A.    CRUISE NARRATIVE WOCE P09 (RY9407)

A.1.  HIGHLIGHTS
                        WHP CRUISE SUMMARY INFORMATION

WOCE section designation                  P09
Expedition designation (EXPOCODE)         49RY9407_1-2
Chief Scientist(s) and their affiliation  Ikuo KANEKO *, Satoshi KAWAE**/JMA
Dates                                     1994.JUL.07 - 1994.AUG.25
Ship                                      R/V Ryofu Maru
Ports of call                             Leg-1: Tokyo - Palau,  
                                          Leg-2: Palau - Guam 
Number of stations                        105
                                                 34ƒ 15' N
Geographic boundaries of the stations     137ƒ E           142ƒ E
                                                   15ƒ N
Floats and drifters deployed              none
Moorings deployed or recovered            none
Contributing Authors                      I. Kaneko, H. Kamiya, M. Tamaki, 
                                          Y. Takatsuki, T. Miyao, M. Ishii 

* Chief Scientist  **Co-Chief Scientist   Tel:      +81-3-3212-8341  Ext.5127
  Oceanographical Division                Fax:      +81-3-3211-3047
  Marine Department                       Phone:    508-289-2530
  Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA)       Fax:      508-457-2181
  1-3-4, Ohtemachi, Chiyoda-ku            Internet: i_kaneko@umi.hq.kishou.go.jp
  Tokyo 100, Japan


                      WHP CRUISE AND DATA INFORMATION

Cruise Summary Information                   Hydrographic Measurements
	
Description of scientific program              CTD - general
                                               CTD - pressure
Geographic boundaries of the survey            CTD - temperature
Cruise track (figure)                          CTD - conductivity/salinity
Description of stations                        CTD - dissolved oxygen
Description of parameters sampled	
                                               Salinity
Floats and drifters deployed                   Oxygen
Moorings deployed or recovered                 Nutrients
                                               CFCs
Principal Investigators for all measurements   Helium
Cruise Participants                            Tritium
                                               Radiocarbon
Problems and goals not achieved                CO2 system parameters

References
DQE Reports
  CTD
  S/O2/nutrients
  CFCs

Data Processing Notes

          A.2     CRUISE SUMMARY INFORMATION

          A.2.a   Geographic Boundaries
         
               The  station  locations along the P9 section  are  shown  in 
          Figure  1.1 and tabulated in Table 1.1.  Table 1.1  includes  the 
          dates,  times  and water depths.  The section was  occupied  from 
          north  toward  south  except two parts of  the  section,  between 
          Sta.37  and  40, and between Sta.54 and 61.  These parts  of  the 
          section  were occupied from south toward north.  The  details  on 
          the cruise track is given in Section 1.4.


          Table 1.1  Station data of WHP-P9 (listed geographic  sequentially)
                                                                
          Leg    Station      Date      Time        Position(GPS)       W.depth
          WHP-P9  Ry      (JST: UTC+9h)        Latitude     Longitude     (m)
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------
           1     1   8633   07 09 94   0149   34 15.02 N   137 00.04 E    145
           1     2   8634   07 09 94   0329   34 06.56 N   136 59.86 E   1220
           1     3   8635   07 09 94   0608   34 00.03 N   136 59.37 E   1010
           1     4   8636   07 09 94   1006   33 50.02 N   136 58.66 E   1850
           1     5   8637   07 09 94   1227   33 39.91 N   136 59.73 E   2010
           1     6   8638   07 09 94   1525   33 29.79 N   137 00.98 E   2055
           1     7   8639   07 09 94   1836   33 20.19 N   137 00.06 E   2620
           1     8   8640   07 09 94   2207   33 10.28 N   137 00.35 E   2870
           1     9   8641   07 10 94   0122   33 00.04 N   136 59.60 E   4295
           1    10   8642   07 10 94   1124   32 49.10 N   136 59.71 E   3885
         
           1    11   8643   07 10 94   1653   32 40.52 N   137 00.38 E   4180
           1    12   8644   07 10 94   2202   32 30.68 N   137 00.18 E   4095
           1    13   8645   07 11 94   0217   32 20.08 N   136 59.95 E   4050
           1    14   8646   07 11 94   0720   32 10.67 N   137 00.58 E   4000
           1    15   8647   07 11 94   1111   31 59.84 N   136 59.66 E   4230
           1    16   8648   07 11 94   1821   31 40.39 N   136 59.45 E   4170
           1    17   8649   07 11 94   2338   31 20.11 N   136 59.87 E   4165
           1    18   8650   07 12 94   0523   31 00.49 N   136 59.73 E   4170
           1    19   8651   07 12 94   1248   30 39.87 N   136 59.90 E   4235
           1    20   8652   07 12 94   1803   30 20.47 N   137 00.12 E   4420
         
