.

[Lewis1998] Lewis, E. and D. W. R. Wallace (1998) Program
            developed for CO2 system calculations. Oak Ridge, Oak
            Ridge National Laboratory.
            http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/co2rprt.html

[Wilke1993] 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




9  DISCRETE pH ANALYSES (Total Scale)


PI
   * Dr. Andrew Dickson

Technicians
   * Stephanie Mumma
   * Manuel Belmonte


9.1  Sampling

Samples were collected in 250 mL Pyrex glass bottles and sealed using
grey butyl rubber stoppers held in place by aluminum-crimped caps.
Each bottle was rinsed two times and allowed to overflow by one
additional bottle volume. Prior to sealing, each sample was given a 1%
headspace and poisoned with 0.02% of the sample volume of saturated
mercuric chloride (HgCl_2). Samples were collected only from Niskin
bottles that were also being sampled for both total alkalinity and
dissolved inorganic carbon in order to completely characterize the
carbon system. Additionally, duplicate samples were collected from all
stations for quality control purposes.


9.2  Analysis

pH was measured spectrophotometrically on the total hydrogen scale
using an Agilent 8453 spectrophotometer and in accordance with the
methods outlined by Carter et al., 2013. [Carter2013]. A Kloehn V6
syringe pump was used to autonomously fill, mix, and dispense sample
through the custom 10cm flow-through jacketed cell. A Thermo NESLAB
RTE-7 recirculating water bath was used to maintain the cell
temperature at 25.0°C during analyses, and a YSI 4600 precision
thermometer and probe were used to monitor and record the temperature
of each sample immediately after the spectrophotometric measurements
were taken. The indicator meta-cresol purple (mCP) was used to measure
the absorbance of light measured at two different wavelengths (434 nm,
578 nm) corresponding to the maximum absorbance peaks for the acidic
and basic forms of the indicator dye. A baseline absorbance was also
measured and subtracted from these wavelengths. The baseline
absorbance was determined by averaging the absorbances from 725-735nm.
The ratio of the absorbances was then used to calculate pH on the
total scale using the equations outlined in Liu et al., 2011
[Liu2011]. The salinity data used was obtained from the conductivity
sensor on the CTD.


9.3  Reagents

The mCP indicator dye was made up to a concentration of approximately
2.0mM and a total ionic strength of 0.7 M. A total of four batches
were used during P06, Leg 1. The pHs of these batches were adjusted
with 0.1 mol kg^-1 solutions of HCl and NaOH (in 0.6 mol kg^-1 NaCl
background) to approximately 7.75, measured with a pH meter calibrated
with NBS buffers. The indicator was obtained from Dr. Robert Byrne at
the University of Southern Florida and was purified using the flash
chromatography technique described by Patsavas et al., 2013.
[Patsavas2013].


9.4  Data Processing

An indicator dye is itself an acid-base system that can change the pH
of the seawater to which it is added. Therefore it is important to
estimate and correct for this perturbation to the seawater’s pH for
each batch of dye used during the cruise. To determine this
correction, multiple bottles from each station were measured twice,
once with a single addition of indicator dye and once with a double
addition of indicator dye. The measured absorbance ratio (R) and an
isosbestic absorbance (A_{\text{iso}}) were determined for each
measurement, where:

                          A_{578} - A_{base}
                      R = ——————————————————
                          A_{434} - A_{base}

and

                   A_{iso} = A_{488} - A_{base}


The change in R for a given change in A_{iso}, ∆{iso}, was then plotted 
against the measured R-value for the normal amount of dye and fitted with 
a linear regression. From this fit the slope and y-intercept (b and a 
respectively) are determined by:

                        ∆R/∆A_{iso} = bR + a

From this the corrected ratio (R') corresponding to the measured
absorbance ratio if no indicator dye were present can be determined
by:

                     R' = R - A_{iso} (bR + a)


9.5  Problems and Troubleshooting

Many of the samples had a high dissolved gas content and degassed when
brought to room temperature. This could be clearly seen in the
formation of bubbles inside the sealed sample bottles and in the
spectrophotometric pH system (Kloehn syringe pump, sample tubing, and
the 10 cm cell). Bubbles were especially difficult to eliminate in the
Kloehn syringe pump, which would accumulate large bubbles at the top
after running a number of samples from each station. Efforts were made
to reduce bubble formation by verifying all pump fittings were tight,
slowing down the speed of the syringe pump, and holding samples below
25°C. When bubbles formed during station analysis, they were cleared
by the aforementioned methods between samples. Bubbles were also
cleared from the syringe by flushing with ethanol, followed by DI
water. This method of flushing with ethanol and DI water proved to be
effective and removed bubbles when accumulated. These bubbles appeared
to have no effect on the samples’ pH values. On two occasions near the
beginning of the P06, Leg 1, the valve on the Kloehn syringe pump
appeared to be "sticking" in between ports, resulting in cross-port
contamination of the measured sample. The spare Kloehn pump was
installed and this issue was not encountered again. The two affected
Niskin samples were measured again from the original sample bottles
with good results.

The Labview software that controls the automated pH system crashed
once during P06, Leg 1, resulting in the loss of data for one
measurement. The uncorrected pH values were documented in the pH lab
notebook. This sample was run again and the resulting pH value for the
second analysis was used for data submission.


9.6  Standardization/Results

The precision of the data was assessed from measurements of duplicate
analyses, replicate analyses (two successive measurements on one
bottle), and certified reference material (CRM) Batch 165 (provided by
Dr. Andrew Dickson, UCSD). Two duplicate and two replicate
measurements were performed on every station when at least twenty-
three Niskins were sampled. If less than twenty-three Niskins were
sampled, only one duplicate and one replicate measurement were
performed. CRMs were measured at the beginning and ending of each day.

The precision statistics for P06, Leg 1 are:


            Duplicate precision    ± 0.00057 (n=206)        

            Replicate precision    ± 0.00039 (n=244)        

            B165                   7.7598 ± 0.00104 (n=78)  

            B165 within-bottle SD  ± 0.00026 (n=78)         


3478 pH values were submitted for P06, Leg 1. Additional corrections
will need to be performed and these data should be considered
preliminary until a more thorough analysis of the data can take place
on shore. The preliminary pH of the entire transect is shown as a
section in pH Section.

   [image]pH Section

   Section of preliminary pH measurements on the total scale along P06
   cruise track (Stations 1 to 143).

[Carter2013] Carter, B.R., Radich, J.A., Doyle, H.L., and
             Dickson, A.G., "An Automated Spectrometric System for
             Discrete and Underway Seawater pH Measurements,"
             Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 2013.

[Liu2011] Liu, X., Patsavas, M.C., Byrne R.H., "Purification
          and Characterization of meta Cresol Purple for
          Spectrophotometric Seawater pH Measurements," Environmental
          Science and Technology, 2011.

[Patsavas2013] Patsavas, M.C., Byrne, R.H.,  and Liu X.
               "Purification of meta-cresol purple and cresol red by
               flash chromatography: Procedures for ensuring accurate
               spectrophotometric seawater pH measurements," Marine
               Chemistry, 2013.




10  CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, AND SF6


Analysts
   * Jim Happell
   * David Cooper
   * Kelly McCabe


10.1  Sample Collection

All samples were collected from depth using 10.4 liter Niskin bottles.
None of the Niskin bottles used showed a CFC contamination throughout
the cruise. All bottles in use remained inside the CTD hanger between
casts.

Sampling was conducted first at each station, according to WOCE
protocol. This avoids contamination by air introduced at the top of
the Niskin bottle as water was being removed. A water sample was
collected from the Niskin bottle petcock using viton tubing to fill a
300 ml BOD bottle. The viton tubing was flushed of air bubbles. The
BOD bottle was placed into a plastic overflow container. Water was
allowed to fill BOD bottle from the bottom into the overflow
container. The stopper was held in the overflow container to be
rinsed. Once water started to flow out of the overflow container the
overflow container/BOD bottle was moved down so the viton tubing came
out and the bottle was stoppered under water while still in the
overflow container. A plastic cap was snapped on to hold the stopper
in place. One duplicate sample was taken on every other station from
random Niskin bottles. Air samples, pumped into the system using an
Air Cadet pump from a Dekoron air intake hose mounted high on the
foremast were run when time permitted. Air measurements are used as a
check on accuracy.