           1    21   8653   07 12 94   2323   30 00.36 N   137 00.02 E   4490
           1    22   8654   07 13 94   0807   29 30.15 N   137 09.66 E   4530
           1    23   8655   07 13 94   1448   28 59.87 N   136 59.68 E   4550
           1    24   8656   07 13 94   2102   28 30.12 N   136 59.84 E   4515
           1    25   8657   07 14 94   0351   28 00.33 N   136 59.98 E   4160
           1    26   8658   07 14 94   1226   27 29.80 N   137 00.34 E   4350
           1    27   8659   07 14 94   1922   26 59.86 N   136 59.90 E   4700
           1    28   8660   07 15 94   0433   26 30.09 N   136 59.67 E   5020
           1    29   8661   07 15 94   1137   25 59.56 N   137 00.07 E   5545
           1    30   8662   07 15 94   2118   25 29.75 N   137 00.56 E   4920
                                                                           
           1    31   8663   07 16 94   0413   25 00.41 N   137 00.14 E   5020
           1    32   8664   07 16 94   1047   24 30.14 N   137 00.09 E   5310
           1    33   8665   07 16 94   1812   23 59.81 N   136 59.87 E   3915
           1    34   8666   07 17 94   0213   23 30.46 N   137 00.00 E   4220
           1    35   8667   07 17 94   0942   23 00.27 N   137 19.61 E   4900
           1    36   8668   07 17 94   1733   22 30.44 N   137 19.64 E   4580
           1    37   8672   07 22 94   1352   22 00.12 N   137 20.23 E   4280
           1    38   8671   07 22 94   0442   21 29.80 N   137 00.41 E   4370
           1    39   8670   07 21 94   1806   20 59.63 N   137 00.11 E   4810
           1    40   8669   07 21 94   0913   20 29.49 N   137 00.32 E   4465
         ---------------------------------------------------------------------


         Leg    Station      Date      Time        Position(GPS)       W.depth
         WHP-P9  Ry      (JST: UTC+9h)        Latitude     Longitude     (m)
         ---------------------------------------------------------------------
           1    41   8673   07 23 94   0737   20 00.11 N   136 59.98 E   4750
           1    42   8674   07 23 94   1657   19 30.27 N   136 59.85 E   4650
           1    43   8675   07 23 94   2306   19 00.60 N   136 59.88 E   4690
           1    44   8676   07 24 94   0542   18 30.63 N   137 00.05 E   4910
           1    45   8677   07 24 94   1232   18 00.18 N   136 59.75 E   4920
           1    46   8678   07 24 94   2117   17 29.88 N   136 59.78 E   4890
           1    47   8679   07 25 94   0403   17 00.74 N   136 59.68 E   4775
           1    48   8680   07 25 94   1042   16 30.21 N   137 00.05 E   5565
           1    49   8681   07 25 94   1752   15 59.85 N   136 59.95 E   5200
           1    50   8682   07 26 94   0239   15 30.27 N   136 59.96 E   5130
         
           1    51   8683   07 26 94   0927   15 00.47 N   136 59.84 E   5290
           1    52   8684   07 26 94   1643   14 30.58 N   136 59.64 E   4480
           1    53   8685   07 26 94   2352   13 59.89 N   137 00.81 E   4810
           2    54   8693   08 06 94   0836   13 29.30 N   136 59.75 E   5100
           2    55   8692   08 06 94   0216   13 00.61 N   136 59.33 E   4815
           2    56   8691   08 05 94   1752   12 30.13 N   137 00.06 E   4695
           2    57   8690   08 05 94   0741   12 00.32 N   136 59.80 E   5150
           2    58   8689   08 04 94   2318   11 30.20 N   136 59.78 E   4730
           2    59   8688   08 04 94   0208   10 59.66 N   136 59.77 E   4895
           2    60   8687   08 03 94   1921   10 30.55 N   136 59.89 E   5025
          
           2    61   8686   08 03 94   1040   09 59.79 N   136 59.77 E   4860
           2    62   8694   08 07 94   0934   09 29.99 N   136 59.85 E   4715
           2    63   8695   08 07 94   1548   08 59.49 N   136 59.93 E   3160
           2    64   8696   08 07 94   2026   08 40.29 N   137 00.95 E   2400
           2    65   8697   08 07 94   2350   08 19.75 N   136 59.97 E   2270
           2    66   8698   08 08 94   0306   08 00.52 N   137 02.00 E   2960
           2    67   8699   08 08 94   0916   07 40.04 N   136 50.09 E   3175
           2    68   8700   08 08 94   1304   07 30.56 N   136 50.09 E   2950
           2    69   8701   08 08 94   1712   07 19.73 N   136 49.66 E   6560
           2    70   8702   08 09 94   0224   07 00.12 N   136 59.89 E   4235
         
           2    71   8703   08 09 94   0823   06 38.84 N   137 20.97 E   4110
           2    72   8704   08 09 94   1428   06 17.09 N   137 43.42 E   4385
           2    73   8705   08 09 94   2009   05 55.30 N   138 04.42 E   4210
           2    74   8706   08 10 94   0352   05 33.29 N   138 26.19 E   4565
           2    75   8707   08 10 94   1008   05 11.16 N   138 49.05 E   4210
           2    76   8708   08 10 94   1603   04 49.13 N   139 10.75 E   4400
           2    77   8709   08 10 94   2144   04 27.48 N   139 32.89 E   4090
           2    78   8710   08 11 94   0518   04 05.24 N   139 55.54 E   4250
           2    79   8711   08 11 94   1113   03 43.08 N   140 17.05 E   4280
           2    80   8712   08 11 94   1913   03 21.20 N   140 39.50 E   3775
         ---------------------------------------------------------------------


         Leg    Station      Date      Time        Position(GPS)       W.depth
         WHP-P9  Ry      (JST: UTC+9h)        Latitude     Longitude     (m)
         ---------------------------------------------------------------------
           2    81   8713   08 12 94   0023   03 00.76 N   140 59.67 E   3535
           2    82   8714   08 12 94   0703   02 45.10 N   141 14.90 E   3030
           2    83   8715   08 12 94   1131   02 30.08 N   141 29.64 E   2800
           2    84   8716   08 12 94   1502   02 15.74 N   141 44.87 E   2615
           2    85   8717   08 12 94   1838   02 00.52 N   141 59.74 E   2575
           2    86   8718   08 13 94   0118   01 45.11 N   141 59.48 E   2750
           2    87   8719   08 13 94   0524   01 30.64 N   142 00.18 E   2810
           2    88   8720   08 13 94   0958   01 15.16 N   142 00.05 E   2940
           2    89   8721   08 13 94   1442   01 00.48 N   142 00.10 E   3060
           2    90   8722   08 13 94   2148   00 45.46 N   142 00.05 E   3140
                                                           
           2    91   8723   08 14 94   0224   00 30.14 N   141 59.96 E   3310
           2    92   8724   08 14 94   0708   00 15.57 N   141 59.85 E   3420
           2    93   8725   08 14 94   1230   00 00.07 S   141 59.83 E   3370
           2    94   8726   08 15 94   0834   00 14.49 S   141 59.98 E   3285
           2    95   8727   08 15 94   1333   00 30.03 S   142 00.01 E   3335
           2    96   8728   08 15 94   1823   00 44.40 S   142 00.04 E   3140
           2    97   8729   08 15 94   2323   00 59.63 S   142 00.03 E   3020
           2    98   8730   08 16 94   0602   01 14.99 S   141 59.85 E   3195
           2    99   8731   08 16 94   1053   01 30.21 S   141 59.93 E   3500
           2   100   8732   08 16 94   1612   01 44.67 S   142 00.35 E   2855
         
           2   101   8733   08 16 94   2045   01 59.46 S   142 00.05 E   3570
           2   102   8734   08 17 94   0357   02 14.52 S   142 04.67 E   3910
           2   103   8735   08 17 94   1027   02 29.22 S   142 09.86 E   4150
           2   104   8736   08 17 94   1559   02 44.53 S   142 14.81 E   3040
           2   105   8737   08 18 94   0718   02 52.16 S   142 16.92 E   1760
         
         (Re-occupation)
           2    92   8738   08 19 94   0004   00 15.09 N   141 59.97 E   3395
         ---------------------------------------------------------------------

         
         A.2.b   Total number of stations occupied
       
         Sampling Accomplished
         
         105 stations of CTD casts were completed.  Measured  
         parameters and numbers of samples are as follows:
         
           Numbers of sampling bottles and layers
           bottles :         triggered             3613
                             successfully closed   3592
           sampling layers : triggered             3392
                             successfully sampled  3226           
         