10.2  Equipment and Technique

CFC-11, CFC-12, and SF6 were measured on 129 0f 143 stations for a
total of 3500 samples. Salt water flooded the analytical system just
after analyzing station 48, which was the cause of most of the missed
stations, although some of the added stations with very short station
spacing were also skipped. 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. 202 ml water samples were purged with nitrogen and the
compounds of interest were trapped on a main Porapack N/Carboxen 1000
trap held at ~ -20°C with a Vortec Tube cooler. After the sample had
been purged and trapped for 6 minutes at 250ml/min 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 180°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 Porapak N and is held
at ~ -20°C with a Vortec Tube cooler. The focus trap was flash heated
by direct resistance to 180°C to release the compounds of interest
onto the analytical pre-columns. The first precolumn was a 5 cm length
of 1/16” tubing packed with 80/100 mesh molecular sieve 5A. This
column was used to hold back N_2O and keep it from entering the main
column. The second pre-column was the first 5 meters of a 60 m Gaspro
capillary column with the main column consisting of the remaining 55
meters. The analytical pre-columns were held in-line with the main
analytical column for the first 50 seconds of the chromatographic run.
After 35 seconds, 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 samples were stored at room temperature and analyzed within 24
hours of collection. Every 12 to 18 measurements were followed by a
purge blank and a standard. 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.


10.3  Calibration

A gas phase standard, 33780, was used for calibration. The
concentrations of the compounds in this standard are reported on the
SIO 2005 absolute calibration scale. 5 calibration curves were run
over the course of the cruise. Estimated accuracy is ± 2%. Precision
for CFC-12, CFC-11, and SF6 was 1.2%, 1.6% and 2.5% respectively.
Estimated limit of detection is 1 fmol/kg for CFC-11, 3 fmol/kg for
CFC-12, and 0.1 fmol/kg for SF6




11  DISSOLVED ORGANIC PHOSPHORUS


PIs
   * Angela Knapp (FSU)

Technician
   * Kelly McCabe

Marine dissolved organic matter (DOM) is considered a primary
substrate for heterotrophic microbes, but can also be used by some
nutrient-limited phytoplankton that especially consume dissolved
organic phosphorus (DOP) when phosphate (PO4) is scarce. However,
very few measurements of surface ocean DOP concentration have been
made, which limits our understanding the extent to which DOP is
utilized by phytoplankton. The goal of this data collection is to
increase the spatial coverage of DOP measurements to constrain the use
of DOP as a nutrient source supporting export production and di-
nitrogen fixation in the global marine environment.

DOP samples were collected from the upper 400 meters at stations with
two-degree longitude spacing. A total of 375 samples from 29 stations
were collected. All samples were hand filtered through Whatman 25mm
Puradisc 0.2 µm PES filters. The syringe and filter were rinsed with
40mL of seawater before each 60mL HDPE bottle was rinsed once with
40mL of filtered seawater. All samples were stored onboard at -20°C to
preserve for land-based analysis.

Analysis: All samples will be analyzed for total dissolved P (TDP)
using the high temperature combustion magnesium sulfate oxidation
techniques modified according to Monaghan and Ruttenberg
[Monaghan1999]. DOP concentration will be reported as the difference
between the TDP concentration and the PO4 concentration determined
onboard by ODF.

[Monaghan1999] Monaghan, E. J., and K. C. Ruttenberg.
               “Dissolved organic phosphorus in the coastal ocean:
               Reassessment of available methods and seasonal
               phosphorus profiles from the Eel River Shelf.” Limnol.
               Oceanogr., 44(7), 1702-1714 (1999)




12  Nitrate δ15N and δ18O


PIs
   * Angela Knapp (FSU)

Technician
   * Kelly McCabe

Nitrate (NO3^-) is the dominant dissolved inorganic form of nitrogen
in the oceans. As a macro-nutrient, nitrate is depleted in the surface
due to biological consumption and abundant in the ocean interior due
to remineralization. The dual isotopes of NO3^- δ15N and δ18O)
allow us to constrain the utilization and consumption processes
controlling the nitrogen cycle within the South Pacific Subtropical
Gyre.

Nitrate Δ15N samples were collected from all depths at every two
degrees of longitude. Two 60mL samples were collected from each niskin
bottle fired in the shallowest six depths. One 30mL sample was taken
from all other depths. All samples collected above 400 meters were
hand filtered with a BD 60mL Luer-Lok tip syringe and a 25mm Puradisc
0.2¬µm PES filter. The syringe and filter were rinsed with 40mL of
seawater before each HDPE (both 60mL and 30mL) bottles were rinsed
once with half their full volume of filtered seawater. The samples
were stored onboard at -20°C to preserve for land-based analysis.

Analysis: The denitrifier method [Casciotti2002] [Sigman2001] will be
used to analyze NO3^- δ15N and δ18O. Briefly, this method converts
all NO3^- to nitrous oxide (N2O) via denitrifying bacteria before
the sample is analyzed by an IRMS.

[Casciotti2002] Casciotti, K. L., D. M. Sigman, M. G.
                Hastings, J. K. Bohlke, and A. Hilkert. “Measurement
                of the oxygen isotopic composition of nitrate in
                seawater and freshwater using the denitrifier method.”
                Anal. Chem., 74, 4905-4912 (2002)

[Sigman2001] Sigman, D. M., K. L. Casciotti, M. Andreani,
             C. Barford, M. Calanter, and J. K. Bohlke. “A bacterial
             method for the nitrogen isotopic analysis of nitrate in
             seawater and freshwater.” Anal. Chem., 73, 4145-4153
             (2001)




13  DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON AND TOTAL DISSOLVED NITROGEN


PI
   * Craig Carlson (UCSB)

Technician
   * Chance English

Analysts
   * Keri Opalk
   * Elisa Halewood

Support
   NSF


13.1  Project Goals

The goal of the DOM project is to evaluate dissolved organic carbon
(DOC) and total dissolved nitrogen (TDN) concentrations along the P06
zonal transect (30 to 32.5°S & 153°E to 72°W). During the P06 cruise
Leg 1 (July - Aug 2017), casts were specifically targeted in order to
overlap with the TCO2 sampling program.


13.2  Sampling

DOC profiles were taken at approximately every other station from 26
of 36 niskin bottles ranging the full depth of the water column (68
stations; ~1800 DOC and 600 TDN samples. DOC samples were passed
through an inline filter holding a combusted GF/F filter attached
directly to the Niskin for samples in the top 500 m of each cast. This
was done to eliminated particles larger than 0.7 µm from the sample.
Samples from deeper depths were not filtered. Previous work has
demonstrated that there is no resolvable difference between filtered
and unfiltered samples in waters below the upper 500 m at the µmol
kg^-1 resolution. All samples were rinsed 3 times with about 5 mL of
seawater and collected into combusted 40 mL glass EPA vials. Samples
were fixed with 50 ¬µL of 4N Hydrochloric acid and stored at 4°C on
board. Samples were shipped back to UCSB for analysis via high
temperature combustion on Shimadzu TOC-V or TOC L analyzers.

Sample Vials were prepared for this cruise by soaking in 10%
Hydrochloric acid, followed by a 3 times rinse with DI water. The
vials were then combusted at 450°C for 4 hours to remove any organic
matter. Vial caps were cleaned by soaking in DI water overnight,
followed by a 3 times rinse with DI water and left out to dry.

Sampling goals for this cruise were to continue high resolution, long
term monitoring of DOC distribution throughout the water column, in
order to help better understand biogeochemical cycling in global
oceans.


13.3  Standard Operating Procedure for DOC Analyses- Carlson Lab UCSB

DOC samples will be analyzed via high temperature combustion using a
Shimadzu TOC-V or Shimadzu TOC-L at an in shore based laboratory at
the University of California, Santa Barbara. The operating conditions
of the Shimadzu TOC-V have been slightly modified from the
manufacturer's model system. The condensation coil has been removed
and the headspace of an internal water trap was reduced to minimize
the system's dead space. The combustion tube contains 0.5 cm Pt
pillows placed on top of Pt alumina beads to improve peak shape and to
reduce alteration of combustion matrix throughout the run. CO2 free
carrier gas is produced with a Whatman® gas generator [Carlson2010].
Samples are drawn into a 5 ml injection syringe and acidified with 2M
HCL (1.5%) and sparged for 1.5 minutes with CO2 free gas Three to five
replicate 100 µl of sample are injected into a combustion tube heated
to 680°C. The resulting gas stream is passed through several water and
halide traps, including an added magnesium perchlorate trap. The CO2
in the carrier gas is analyzed with a non-dispersive infrared detector
and the resulting peak area is integrated with Shimadzu
chromatographic software. Injections continue until the at least three
injections meet the specified range of a SD of 0.1 area counts, CV
≤ 2% or best 3 of 5 injections.

Extensive conditioning of the combustion tube with repeated injections
of low carbon water (LCW) and deep seawater is essential to minimize
the machine blanks. After conditioning, the system blank is assessed
with UV oxidized low carbon water. The system response is standardized
daily with a four-point calibration curve of potassium hydrogen
phthalate solution in LCW. All samples are systematically referenced
against low carbon water and deep Sargasso Sea (2600 m) or Santa
Barbara Channel (400 m) reference waters and surface Sargasso Sea or
Santa Barbara Channel sea water every 6 - 8 analyses [Hansell1998].
The standard deviation of the deep and surface references analyzed
throughout a run generally have a coefficient of variation ranging
between 1-3% over the 3-7 independent analyses (number of references
depends on size of the run). Daily reference waters were calibrated
with DOC CRM provided by D. Hansell (University of Miami;
[Hansell2005]).