           Numbers of water samples analyzed:
           salinity           105 stations   3224 layers
           oxygen             101 stations   3041 layers 
           nutrients          101 stations   3102 layers
           CFCs                24 stations    351 layers
           Total Carbonate     23 stations    618 layers
         
           Numbers  of water samples collected  for  shore-based analysis:
           helium-3 (3He)      25 stations    486 layers
           tritium (3H)        25 stations    389 layers
           AMS carbon-14 (14C) 23 stations    618 layers

         A.2.c   Floats and drifters deployed
         
         None
         
         A.2.d   Moorings Deployed or Recovered
         
         None
         
         A.3 LIST OF PRINICIPAL INVESTIGATORS FOR ALL MEASUREMENTS (TABLE 1.2)
                  
         Table 1.2
         Parameter               Sampling group          Principal Investigator
         ----------------------------------------------------------------------
         CTDO/Rosette            JMA/MD                  Yasushi Takatsuki
         Salinity                JMA/MD                  Yasushi Takatsuki
         Oxygen, Nutrients       JMA/MD                  Hitomi Kamiya
         CFC                     JMA/MD                  Ikuo Kaneko
                                 TU                      Mamoru Tamaki
         3H/3HE                  JMA/MRI                 Katsumi Hirose
                                 L-DEO                   Peter Schlosser
         14C                     JMA/MRI                 Katsumi Hirose
         Total carbonate         JMA/MRI                 Masao Ishii
         ADCP                    JMA/MD                  Ikuo Kaneko
         ----------------------------------------------------------------------
            JMA/MD:  Marine Department, Japan Meteorological Agency
            JMA/MRI: Meteorological Research Inst., JMA
            TU:      Tokai University
            L-DEO:   Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University
         
         
         A.4  SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME AND METHODS

            Figures  1.2a-1.2f show  the  locations  where  water  samples  
         were   collected  for  analyses of dissolved  oxygen,  nutrients,  
         CFCs,  3H, 3He, and 14C.  Figures 1.3a and 1.3b show  preliminary 
         vertical sections of potential temperature and salinity taken  by 
         the CTD.
         
         ADCP Measurements
         
            Continuous  underway  current  measurements were made by  ADCP 
         (RD Instruments Inc., Model RD-VM0075TM) along the cruise  track.  
         The  current  was measured at 50 layers from the sea  surface  to 
         800m depth.
         
         
         1.3 Lists of Principal Investigators and Cruise Participants
         
            The measured  parameters, sampling  groups, principal investi-
         gators (PIs) and participants in the cruise are listed in  Tables 
         1.2 and 1.3.
         
         
         1.4 Preliminary Results
         
         Cruise tracks
         
         Leg-1 (from Tokyo to Palau, Sta.1-53)

            Leg-1 consisted of  53 stations (Sta.1-53;  Ry8633-8685).  The 
         P9  section was started at Sta.1 (34 15 N, 137 00 E) on  July  9, 
         1994.   From the start of the section to Sta.36(Ry8668; 22  30N), 
         the  observations were carried out from north to south  according 
         to the plan.  Owing to the approach of the typhoon(T9407),  after 
         Sta.  36 on July 17, R/V Ryofu Maru sailed down to 20 N  to  wait 
         till  the typhoon(T9407) went through the P9 section at about  25 
         N.   The observations resumed at July 21 from Sta.40 (Ry8669;  20 
         29  N) toward the northern stations to save shiptime because  the 
         sea  condition  recovered from south to north.  A  small  rosette 
         system(12  2.5-liter  bottles)  was  used  at  Stas.40,  39   and 
         38(Ry8669-8671)  owing to the unfavorable sea state due  to  high 
         swell  after  the storm.  After Sta.37 (Ry8672) at 22 00  N,  R/V 
         Ryofu Maru sailed down to Sta.41 (Ry8673) at 20 00 N and  resumed 
         the  observation toward the southern stations.  We cut short  the 
         first  leg after Sta.53 (Ry8685) at 14 00 N on July 26  to  enter 
         the  port of  Palau as scheduled.  Sta.53 is the last station  of 
         Leg-1.
         
         Leg-2 (from Palau to Guam, Sta.54-105)

            Owing  to  the  typhoon,  we had to cut  Leg-1  leaving  eight 
         stations  unoccupied, and Sta.54 at 13 30N was  the  northernmost 
         site  in Leg-2.  These made Leg-2 schedule tight. We,  therefore, 
         decided to introduce a new track of shortcut from 7 00 N, 137  00 
         E  toward 3 00 N, 142 00 E.  The new Leg-2 contained 52  stations 
         (Sta.54-105) from 13 30 N to the coast of Papua New Gunia.
            When  R/V Ryofu  Maru left  Palau on Aug. 2 and began to  sail 
         back to the northernmost station of Leg-2 at 13 30 N (Sta.54),  a 
         weather  forecast reported generation and approach of  a  typhoon 
         (T9413).   As  stormy weather was predicted around  the  northern 
         part of the Leg-2 section, we started Leg-2 from 10 00  N(Sta.61; 
         Ry8686)  toward the northern stations.  The small rosette  system 
         (12  2.5-liter bottles) was used at Stas.58, 57 and  56  (Ry8689-
         8691) to carry out the observation safely in the rough sea.
            R/V  Ryofu Maru  reached  the northernmost station at 13 29  N 
         (Sta.54;  Ry8693) on August 6 and turned back to south in  aiming 
         at the station at 9 30 N (Sta.62; Ry8694).  The observation  pro-
         gressed   on   schedule   from   Sta.62   to   the   southernmost 
         station(Sta.105;  Ry8737), where we arrived on Aug. 18.   On  the 
         way  to  Guam,  R/V  Ryofu Maru return to the  station  at  0  15 
         N(Sta.92)  for  re-occupation  because mistrips  of  the  rosette 
         system  had caused many data lacks at the station on the  outward 
         voyage.  Sta.92 at 0 15 N has, therefore, the two serial  station 
         numbers, Ry8724 and RY8738.
         
         Some remarks on the hydrocast
         
            Because  R/V Ryofu Maru,  which  was constructed in  1966,  is 
         not  equipped with facilities to hover herself at a  fixed  posi-
         tion,  hydrocasts had to be carried out while R/V Ryofu Maru  was 
         kept  drifting.  The CTD/rosette system was flowed far  from  the 
         ship in case of swift current or high wind.  A water depth  meas-
         ured by sounding does not agree with one estimated from  combina-
         tion  of  CTD depth and its altimeter height from the  bottom  in 
         such  a case.  At Sta.36 (Ry8668), we had to deploy  the  CTD/ro-
         sette system under the condition that mean wind speed was over 17 
         m/s.   The  CTD/rosette system could not reach  the  bottom  even 
         payout of full length of the cable.  The maximum CTD pressure was 
         4317 dbar while the water depth is 5075 m.
            Sta.69  (Ry8701)  is above  the western  end  of  Yap  Trench.
         Although the water depth was 6600 meters, we left off the cast at 
         6000 m depth, considering small power of our winch.  Because mean 
         water depths of the basins around Yap Trench never exceed 5500 m, 
         the data lack in the deep trench will no seriously  inconvenience 
         for studies on the general circulations in this region. 
         
            Owing  to  the  limited capacity of the winch and thin  cable, 
         we  had to choose small sampling bottles for our the  CTD/rosette 
         system, regardless off their vulnerability to CFCs contamination.  
         As  a  countermeasure against the  contamination,  we  introduced 
         Bullister  style 2.5-liter sampling bottles, which were  designed 
         so that sampled water is hard to contaminate with CFCs  contained 
         in  materials of the bottles.  They were made at the  factory  of 
         NOAA/PMEL.
            The other  countermeasure  was a extra cast for CFCs  sampling 
         at stations for the tracers.  At the stations, samples for oxygen 
         and  nutrients were completed in the first (shallow)  and  second 
         (deep)  cast.  14C and 3He samples below 1500 m depth  were  also 
         drawn  in  the second cast.  In the third extra  cast,  CFCs  and 
         3H/3He  samples above 1500 m depth were drawn.  Salinity  samples 
         were also drawn from almost all bottles to determine true  depths 
         of bottle closings.  
            In  addition  to  copper tubes  sampling for 3H/3He,  1  liter 
         glass bottles filled with argon gas were used for 3H sampling  at 
         layers above 1500 m depth.