13.4  DOC calculation

                  average sample area - machine blank area
            µMC = ————————————————————————————————————————
                           slope of std curve


13.5  Standard Operating Procedure for TDN analyses- Carlson Lab UCSB

TDN samples were analyzed via high temperature combustion using a
Shimadzu TOC-V with attached Shimadzu TNM1 unit at an in-shore based
laboratory at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The
operating conditions of the Shimadzu TOC-V were slightly modified from
the manufacturer's model system. The condensation coil was removed and
the headspace of an internal water trap was reduced to minimize the
system's dead space. The combustion tube contained 0.5 cm Pt pillows
placed on top of Pt alumina beads to improve peak shape and to reduce
alteration of combustion matrix throughout the run. Carrier gas was
produced with a Whatman® gas generator [Carlson2010] and ozone was
generated by the TNM1 unit at 0.5L/min flow rate. Three to five
replicate 100 µl of sample were injected at 130mL/min flow rate into
the combustion tube heated to 680°C, where the TN in the sample was
converted to nitric oxide (NO). The resulting gas stream was passed
through an electronic dehumidifier. The dried NO gas then reacted with
ozone producing an excited chemiluminescence NO2 species [Walsh1989]
and the fluorescence signal was detected with a Shimadzu TNMI
chemiluminescence detector. The resulting peak area was integrated
with Shimadzu chromatographic software. Injections continue until at
least three injections meet the specified range of a SD of 0.1 area
counts, CV ≤2% or best 3 of 5 injections.

Extensive conditioning of the combustion tube with repeated injections
of low nitrogen water and deep seawater was essential to minimize the
machine blanks. After conditioning, the system blank was assessed with
UV oxidized low nitrogen water. The system response was standardized
daily with a four-point calibration curve of potassium nitrate
solution in blank water. All samples were systematically referenced
against low nitrogen water and deep Sargasso Sea reference waters
(2600 m) and surface Sargasso Sea water every 6 - 8 analyses
[Hansell1998]. Daily reference waters were calibrated with deep CRM
provided by D. Hansell (University of Miami; [Hansell2005]).

Dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) concentrations are calculated as the
difference between TDN and DIN. Samples with less than 10 µmol/kg DIN
are most reliable estimates of DON.


13.6  TDN calculation

                  average sample area - machine blank area
            µMN = ————————————————————————————————————————
                           slope of std curve


[Carlson2010] Carlson, C. A., D. A. Hansell, N. B.
              Nelson, D. A. Siegel, W. M. Smethie, S. Khatiwala, M. M.
              Meyers and E. Halewood 2010. Dissolved organic carbon
              export and subsequent remineralization in the
              mesopelagic and bathypelagic realms of the North
              Atlantic basin. Deep Sea Research II, 57: 1433-1445.

[Hansell1998] Hansell, D.A. and C.A. Carlson 1998. Deep
              ocean gradients in the concentration of dissolved
              organic carbon. Nature, 395: 263-266.

[Hansell2005] Hansell, D.A. 2005  Dissolved Organic
              Carbon Reference Material Program.  EOS, 35:318-319.

[Walsh1989] Walsh, T.W., 1989.  Total dissolved nitrogen
            in seawater: a new high-temperature combustion method and
            a comparison with photo-oxidation. Mar. Chem., 26:295-311.




14  (14/13C)


PI
   * Ann McNichol (WHOI)

Technician
   * Chance English


A total of 27 samples were collected from 24 stations along Leg 1 of
the P06 zonal transect (30-32.5°S & 153°E to 72°W). Samples were taken
from only the surface bottle (~ 5m) at each station with approximately
2.5 degrees of spacing between each station. Duplicates were made at
three separate stations. Samples were collected in 500 mL airtight
glass bottles. Using silicone tubing, the flasks were rinsed 2 times
with seawater from the surface niskin. While keeping the tubing at the
bottom of the flask, the flask was filled and flushed by allowing it
to overflow 1.5 times its volume. Once the sample was taken, about 10
mL of water was removed to create a headspace and 120 ¬µL of 50%
saturated mercuric chloride solution was added to the sample. To avoid
contamination, gloves were used when handling all sampling equipment
and plastic bags were used to cover any surface where sampling or
processing occurred.

After each sample was taken, the glass stoppers and ground glass joint
were dried and Apiezon-M grease was applied to ensure an airtight
seal. Stoppers were secured with a large rubber band wrapped around
the entire bottle. Samples were stored in AMS crates in the ship’s dry
laboratory. Samples were shipped to WHOI for analysis.

The radiocarbon/DIC content of the seawater (DI14C) is measured by
extracting the inorganic carbon as CO2 gas, converting the gas to
graphite and then counting the number of 14C atoms in the sample
directly using an accelerated mass spectrometer (AMS).

Radiocarbon values will be reported as 14C using established
procedures modified for AMS applications. The 13C/12C of the CO2
extracted from seawater is measured relative to the 13C/12C of a CO2
gas standard calibrated to the PDB standard using and isotope radio
mass spectrometer (IRMS) at NOSAMS.




15  LADCP


PI
   * Dr. Andreas Thurnherr

Cruise Participant
   * Alma Carolina Castillo-Trujillo


LADCP was collected during full depth CTD casts at all stations by
Alma Carolina Castillo-Trujillo and Natalie Zielinski. Preliminary
processing and QC was made on board by Alma Carolina Castillo-
Trujillo. Approximately every 5 casts or when data was questionable
post-processed data was sent to Andreas Thurnherr for further QC.


15.1  LADCP system configuration

An upward-looking (UL) and a downward-looking (DL) ADCPs and a
rechargeable battery were affixed to the rosette using custom brackets
(Figure 1 and 2). The UL instrument was positioned ~5 inches over the
top rosette ring while the DL instrument was positioned between Niskin
bottles 4 and 6 and affixed through the brackets to the rosette bottom
center bar.

An external magnetometer/accelerometer package (independent
measurement package; IMP) was installed on the rosette to collect
additional pitch, roll and heading data. The instrument was removed
from the rosette after station 13 after a leak was found in the
pressure case. A star cable was used to connect both UL and DL LADCPs
to the battery and deck/connection cables.

While on deck, two communications and one power cable ran from the aft
dry lab to the baltic room where the ctd package rested while on
transit between stations. One of the power cables connected the
battery to a battery charger while the second power cable connected
the ADCPs through the star cable to a power supply. The communications
cable connected the ADCPS to a MAC computer via a USB serial adapter
which was used for communications to the instrument and data download.
The LADCP acquisitions computer clock was synced to the master clock
via the ship network system.

Two different ADCP instruments were used during the cruise. The
Teledyne RDI WHM150 (S/N:24544) as DL and the Teledyne RDI WHM300
(S/N:24997) as the UL. The battery package was a Deepsea Power and
Light SB 48 V/16 A (S/N: 02126). All instruments were set up to record
velocity data with 8 m bins and zero blanking distance. Staggered
pinging was used to avoid previous ping interference.


15.2  Problems/Setup changes

For stations 5 to 13 problems were due to a leak in the IMP pressure
case. IMP was removed and replaced with a star cable after station 13.

• Station 5: Unable to connect to LADCPs. Data was lost.

• Station 6: Unable to connect to LADCPs. Data was lost.

• Station 7: Unable to connect to UL instrument. Data for UL ADCP
  data was lost.

• Station 8: Unable to connect to UL instrument. Data for UL ADCP
  data was lost.

• Station 9: Unable to connect to UL instrument. Data for UL ADCP
  data was lost.

• Station 10 to 13: Unable to connect to LADCPs. Data was lost.

• Station 31: 2 UL files were created.

• Station 37: 2 UL files were created.

For stations 60, 63, 65, 77, 89 and 90 problems were due to a
communication error in the Acquire software. After restarting computer
and replacing the Keyspan serial-to-usb port, problem was resolved.

• Station 60: Manually downloaded data.

• Station 63: Manually downloaded data.

• Station 65: Manually downloaded data, USB serial adapter was
  replaced.

• Station 77: Manually downloaded data. 2 casts were made. Cast 1
  was canceled at the surface due to bad weather.

• Station 89: Manually downloaded data.

• Station 90: Manually downloaded data.

• Station 97: Broken beam 3.

• Station 121: 2 casts were made. Cast 1 was canceled at ~600 m due
  to bad weather.

• Station 126: 2 casts were made. Cast 1 was canceled at the surface
  due to bad weather.

• Station 130: Due to a CTD altimetry problem, two casts were made
  and saved into one file. First cast was canceled after ~50m. Data
  was not downloaded between casts.