         A.5 MAJOR PROBLEMS AND GOALS NOT ACHIEVED

         Problems
         
         1) Mistrip of the rosette system

            We  were  troubled  with  mistrips of the  24-bottles  rosette 
         system throughout the cruise.
            The  mistrips  occurred whenever the system was deployed below 
         1500 m depth.  As the same number of double-trips always followed 
         misfires,  the  number of closed bottles agreed with the  one  of 
         trigger commands when the system was recovered on the deck.  This 
         agreement of the numbers delayed our discovery of the trouble.   
            Mistrip  was  never  reproduced  at the trigger tests  on  the 
         deck.  Following the article of mistrip appeared in the report of 
         Moana Wave Cruise 893 (in WHPO90-1 manual), we intended to adjust 
         the tensions of lanyards and bolts fixing the upper plate of  the 
         pylon, on monitoring occurrence of mistrips.  On the way of  Leg-
         1,  we took out the pylon from the rosette frame, cooled it in  a 
         bath  filled with ice water for two hours and  repeated  triggers 
         under  the  condition that lanyards pulled the  balls  with  high 
         tension.  But, this trial was in vain because the mistrip was not 
         reproduced  by the cooling.  We speculated that this trouble  was 
         caused  by high pressure and was a different phenomenon from  the 
         one occurred during Moana Wave Cruise 893.
            We cleaned  up the  trigger pins, loosened the bolts of  upper 
         plate,  and mounted digital RTMs and RPMs on as many  bottles  as 
         possible.   Once  we specified a bottle (or  trigger  pin)  which 
         tended to cause a misfire, we set the rosette so as to use it  at 
         the shallowest layer or not to use it if possible.  However, this 
         countermeasure  has  caused  irregular misfires  at  other  pins.  
         After  some  trials and errors, we found a way to use  a  misfire 
         bottle at the deepest layer and to send trigger command twice  or 
         more there.  When a misfire was forced firstly at the deepest,  a 
         double-fire  stably occurred at bottles around the opposite  side 
         of  the  rosette frame, and the occurrence of mistrips  was  kept 
         under our control during several days.  However, while we relaxed 
         our attention, a misfire used to escape from the deepest layer to 
         a  shallower  layer, and we had to change our  sampling  tactics.  
         This vicious circle was continued until the last station. 
            Owing  to  the  mistrips,  about 5% of total of  the  sampling 
         layers  were lost.  As our rosette system was not an  intelligent 
         type, misfires and double-fires caused sampling layer shifts.  We 
         determined true sampling layers carefully from the data of  RTMs, 
         RPMs, salinity  and the other chemical properties when we  assem-
         bled the water sample data file, 49RY9407.SEA.
         
       
         2) CTD break down and replacement at Sta.69 (Ry8701)

            At  the  second cast of Sta.69, the temperature sensor of  our 
         CTD  ( FSI Triton ICTDTM ) broke down when the  system  descended 
         below  3500  m depth.  The CTD was replaced to the  other  Triton 
         ICTD on the deck.  However, a DO sensor prepared for the new  CTD 
         did  not work on account of broken wires inside of plastics  mold 
         of the sensor unit.  To repair the wires was impossible for us on 
         the deck.  The other DO sensor of the broken CTD did not work  on 
         the  new CTD because its inside circuit did not adapt to the  new 
         CTD.  We, therefore, had to give up measuring DO profiles by  CTD 
         system since the deep cast of Sta.69.
            According  to  the  comparison of water  temperatures  between 
         the  RTMs and CTD, a drift of the CTD temperature was  recognized 
         from  Sta.51(Ry8683) and reached at the maximum of 0.02ƒC  before 
         the CTD breakdown.  CTD temperature was carefully corrected based 
         on  the RTM temperatures, but had to be flagged as 'Bad  measure-
         ment' in our CTD record files at several stations. 
              
         3) A trouble of DO titrator

            We  used  a  photometric  automated  titrator,  Model  ART-3TM 
         manufactured  by Hirama Riken Inc.  During Leg-1, from  Tokyo  to 
         Palau,  the titrator often became unstable.  The sensor  circuit, 
         bad focus of the lamp and large vibration of the table are specu-
         lated  as  the cause of bad titration.  We could not  repair  the 
         titrator until R/V Ryofu Maru reach Palau, where we replaced  the 
         bad optical unit with the one transported from Tokyo.  In  Leg-2, 
         the titrator worked normally.