DCP programming and data acquisition were carried out by Alma Carolina
Castillo-Trujillo and Natalie Zielinski using the LDEO Acquire
software running on a MAC computer. Prior to each cast, the
corresponding command files were send to both the UL and DL ADCPs,
communications were then terminated, deck cables disconnected and all
connections were secured and sealed with dummy plugs. After the
rosette was brought back up on desk following a cast, the
communication and power cables were connected to the MAC computer.
Data acquisition were terminated and files were downloaded with the
corresponding command using the Acquire software. The battery was
disconnected from the star cable and connected to a charger via a deck
cable running from the the baltic room to the dry aft lab. The battery
remained connected to the charger between stations. The battery pack
was periodically vented manually to prevent pressure build up. Log
files were kept for each cast with LADCP and CTD information to ensure
all steps were made properly.


15.3  Data Processing and Quality Control

The ADCP data was processed daily by AC. Castillo using the Matlab-
based LDEO LADCP processing software version IX (1). Processing
warnings and figures created through the software were reviewed for
signs of anomalies such as rosette rotation and tilt, biased shear,
agreement between LADCP and SADCP velocities, beam strength and range
and ADCP distance to the sea bottom. Data was sent to Andreas
Thurnherr every 5 stations or when questionable profiles were
observed.

Figure 3 and 4 show the preliminary results of zonal and meridional
velocities for all the available stations. Maximum values reach up ~40
cm/s in the upper ~200 m. There is a relatively strong northward
current (~15 cm/s) on the west side of the Kermadec Trench at -178 W.
Vertical velocity weas also computed for the first 53 stations using
the LADCP_w software V1.3 (1). Figure 5 shows a contour plot of
vertical velocities on available stations. Typical values range at ~3
cm/s. Vertical propagating signals are seen throughout the transect.
Further QC and post-processing of horizontal and vertical velocities
at all available stations will be done by Andreas Thurnherr at LDEO
post-cruise.

Available for download at http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LADCP

   [image]Downward looking ADCP

   [image]Upward looking ADCP

   [image]LADCP derived zonal velocities observed from available
   stations during P06-leg1. Grey lines indicate density contours
   calculated from CTD observations.

   [image]LADCP derived meridional velocities observed from available
   stations during P06-leg1. Grey lines indicate density contours
   calculated from CTD observations.

   [image]Vertical velocities for stations 1 to 53 during P06-leg1
   calculated with the LADCP_w software V1.3 using LADCP and CTD
   observations.




16  Chipods


PI
   * Jonathan Nash

Cruise Participant
   * Ratnaksha Lele


16.1  Overview

Chipods are instrument packages that measure turbulence and mixing in
the ocean. Specifically, they are used to compute turbulent
diffusivity of heat (Κ) which is inferred from measuring dissipation
rate of temperature variance (χ) from a shipboard CTD. Chipods are
self-contained, robust and record temperature and derivative signals
from FP07 thermistors at 100 Hz; they also record sensor motion at the
same sampling rate. Details of the measurement and our methods for
processing chi can be found in Moum and Nash [2009] (Moum, J., and J.
Nash, Mixing Measurements on an Equatorial Ocean Mooring, Journal of
Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 26(2), 317-336, 2009). In an
effort to expand our global coverage of deep ocean turbulence
measurements, the ocean mixing group at Oregon State University has
supported chipod measurements on all of the major global repeat
hydrography cruises since Dec 2013.


16.2  System Configuration and Sampling

Three chipods were mounted on the rosette to measure temperature (T),
its time derivative (dT/dt), and x and z (horizontal and vertical)
accelerations at a sampling rate of 100 Hz. Two chipods were oriented
such that their sensors pointed upward. The third one was pointed
downward.

The up-looking sensors were positioned higher than the Niskin bottles
on the rosette in order to avoid measuring turbulence generated by
flow around the rosette and/or its wake while its profiling speed
oscillates as a result of swell-induced ship-heave. The down-looking
sensors were positioned as far from the frame as possible and as close
to the leading edge of the rosette during descent as possible to avoid
measuring turbulence generated by the rosette frame and lowered ADCP.


   [image]Chipod pressure case attached on the rosette


   Logger Board SN  Pressure Case SN  Up/Down Looker  Cast Used 
   ———————————————  ————————————————  ——————————————  —————————
        2025            Ti 44-7            Up          1-143     
        2030            Ti 44-11           Up          1-107     
        2032            Ti 44-11           Down        1-143     
        2027            Ti 44-11           Up          112-143   




16.3  Data

The chipods were turned on by connecting the sensors to the pressure
case at the beginning of the cruise. They continuously recorded data
until the end of the leg. Data was uploaded onto the computer once
every day to ensure proper functioning and data collection. SN2030 was
replaced by SN2027 before cast 112 due to problems with file
acquisition and communicating with the device possibly due to a memory
card issue. SN2030 memory card and batteries were replaced soon after.

   [image]A typical plot of chipod raw data




17  FLOAT DEPLOYMENTS


During leg 1 of the GO-SHIP P06 cruise (P06W), a total of 11 profiling
floats were deployed, which were part of several programs: 4 UW Argo,
2 SIO SOLO II, 3 SIO Deep SOLO and 2 biogeochemical SOCCOM floats. Co-
chief scientist Isa Rosso (postdoc at SIO and SOCCOM personnel) was
responsible for all deployments, recording and communicating their
deployment details to the various PIs of the programs. The assistance
from the ASC marine technicians was necessary for all deployments,
first because it was required for any operation on the back deck, and
second in order to reduce any possible difficulties with the floats’
deployment. Each deployment occurred with the use of line strung to
the float, with one end of the line tied to a cleat and the other held
by the technician. Deployments were always done on departure from a
CTD station while the ship was steaming at 1 knot. Before the
deployment, the marine technician communicated with the bridge to
disengage the propeller on the side of the deployment, in order to
avoid any risk of having the float going through the propeller. The
three students working on the opposite shift to Isa Rosso also
assisted with the deployments.

A 10-day cycle is set for the UW Argo, SOLO II, and SOCCOM floats:
after an initial dive to a parking depth of 1000m, the floats drift
for 10 days with the ocean currents at this depth; after a subsequent
dive to 2000m, the floats then ascend to the surface, during which
data are collected. The 2000m-surface data profiles are then sent to
shore via satellite, using an antenna located at the top of the float.
Measurements comprehend temperature, salinity, pressure and additional
biogeochemical measurements for the SOCCOM type.

The SIO Deep SOLO profiling floats have a different cycle: they dive
down to the full ocean depth and drift at 5000 dbar, or 500 dbar
shallower than the bottom, with a cycle of approximately 15 days, in
order to balance data collection with battery life.

Each of these floats was self-activating, so no initial operations
where required before their deployment to activate them, except for
the case of Deep SOLO floats for which John Gilson sent some commands
few hours before their deployment.

In the following, each float program is discussed.


17.1  SOCCOM floats

PIs
   * Steve Riser
   * Ken Johnson
   * Lynne Talley

Two biogeochemical floats have been deployed, as part of the “Southern
Ocean Carbon and Climate Observations and Modeling” project (SOCCOM).
SOCCOM is a U.S. project sponsored by NSF that focuses on carbon and
climate in the Southern Ocean. Its goal is to deepen our knowledge of
the processes that regulate the carbon export in the Southern Ocean.
So far, SOCCOM has 82 active floats, and the data are available to the
public at http://soccom.princeton.edu/content/float-data. The floats
are equipped with CTD, oxygen (Anderaa optode 4330), nitrate
(MBARI/ISUS), FLBB bio-optical (Wetlabs) and pH (Deep-Sea DuraFET)
sensors. Data acquisition is made available through Iridium Satellite
communication and GPS.

Rick Rupan and Andrew Meyer (UW) tested each float (for both leg 1 and
leg 2 of the P06 occupation) at the beginning of the voyage during the
port call in Sydney, Australia. They found a malfunction on one of the
floats assigned to leg 2, and this float has been sent back to UW for
investigation and repair.

Before the deployment of each float, the fluorometer/backscatter and
the pH sensors were carefully cleaned using lens paper, 99% isopropyl
alcohol and DI water. Co-chief scientist Isa Rosso, SOCCOM personnel
responsible for the floats during this voyage, together with the ASC
marine technician Jennie Mowatt, were in charge of all SOCCOM float
deployments. Additional assistance was received by ASC marine
technician Paul Savoy. The procedure required the use of a line strung
through the deployment collar of the float. Each deployment occurred
on the starboard side, mid-ship, while the ship was steaming at no
more than 1 kn. No issues were encountered during the deployments.
However, during the last of the SOCCOM float releases (#12372), a
swell brought the float back up to ~1m out of the water, but
fortunately no sensors hit the ship.