         2. MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND CALIBRATIONS
         
         2.1  SALINITY MEASUREMENTS 
              (I.Kaneko)

         Equipment and Technique
         
            Salinity  samples  were  collected in 150 ml amber glass  bot-
         tles with rubber caps and stored in an air-conditioned laboratory 
         for more than 24 hours before salinity measurements.  The salini-
         ties  were  measured  with a GuildlineTM  AutosalTM  Model  8400B 
         salinometer. The salinometer was standardized with IAPSO Standard 
         Sea  Water(SSW)  every day when it was used for  sample  measure-
         ments.
            During  the  cruise,  we regularly took a batch of deep  water 
         below 1000 m depth, sealed in a polyethylene rectangular bag  and 
         used  as a sub-standard water to monitor instrument  drifts.   We 
         kept  a batch of sub-standard sea water being isolated  from  air 
         and stirred with a magnet stirrer so as to maintain its constancy 
         of salinity during salinity sample measurements.  A batch of sub-
         standard sea water was replaced by new one when the bag decreased 
         in volume by half.  This is because salinity of the  sub-standard 
         sea  water  tended to increase by about 0.0004  when  its  volume 
         decreased largely.
            We  made efforts  to keep the variation of laboratory tempera-
         ture  within 1ƒC between two standardizations before and after  a 
         series  of salinity measurements, though the variation  sometimes 
         exceeded the limit and reached 2ƒC at the maximum.  Drifts of the 
         laboratory   and   bath  temperatures  were  monitored   with   a 
         HPTM2804A Quartz Thermometer, of which temperature resolution was 
         set  to  0.0001ƒC.   31 outputs of conductivity  ratio  from  the 
         Autosal were taken by a PC at each reading, and their median  and 
         standard deviation were calculated and recorded with the  labora-
         tory and bath temperatures measured simultaneously.
         
         Our results of inter-batch comparisons
         
            After  all  the  observations along the P9 section were  over, 
         the  IAPSO SSW batch used during the present cruise, P123  (Dated 
         10/6/1993),  was  compared with some older batches of  IAPSO  SSW 
         (P88,  100,  110, 114, 118, 121) available, so as to  obtain  the 
         correction  value of salinity data based on the batch P123.   The 
         results  of the inter-batch comparison is shown in  Table  2.1.1.  
         As  for  the batch P88, white precipitate was recognized  on  the 
         glass  walls  of  three ampoules, all of  which  salinity  values 
         measured  were  about 0.015 lower than the  labeled  value.   The 
         other  ampoule  contained suspended particles, but  the  salinity 
         difference  between measured and labeled was not  large  compared 
         with the other three ampoules.  


         Table  2.1.1   Differences of measured  salinity(Smeas)  and  SSW 
                        label derived salinity(Slavel) referred to  batch P123.
         
         -----------------------------------------------------------------
         Batch  Preparation    K15    Slavel    Smeas-Slabel    Mean sS 
                   Date                         (sS: x103)      (x103)
         -----------------------------------------------------------------
         P88    1 Dec 1979  19.3760*  35.0037  -14.0,-16.7,      -1.5**
                                               -1.5,-16.7
         P100  29 Nov 1984   1.00003  35.0012   1.0               1.0**
         P110  20 Jul 1988   0.99999  34.9996   1.2               1.2**
         P114  30 Jul 1990   0.99986  34.9945   1.8               1.8**
         P118  12 Nov 1991   0.99994  34.9976   0.4,0.4,0.4,0.4   0.4
         P121   8 Sep 1992   0.99985  34.9941  -0.2,-0.4,-0.4,   -0.3
                                               -0.2,
         P123  10 Jun 1993   0.99994  34.9976   0.0,0.0,0.2,0.0,  0.0
         (Reference standard)                   0.0,0.2
         -----------------------------------------------------------------
            *:Chlorinity   **:Single datum
         
         
              Anyway, the number of ampoules for P88, P100, P110, and P114 
         is   not   enough  to  connect  our  results  with   the   former 
         studies(e.g.,  Mantyla,1987; Takatsuki et al.,1991).  We hope  to 
         connect  our result of inter-batch comparison with other  similar 
         works of WOCE which may contain P118 and P121, so as to determine 
         the  correction  value of our salinity measurements  referred  to 
         P123.  
         
         Indexes of precision and accuracy
         
              Table 2.1.2 shows the results of salinity measurements  made 
         during the cruise from 261 replicate samples collected in differ-
         ent glass bottles from a 2.5-liter Niskin bottle.  The  precision 
         of  salinity  measurements is estimated at 0.0007  in  Leg-1  and 
         0.0005 in Leg-2. 