The deployments occurred after the completion of the CTD station that
was chosen to be the closest to the planned deployment location and
had a bottom depth greater than 2500m. Samples for HPLC and POC
analyses were taken from the Niskin bottles, tripped as duplicates, at
the surface and at the chlorophyll maxima depths. These samples will
be sent to the U.S., where NASA (HPLC) and UCSB (POC) groups will
perform the analyses. On board, only the filtration of the samples was
required. Full-depth samples of other ocean properties (salts, pH,
nitrate, oxygen) were collected and analysed by the different groups
on board, in order to calibrate the floats’ sensors. In particular, pH
samples were collected and analysed by personnel from SIO, Dickson
lab; dissolved inorganic carbon samples by personnel from AOML and
PMEL; oxygen, nitrate and salinity samples by the ODF group at SIO.

After the deployment, Isa Rosso recorded the details and sent them to
the SOCCOM PIs. The location and date of the float deployments are
indicated in the table below, with hull and serial numbers, list of
parameters measured by the floats and the CTD cast at the location of
deployment. Both floats have reported their first profiles and their
sensors are working well. The figure below shows an example of
profiles for the float #12380.






Table 17.1: summary of the deployment details of the SOCCOM floats


Hull      Lon           Lat      Date and   Parameters      P06   Deployers      
  #                               Time                      sta-
                                  (UTC)                     tion
—————  ———————————  ——————————  ——————————  ——————————————  ————  —————————————
Apex   174°50.45'W  32°30.08'S   2017-07-28  CTD, oxygen,     99   Isa Rosso and 
12380                           23:43       nitrate, pH,          Jennie Mowatt
                                            fluorescence                          
                                            and                                   
                                            backscattering                        

Apex   154°56.01'W  32°29.97'S   2017-08-10  CTD, oxygen,    134   Isa Rosso and 
12372                           17:05       nitrate, pH,          Jennie Mowatt
                                            fluorescence                          
                                            and                                   
                                            backscattering                        


   [image]pH, oxygen, temperature and nitrate depth profiles for float
   Apex 12380



17.2  SIO floats


PIs
   * Dean Roemmich
   * John Gilson

2 SIO SOLO II floats and 3 SIO Deep SOLO were deployed during the
cruise. The SIO SOLO II are part of a global 3°x3° array, while the
Deep SOLO are part of the deep array, whose target is to have a float
every 5°x5°. Both types of floats are programmed to do a first dive,
and to come back to the surface after only hour. The data of this
first dive are used by the SIO team to check that the float is working
correctly. We have received confirmation that all the floats have
reported correctly after 1 hour, and their data look good (the Figure
below shows an example for the float SIO SOLO II #8527).

   [image]SIO #8527 SOLO II profiles after 1 hour from the deployment

These floats were deployed in their original bio-degradable cardboard
boxes, as requested, in order to prevent any damage. Two bands of
soluble PVA tape were placed around the box, in order to hold it
together. Four straps were attached around the box, connected to a
water release mechanism (a metal cylinder) at the bottom and with four
trailing loops on the top. The deployment line was slipped through the
trailing loops at the top, and then secured on the other end to a
cleat.

The deployments went all perfectly, except for the float Deep SOLO
#6032: during its deployment, when still being lowered to the water,
the release opened unexpectedly and the package dropped down from
about 50cm above the ocean surface. The float did not, fortunately,
report any damage, as we have received confirmation from John Gilson
(SIO) that the float activated and sent good data after its first test
cast.

After each deployment, the details were recorded by the scientist
responsible for the deployment (either Isa Rosso or a CTD
watchstander) and sent to John Gilson by co-chief scientist Isa Rosso.
The location and date of the SIO float deployments are indicated in
the table below, with serial numbers, CTD cast at the location of
deployment and name of the personnel who deployed the floats.


Table 17.2: summary of the deployment details of the 2 SIO SOLO II and 3 Deep SOLO 
            floats

  Hull         Lon          Lat       Date and   P06   Deployers      
   #                                    Time     sta-
                                        (UTC)    tion
—————————  ————————————  ——————————  ——————————  ————  —————————————————————————————
SIO SOLO   163°55.196'E  30°04.88'S   2017-07-12   37   Isa Rosso and Jennie Mowatt  
II 8527                               01:25
 
SIO SOLO   178°18.421'E  32°53.84'S   2017-07-24   80   Kimberly Gottschalk and
II 8555                               12:51             Michael Tepperrassmussen 

SIO Deep   167°47.336'W  32°29.99'S   2017-08-02  115   Isa Rosso and Jennie Mowatt   
SOLO 6030                             15:18            

SIO Deep   159°43.06'W   32°30.15'S   2017-08-08  127   Maxime Duchet and    
SOLO 6031                             08:33             Michael Tepperrassmussen

SIO Deep   152°15.50'W   32°30.00'S   2017-08-11  138   Ratnaksha Lele and Paul Savoy
SOLO 6032                             23:55             



17.3  UW floats


PI
   Steve Riser

4 UW floats have been deployed during P06 leg 1, as part of the global
Argo array. Rick Rupan and Andrew Meyer had tested the floats, during
the port call in Sydney, Australia. The floats were all successfully
deployed, with no issues. After the deployment, the details were
recorded by the scientist responsible for the deployment and sent to
Steve Riser, Dana Swift and Rick Rupan by co-chief scientist Isa
Rosso. Date, time, location of the deployment, CTD cast associated
with the deployments and the name of the deployers are reported in the
Table below.


Table 17.3: summary of the deployment details of the 4 UW floats

  Hull         Lon          Lat       Date and   P06   Deployers      
   #                                    Time     sta-
                                        (UTC)    tion
—————————  ————————————  ——————————  ——————————  ————  —————————————————————————————
UW #12471  155°00.15'E   30°04.91'S   2017-07-06   12   Isa Rosso and Jennie Mowatt  
                                      22:26

UW #12645  158°40.66'E   30°04.99’S   2017-07-09   25   Rebecca Beadling and       
                                      20:21             Jennie Mowatt          

UW #12638  175°00.04'E   30°04.78’S   2017-07-10   73   Kimberly Gottschalk and  
                                      04:03             Michael Tepperrassmussen        
                                                                                        
UW #12447  148°54.40'W   32°29.94’S   2017-08-13  143   Isa Rosso and Jennie Mowatt  
                                      15:24                                                      




18  DRIFTER DEPLOYMENTS


PI
   * Shaun Dolk (*AOML*)


Fourteen drifters were deployed on P06W for the Global Drifter
Program. The deployers were split between the night and the day
shifts: Isa Rosso (co-chief scientist), Sabine Mecking (chief
scientist) and the CTD watchstanders of each shift helped with the
deployment. Secondary assistance was provided by ASC Marine
Technicians Jennie Mowatt (night shift), Michael Tepperrassmussen (day
shift) and Paul Savoy (day/night shift).

The simple deployment process involved: (1) removing the plastic
wrapping from the drifter; (2) carrying the drifter to the back deck;
(3) deployment of the drifter, after received confirmation from the
bridge; (4) recoding of the deployment details. In case two
deployments were required at the same location, the drifter release
occurred with 30 seconds of distance between each other, in order to
avoid any entanglement amongst the drifters' drogues. After the
deployment, the scientist responsible for the operation recorded the
details from the monitor in the wet lab, wrote them in the log sheet
and Isa Rosso (co-chief scientist) or Sabine Mecking (chief scientist)
sent the details to Shaun Dolk at AOML. The Table below reports the
details for each deployment.


Table 18.1: Table of deployments


Drifter #     Date (UTC)   Lat           Lon            Deployers            
————————————  ——————————  —————————————  —————————————  ————————————————————————————
64829450      2017-07-11  30°04.91'S     163°29.98'E     Isa Rosso and Jennie Mowatt
              20:42

64828550      2017-07-29  32°30.02'S     173°29.86'W     Isa Rosso and Jennie Mowatt
              16:45

64829010      2017-07-29  32°30.02'S     173°29.86'W     Isa Rosso and Jennie Mowatt 
              16:45                                                                  

64829500      2017-08-01  32°29.95'S     170°00.31'W     Sabine Mecking and   
              10:23                                      Michael Tepperrassmussen     

64828540      2017-08-02  32°29.96'S     167°07.09'W     Isa Rosso and Jennie Mowatt  
              23:13  

64829170      2017-08-02  32°29.96'S     167°07.09'W     Isa Rosso and Jennie Mowatt
              23:13                                                                   

64829460      2017-08-04  32°29.74'S     164°00.17'W     Kimberly Gottschalk and 
              09:02                                      Michael Tepperrassmussen     

64828510      2017-08-07  32°29.68'S     160°59.91'W     Sabine Mecking and   
              09:21                                      Maxime Duchet        

64828530      2017-08-07  32°29.68'S     160°59.91'W     Kimberly Gottschalk and 
              09:21                                      Michael Tepperrassmussen     

64828470      2017-08-09  32°30.23'S     158°00.00'W     Ratnaksha Lele and   
              03:04                                      Paul Savoy           

64829030      2017-08-10  32°29.98'S     155°01.14'W     Rebecca Beadling and 
              12:36                                      Jennie Mowatt        

64829510      2017-08-10  32°29.98'S     155°01.14'W     Natalie Zielinski    
              12:36                                      and Jennie Mowatt    

64829540      2017-08-12  32°30.04'S     152°00.00'W     Maxime Duchet and    
              01:18                                      Michael Tepperrassmussen     

64829400      2017-08-13  32°30.00'S     150°00.50'W     Kimberly Gottschalk and 
              01:00                                      Michael Tepperrassmussen     




19  STUDENT STATEMENTS


19.1  Rebecca L. Beadling

I applied to participate on leg 1 of the U.S. GO-SHIP P06 cruise to
gain experience in observational oceanography, to participate in the
data collection myself and to learn about the techniques used
including CTD deployment and measurements, deployment of floats and
drifters, and the collection of water samples for analysis. I also
participated in this cruise as a member of the Southern Ocean Carbon
and Climate Observations and Modelling (SOCCOM) team, and was able to
participate in the deployment of the SOCCOM floats along with my CTD
watchstander responsibilities. My work at the University of Arizona
has focused on carrying out modeling experiments and analyzing model
output to gain a deeper understanding of ocean circulation in the
North Atlantic Ocean. Specifically my research as focused on the
Northern Hemisphere Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, and
how this large scale circulation is projected to change into the
future.

Analyzing the results from modeling experiments requires a
comprehensive understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics, knowledge
of the framework of models, knowledge of both the atmospheric and
oceanic circulation at the global scale, and an understanding of how
these systems are observed in reality. It is this last piece that I
felt was completely lacking from my understanding of oceanography, and
the most critical to being able to make successful model to
observation comparisons. After participation as a CTD watchstander on
this cruise and through in-depth conversations with other scientists
on board, I am walking away with a detailed knowledge of observational
techniques and better strategies to bridge the gap from models to
observations. In addition to my role as a CTD watchstander I also
served as the primary alkalinity sampler on my shift, collecting
alkalinity samples to be processed following each CTD recovery.

Furthermore, on this cruise spent time learning the Python programming
language and plotted the underway Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler
data from the cruise to look at the currents in the top 1000 meters as
we transited. I also contributed multiple times to the cruise blog
(usgoship-p062017.blogsplot.com) and my own personal blog focused on
science communication to a broader audience
(beadlingatsea.wordpress.com). My experiences and knowledge gained on
this cruise will prove to be invaluable to advancing in my field, and
I plan to remain in contact with those on board for future research
collaborations.


19.2  Maxime Duchet

Pour changer, en voici un ecrit en francais clavier qwerty, vous
excuserez les accents. Le travail est finalement assez simple et
repetitif. Chaque jour, on effectue en moyenne 2 a 3 "cast", en
fonction de la profondeur de la station. Le deroulement est chaque
fois le meme:

1. On met le CTD (plus communemment appele rosetta) dans l'eau. On
   se trouve alors derriere plusieurs ecrans : un ordinateur qui
   enregistre les mesurements effectues par la CTD (capteurs de
   temperature, salinite..), un qui nous indique la profondeur et la
   tension du fil retenant la structure de 36 bouteilles, et enfin un
   ecran pour voir le winch tourner. On passe des appels radio a la
   "Baltic room" ou se trouvent les winch operateurs pour indiquer la
   vitesse de descente, stopper la rosette a 10m du fond, et indiaquer
   les differerentes profondeurs auxquelles s'arreter lors de la
   remontee. On ferme les bouteilles et note quelques informations. A
   surveiller: tension ne dois pas faire de sauts ni etre negative,
   bottom approach ne pas crasher la rosette, ne pas oublier de fermer
   une bouteille.

2. Une fois la rosette sur le deck, on effectue des prelevements
   selon divers procedes en fonction des parametres mesures. En gros,
   on remplie des bouteilles d'eau.

3. On prepare la rosette: on ouvre les bouteilles, on les vide, on
   tend les fils de nilon, on nettoie les capteurs.

4. Si on a de la chance, la prochaine station est dans 2h et on a
   le temps de chiller au ping pong ou dans la lounge.

Le plus important : prendre du plaisir en mer et profiter de
l’experience humaine.

PS : si vous prevoyez de participer aux 4 repas journaliers, n’oubliez
pas la gym, votre ventre appreciera.


19.3  Kimberly Gottschalk

My first experience at sea, aboard the RVIB Palmer, was a fantastic
voyage across the South Pacific. Serving as a CTD Watchstander for the
P06W provided me with invaluable insight and working knowledge of how
data is collected and processed at sea. Over the course of the past
six weeks I have developed a greater appreciation of the work of the
science party and an understanding of why gaps in data may occur on
open ocean lines. The work of a CTD student required a keen eye for
detail and communication for successful operation. In my off time I
have had the pleasure of attending science talks, speaking with others
about their work, helping with sampling, and plot creation. Between
monitoring the rosette during casts the watchstanders had the
opportunity to hold a journal club focusing on processes and water
masses along our line - a wonderful learning experience!

As the cruise comes to a wrap, I'll miss being at sea. The view of a
sunset over the ocean, watching an Orca swim under our bow while on
station, even the gentle rolling of the ship - are all things I will
not soon forget. This may have been my first time at sea, but it will
not be my last.


19.4  Ratnaksha Lele

Being on board the RVIB Nathaniel B. Palmer for GO-SHIP P06 has been
an experience that I will cherish for the rest of my life! This was my
first time on a multi-week research cruise, and I was rather excited
to leave the worries of the world behind as we set our sights to the
horizon to our east in Sydney. My job as CTD-watchstander was
primarily to prepare the rosette for each deployment and monitor the
cast in the computer lab to ensure that the cast went smoothly,
keeping an eye on instrument displays and firing the bottles at the
assigned depths. It was exciting to see the CTD profiles on the
computer in real time and be able to identify (debate) different water
masses in the South Pacific which I very recently studied for my first
year exams at SIO.

Once the rosette was back on deck after the cast, I thoroughly enjoyed
my duties as Sample Cop, bringing necessary order to the chaos of
sampling. I was also involved in downloading data from Chi-pods
(instruments that measure turbulent mixing) and troubleshooting
through glitches if and when they occurred. The cruise has helped me
appreciate the behind the scenes effort put into every CTD cast by the
science team, and the painstaking effort required to collect and
measure samples for the consumption of researchers worldwide.

I hope to use the data collected on this cruise and previous P06
cruises to quantify changes in abyssal water masses in the South
Pacific basin as part of my PhD research at SIO. I'm grateful to the
GO-SHIP program for providing me with this wonderful opportunity and
hope to continue to participate and contribute to future cruises as
well.


19.5  Kelly McCabe

   [image]

I want to thank GO-SHIP for providing me with this opportunity to
assist the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) team‚ÄîJim Happell and David
Cooper‚Äîwith sampling the CTD and onboard sample processing. As
transient tracers, CFCs are a standard measurement on GO-SHIP cruises.
Measuring CFC concentrations as well as sulfur hexafluoride (SF6),
another tracer, allows physical and chemical oceanographers alike to
understand ocean circulation and the distinct chemical characteristics
of water masses. This is extremely valuable for understanding the
global oceans and their role in mitigating climate. I am now able to
collect CFC samples, successfully run them on a gas chromatograph, and
interpret their gas chromatograms. Additionally, I created and
analyzed CFC depth profiles in ODV. I can now identify distinct water
masses based on a specific CFC signature such as Antarctic Bottom
Water found in the Kermadec trench. In an attempt to objectively map
CFC depth profiles, I also began coding in python and strengthened my
MATlab coding abilities.

I owe an additional thanks to GO-SHIP for helping support my PhD
studies. In addition to my CFC responsibilities, I collected 375
samples for dissolved organic phosphorus analysis. All samples were
filtered and stored frozen to preserve for land based analyses. These
samples will greatly increase the special coverage of DOP data within
the western Pacific, a previously under-sampled region. I am grateful
to have had the opportunity to assist the GO-SHIP CFC team as well as
contribute a new measurement. I hope to continue to work with the GO-
SHIP program in the future.


19.6  Natalie Zielinski

The ability to sail as a student aboard the GO-SHIP NPB1706 cruise
from Sydney to Papeete has granted me the invaluable opportunity for
hands-on learning and networking with leading scientists in
oceanography. Originally hired on as a Conductivity Temperature Depth
(CTD) Watch Stander, I also took on the responsibility of running the
Lowered Acoustic Current Doppler Profiler (LADCP) during the night
shift. Having prior experience at sea aboard the NBP, I felt right at
home with the 12 on - 12 off shift schedule and adjusted well to
having breakfast for lunch everyday. The need for additional personnel
during water sampling also allowed me to learn how to sample
alkalinity, nutrients and salts from the Nisken bottles, a task that I
was happy to be a part of since it provided time to chat with my
fellow scientists and to take part in unrestricted singing to the
various songs we listened to.

As the sole LADCP contact for the night shift, I was responsible for
turning the instrument on and off, recharging the battery, and
ensuring that the data were downloaded and backed up to the computer.
This meant revisiting my Unix coding skills as the ADCP software is
strictly run with Unix. During each descent, I join my fellow student
colleague, Rebecca Beadling from the University of Arizona, at the CTD
monitor station to oversee the deployment and trigger Nisken bottles
on the way up. Forced to sit together for 4 to 5 hours, we took
advantage of the time by starting a Python Club instructed by
wonderful, Co-Chief Scientist Dr. Isabella Rosso where we learned to
code, expanded our capabilities with the guitar, read different papers
and novels, and shared our life experiences for personal growth. I
could not have asked for a better team to be a part of, with the
addition of all the nightshift personnel including Technician Kelsey
Volgel from Scripps who was another assiduous member of our Python
Club.

   [image]The hardworking and also fun night shift science party. Long
   live Chuck’s Boots

I also took part in some preliminary analysis for the cruise by
drafting cross-sections of potential temperature, salinity, density,
and calculated geostrophic velocity to be compared to those generated
by Chief Scientist Dr. Sabine Mecking. The geostrophic velocities I
generated were also compared to measured LADCP circulation for initial
insight into the general circulation, particularly in the
bathymetrically constrained areas closer to Australia. Later in the
cruise while we were experiencing some rather unruly weather that
prevented deployment of the CTD, Dr. Mecking asked me to give a
science talk. Thrilled at the opportunity to practice my scientific
speaking skills and discuss results from my Master’s degree, I happily
accepted. I also wrote a post for the official NBP1706 Blog run by Co-
Chief Scientist Dr. Isabella Rosso about my responsibilities with the
ADCP on the night shift that can be found at
http://usgoship-p062017.blogspot.com.

   [image]Cross-section of potential temperature for stations 01 to
   75.

I can't begin to describe how thankful I am for US GO-SHIP and the
opportunity to sail as a student. I have been able to advance my
observing, descriptive, and analytical skills as an aspiring young
professional in oceanography, as well as to engage with outstanding
professional scientist and technicians. I have grown professionally
and personally from this experience, making memories and initiating
relationships that will help drive my career. I’m particularly
grateful for Dr. Sabine Mecking who took the time to get to know each
student, encouraged our participation in all aspects of data
collection, and was a rigorous ping-pong competitor, for Dr. Isabella
Rosso and her ability to reignite my passion for scientific research,
her motivation to believe in myself, and professional counsel as I
transition from being a student to a career in oceanography and ocean
engineering, for Mr. John Calderwood whose skills as a technician
extended to the 3D printer, and for Mr. Barry Bjork whom with I spent
a countless number of hours tackling cross-word puzzles and inventing
new words. I will forever be grateful for this experience and hope to
remain affiliated to the program through consideration for additional
ocean-going positions in the future.




                      2017 P6 GO SHIP Repeat Hydrography Section
                             LADCP Post-Cruise QC Report
                                   A.M. Thurnherr
                                  December 15, 2017


Figure 1: Cross-Pacific zonal section of p0, a measure of finescale (100{320m vertical 
          wavelength) Vertical Kinetic Energy (VKE), along 32°S derived from the 
          vertical LADCP velocities collected during the 2017 occupation of the GO-
          SHIP P6 section; the orange contours show neutral density from uncalibrated 
          CTD data.


1 Summary

This report describes the results from the post-cruise quality control of the LADCP 
data collected during the two legs of the 2017 P6 GO-SHIP (CLIVAR repeat hydrography) 
cruise on the UNOLS R/V Nathaniel B. Palmer. Using two ADCPs installed on the 
hydrographic rosette (Section 2), one looking downward (DL) and the other upward 
(UL), full-depth profiles of all three components of the oceanic velocity field were 
collected at most stations. Entirely different methods are used for processing 
LADCP/CTD data for horizontal and vertical velocity, requiring separate QC (Sections 
3 and 4, respectively).

Main Findings: 1) There is good overall agreement (<∆u(rms)>≈4 cm·s^(-1)) between the 
independent upper-ocean horizontal velocity measurements from the LADCP and SADCP 
systems, indicating that the LADCP-derived horizontal velocities from the 2017 re-
occupation of the P6 repeat-hydrography line are of excellent quality. 2) Based on 
correlations between the independent vertical velocity measurements provided by the 
two ADCPs, the LADCP-derived w(ocean) profiles are of high quality as well.



2  Instruments and Data Acquisition

During the first (profiles^(1) 1-143) and second (144-250) cruise legs, Alma Castillo 
Trujillo and Elizabeth Simons, respectively, were responsible for LADCP data 
acquisition and shipboard QC. Additionally, the processing figures from every 5th 
profile and from profiles with suspected problems were sent to Thurnherr for 
additional checks.

Two different ADCP instruments were used during this cruise: the WHM15O #24544 as 
down-looker (DL) and the WHM300 #24497 as uplooker (UL). Initially (stations 1{13) 
the ADCPs were mounted on the rosette together with the "IMP" magnetometer/ 
accelerometer package that also serves as connection between the instruments and the 
battery. Almost immediately there were intermittent but frequent communications 
problems that were eventually traced to a leak in the IMP pressure case. As a result 
there are insufficient LADCP data for processing the profiles of stations 6 and 10-
13. On station 14 the IMP was replaced with a TRDI star cable and there are 
processable LADCP data from all remaining stations. However, intermittent 
communications problems continued during the entire cruise. The resulting profiles 
with multiple data files were processed with the largest files only. Five out of the 
final profiles (9, 60, 183, 200 and 221) were processed without any valid UL data.

During profile 97 beam #3 of the DL ADCP failed. Because the performance of the 
instrument remained otherwise good, because no spare WM150 was available, and because 
the range of the WH300 uplooker was marginal in that region of relatively weak 
acoustic backscatter it was decided to continue data acquisition without replacing 
the ADCP with the bad beam with a 300 kHz instrument. The UL performed well 
throughout the entire cruise. Both ADCPs were set up to record velocity data with 8 m 
pulses/bins and zero blanking. Staggered pinging was used to avoid previous ping 
interference, which is particularly important for 150 kHz instruments. See cruise 
report for additional information.

The left panel of Figure 2 shows the maximum profile depths. The topography of the 
first part of the cruise (the first 100 stations or so) is characterized by 
significant roughness in the Coral Sea and across a backarc basin just north of New 
Zealand. After crossing the deep Kermadec Trench around station 100 the seafloor 
becomes much smoother and rises gradually toward the EPR crest near station 188 
before descending into the Chile Basin and, finally, rising again at the South 
American continental slope. Except for the three profiles from stations 93, 94 and 
119, which were located in water deeper than 6000 m, bottom-track information is 
available for all profiles.

The right panel of Figure 2 shows the number of rotations experienced by the rosette. 
The fact that the instrument rotated primarily counterclockwise during the downcasts 
and clockwise during the upcasts with approximately equal number of rotations 
suggests that there was comparatively little stress on the wire during this cruise.

LADCP data quality is sensitively dependent on instrument range (Figure 3, left 
panel), which depends on the acoustic scattering environment. During the second half 
of the P6 cruise, acoustic backscatter was quite weak, with WH300 ranges below 65 m 
(an empirical limit for good horizontal-velocity profiles collected with single-ADCP 
systems) in most profiles after station 90 or so. The problem was compounded by a DL 
beam going bad on station 97, causing a significant reduction in instrument range, 
but the range of the 3-beam 150 kHz ADCP nevertheless remained above the 4-beam range 
of the 300 kHz UL for the remainder of the cruise, and the combined range of the two 
ADCPs was greater than 80 m in all dual-head profiles. Since the DL-only profiles (9, 
60, 183, 200 and 221) all have ranges greater than 65 m, too, all P6 LADCP profiles 
are expected to yield good horizontal velocities.

———————————————————————————————

(1) LADCP profile numbers, which are equal to the CTD station numbers of this cruise, 
    are used throughout in this report. The LADCP data distribution contains the file 
    STATIONNUMBERS.nc, which associates LADCP profile numbers with CTD station and 
    cast numbers. The CTD station and cast numbers are also printed in the titles of 
    all diagnostic figures produced by the LDEO IX software.


Figure 2: Profiling parameters. Left panel: Maximum depth. Right panel: Net package 
          rotations.

Figure 3: Left panel: Instrument range. Right panel: rms acceleration due to vessel 
          heave (sea state).


Package motion due to surface waves (sea state) is also known to affect LADCP data 
quality; in the right panel of Figure 3 sea state is quantified as the rms vertical 
package acceleration. Calm seas are typically associated with accelerations below 
0.2m·s^(-2) or so, implying significant wave-related package motion roughly in the 
middle third of the cruise. For context, the peak values around 0.35m·s^(-2) are 
small compared to values from the Southern Ocean, which frequently exceed 0.4m·s^(-2), 
indicating that sea state is not expected to have a strong detrimental effect on the 
quality of the P6 LADCP profiles.


Figure 4: rms LADCP-SADCP horizontal velocity differences; low values indicate good 
          agreement.



3  Horizontal Velocity

The overall quality of the horizontal LADCP velocities is assessed by processing all 
profiles with the velocity-inversion method (LDEO IX 13 software), using the bottom-
track (BT) and ship-drift (GPS) constraints and comparing the resulting LADCP 
velocities near the sea surface to the corresponding SADCP velocities. Based on data 
from other cruises, high-quality LADCP and SADCP velocities typically agree within 3-
6 cm·s^(-1) when averaged over a few profiles. The data from the 2017 P6 occupation 
clearly fit this criterion (Figure 4). Only in the middle of the section, roughly 
between profiles 90 and 170, are there velocity discrepancies around 6 cm·s^(-1), and 
the number of profiles with significantly higher discrepancies is small. Both low 
acoustic backscatter and sea state likely contributed to this pattern (Figure 3). 
Diagnostic plots were inspected from all profiles with velocity discrepancies 
exceeding 6 cm·s^(-1), but no data anomalies were found.

For final horizontal-velocity processing, the LADCP data were re-processed with all 
available referencing constraints, including the SADCP velocities. As a result, the 
final velocity uncertainties are smaller than the discrepancies shown in Figure 4, at 
least for the profiles with errors above 3 cm·s^(-1), which is the nominal accuracy of 
horizontal velocity from high-quality LADCP profiles. In summary, the quality of the 
final processed horizontal velocities derived from the 2017 P18 LADCP data is 
excellent. (Possible exceptions are profiles 1 and 2, both short and shallow casts 
where the seabed was not detected correctly and for which no good SADCP data are 
available. There are no indications that the resulting horizontal velocity profiles, 
referenced with GPS data alone, are bad, however, and they are included in the 
archive.)


Figure 5: Left panel: Correlation coefficient of DL/UL vertical velocity correlation 
          vs. profile number, averaged in groups of 10 profiles with error bars from 
          bootstrapping. Right Panel: Vertical-velocity signal (red; rms w) and noise 
          (blue; rms DL/UL regression residuals scaled by 2^(-0.5)) vs. profile 
          number. Data from the uppermost 300m are excluded.




4  Vertical Velocity

In order to process the LADCP data for vertical ocean velocity the LADCP w software, 
version 1.4, was used. In addition to high-quality velocity data from the ADCPs, 
vertical-velocity processing also requires 24 Hz CTD time series with very few or no 
missing scans. In contrast to other recent GO-SHIP cruises, there are no indication 
for CTD data transmission problems during P6, attesting to the high quality of the 
CTD winch system on the Palmer.

There are vertical-velocity profiles from all P6 stations with valid LADCP data. 
Dissipation estimates from a finestructure parameterization method (Thurnherr et al., 
GRL 2015) are available from all stations except those without valid LADCP data (6 & 
10{13) and two stations at both ends of the section (1, 2, 249, 250), which are not 
deep enough for the spectral method to be applied.

In contrast to LADCP-derived horizontal velocity, the two w measurements at a given 
depth (from the DL and UL ADCP) are largely^(2) independent. Diagnostics based on 
linear regressions between UL vs. DL-derived w are therefore useful measures of 
profile quality. The left panel of Figure 5 shows the resulting correlation 
coefficients for the P6 LADCP data below 300 m, calculated from w(ocean) profiles 
processed at the default 40m vertical resolution. Based on experience with other data 
sets, high-quality LADCP profiles typically have DL-UL correlation coefficients above 
0.3 when averaged over a few profiles. The P6 LADCP profiles clearly fit this 
criterion - the apparent outlier group with correlation coefficients consistently 
above 0.5 are profiles 81{89 crossing the Havre Trough, where the highest VKE levels 
were observed on this cruise.

The right panel of Figure 5 shows the vertical velocity signal and noise levels for 
all dual-head profiles. The red bars show profile-averaged w(ocean) below 300 m. 
(LADCP vertical velocity measurements near the surface are often contaminated by 
biological effects.) The blue bars show the corresponding rms noise estimates, 
defined here as the DL-UL regression residuals scaled by 1/√2. Based on experience 
with other data sets, high-quality LADCP w profiles typically have residual noise 
levels in the range 0.003-0.006 m·s^(-1) . The P6 LADCP profiles clearly fit this 
criterion, too. The profile-averaged Vertical Kinetic Energy (VKE) levels observed 
during P6 ranged between 0.004 m·s^(-1)  and 0.015 m·s^(-1) , with the w  signal 
exceeding the noise level in all profiles. East of the EPR crest (station 188) 
profile-averaged VKE levels are generally lower than west of the EPR crest. A section 
plot of finescale VKE reveals, among other patterns, that the cross-EPR difference is 
due to a thick layer of elevated finescale VKE over the entire western EPR flank 
(Figure 1). Average EPR- profiles of finescale VKE, rescaled as dissipation using an 
empirical scaling (Thurnherr et al., GRL 2015), indicate that the differences are 
significant (Figure 6).

———————————————————————————————————-

(2) Only errors in the CTD package-velocity time series that persist over time scales 
    of minutes can give rise to vertical-velocity errors that are correlated between 
    the two ADCPs.


Figure 6: Average height-above-bottom profiles of finescale VKE from the eastern and 
          western of the EPR. VKE is rescaled as dissipation using an empirical 
          scaling (Thurnherr et al.,  GRL 2015). Error bars indicate 95% confidence 
          from bootstrapping.





CCHDO DATA PROCESSING NOTES

• File Merge  CCHSIO
320620170703_ct1.zip (download) #342aa
Date: 2018-03-05
Current Status: merged


• Update file in As Received to Dataset  CCHSIO
Date: 2018-03-05
Data Type: CTD
Action: Website Update
Note:
2017 320620170703 processing - CTD/merge -
CTDPRS,CTDTMP,CTDSAL,CTDOXY,CTDFLUOR,CTDXMISS,CTDBBP700RAW,CTDRINKO
2018-03-05
CCHSIO
Submission
filename submitted by date id
-------------------- ------------ ---------- -----
320620170703_ct1.zip Joseph Gum 2017-11-18 13767
Changes
-------
320620170703_ct1.zip
- This is a GO-SHIP Cruise: CTDOXY flags are all uncalibrated
- added cruise comments
- removed DEPTH from header, as all values are -999
- removed space before DATA header
- changed SECT_ID description from nbp1706 to P06W
- changed parameter name from CTDBACKSCATTER to CTDBBP700RAW (and flag)
- renamed files to match CCHDO format
- RINKO: only 4 stations have RINKO data: Other stations were submitted as
"0.0000,1"
Conversion
----------
file converted from software
----------------------- -------------------- -----------------------
320620170703_nc_ctd.zip 320620170703_ct1.zip hydro 0.8.2-48-g594e1cb
Updated Files Manifest
----------------------
file stamp
----------------------- --------------
320620170703_ct1.zip 20170305CCHSIO
320620170703_nc_ctd.zip 20170305CCHSIO
:Updated parameters:
CTDPRS,CTDTMP,CTDSAL,CTDOXY,CTDFLUOR,CTDBBP700RAW,CTDXMISS,CTDRINKO
opened in JOA with no apparent problems:
320620170703_ct1.zip
320620170703_nc_ctd.zip
opened in ODV with no apparent problems:
320620170703_ct1.zip


• File Online  Carolina Berys
320620170703_do.txt (download) #4df50
Date: 2017-11-20
Current Status: unprocessed


• File Online  Carolina Berys
320620170703_do.pdf (download) #5f9b9
Date: 2017-11-20
Current Status: unprocessed


• File Submission  Joseph Gum
320620170703_do.pdf (download) #5f9b9
Date: 2017-11-20
Current Status: unprocessed


• File Submission  Joseph Gum
320620170703_do.txt (download) #4df50
Date: 2017-11-20
Current Status: unprocessed


• File Online  Carolina Berys
320620170703_ct1.zip (download) #342aa
Date: 2017-11-20
Current Status: merged


• File Online  Carolina Berys
320620170703_hy1.csv (download) #24c69
Date: 2017-11-20
Current Status: unprocessed


• File Submission  Andrew Barna
320620170703_hy1.csv (download) #24c69
Date: 2017-11-20
Current Status: unprocessed
Notes
These data can go online in the dataset, the cruise report will be submitted as
soon the CTD/Bottle residual plots are updated.


• File Submission  Joseph Gum
320620170703_ct1.zip (download) #342aa
Date: 2017-11-18
Current Status: merged