         Table 2.1.2  Salinity measurements comparisons
         -----------------------------------------------------
         Case         Standard deviation    Number of data
                            PSS-78
         -----------------------------------------------------
         Leg 1
         Replicate         0.00071               199
         -----------------------------------------------------
         Leg 2
         Replicate         0.00045                62
         -----------------------------------------------------

              To provide the further estimate of data quality,  scattering 
         of  property  values at constant potential temperatures  was  in-
         spected in the deep ocean, after the example given in WOCE Opera-
         tions Manual(WHPO, 1991).  Figures 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 shows  meridi-
         onal  distribution of salinity and oxygen concentration  at  con-
         stant  potential  temperatures of 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8  and  2.0ƒC.  
         These plots indicate that meridional variation of the  properties 
         is almost linear at a constant potential temperature below 1.4ƒC, 
         but  not above 1.6ƒC.  Considering characteristics of the  bottom 
         topography  and property distributions in/around  the  Philippine 
         Sea, we divided the whole P9 section into five regions.  And, for 
         each  region, we calculated the standard deviations for the  dif-
         ference  of  property concentrations at  the  constant  potential 
         temperatures  from  a  least squares linear-fit  to  them  (Table 
         2.1.3).  From this method, precision of salinity measurements  is 
         estimated at about 0.001.
              The  P9 section crosses with the P3(1989) and  the  P4(1989) 
         sections.   However,  The  station locations both of  P3  and  P4 
         sections  around  137E does not agree with the ones of  P9.   We, 
         therefore,  averaged the data around the crossings as a  function 
         of potential temperature, and compared them each other to  obtain 
         the  systematic biases in our data.  This comparison was done  by 
         using the data in the deep ocean below 2000 meters, where  short-
         term  variability  in the deep water may be small.   The  results 
         (Table  2.1.4) suggest that our salinity data are  0.0025  higher 
         than  that of P3, and 0.0008 higher than that of P4.  We hope  to 
         know  whether these biases are ascribed to inter-batch  variation 
         of the IAPSO SSW used in P3, P4 and P9 cruises.

         A.6  OTHER INCIDENTS OF NOTE

         A.7  LIST OF CRUISE PARTICIPANTS (TABLE 1.3)


         Table 1.3
         ------------------------------------------------------------
         Name                  Role and affiliation 
         ------------------------------------------------------------
         Ikuo Kaneko           Chief Scientist(JMA/MD  ADCP)
         Satoshi Kawae         Co-chief Scientist(JMA/MD  Salinity)
         Yasushi Takatsuki     (JMA/MD  CTDO/Rosette, Salinity)
         Takashi Yamada        (JMA/MD  CTDO/Rosette)
         Satoshi Sugimoto      (JMA/KMO  CTDO2/rosette)
         Tatsushi Shiga        (JMA/NMO  Salinity)
         Hiroyuki Takano       (JMA/HMO  Salinity)
         Hitomi Kamiya         (JMA/MD  Oxygen, Nutrients)
         Toshiya Nakano        (JMA/MD  Oxygen)
         Tomoaki Nakamura      (JMA/MD  Oxygen)
         Takao Shimizu         (JMA/MMO Oxygen)
         Sukeyoshi Takatani    (JMA/MD  Nutrients)
         Kazuhiko Hayashi      (JMA/MD  Nutrients)                
         Kazuhiro Nemoto       (JMA/MD  CFCs)
         Shu Saitoh            (JMA/MD  CFCs)
         Mamoru Tamaki         (TU  CFCs)
         Masao Ishii           (JMA/MRI  14C, 3H/3He, Total carbonate)
         Takashi Miyao         (JMA/MRI  14C, 3H/3He) 
         -------------------------------------------------------------
           JMA/MD : Marine Department, Japan Meteorological Agency
           JMA/KMO: Kobe Marine Observatory, JMA


         2.2  OXYGEN MEASUREMENTS
              (H. Kamiya and I. Kaneko)
 
         Sampling Procedure
         
              The dissolved oxygen samples were collected in 120 ml  glass 
         bottles,  which were designed and manufactured being referred  to 
         WHPO  91-2 report(1991) on an intercomparison of oxygen  measure-
         ment methods and a paper by Green and Carritt(1966).  Our  bottle 
         has  a  collar on its mouth as a flan flask has,  and  its  round 
         glass  stopper  contains a long nipple, which  extends  into  the 
         flask and displaces enough volume of sample water so that  titra-
         tion  reagent  do not overflow the flask.  Both the  bottles  and 
         stoppers  had  been washed and dried  before they were  used  for 
         seawater sampling on the deck.  After a stopper was inserted into 
         a  bottle to seal seawater, temperature of a sample  is  measured 
         with a thermistor probe being inserted into seawater remained  in 
         a collar.
         
         Equipment and Technique
         
            The  reagents  were  prepared  according to  the  recipes  by 
         Carpenter(1965)  and Culberson(WHPO91-1 manual,1991) though  nor-
         mality  of  sodium thiosulfate for titration was  selected  about 
         0.03 in order that a titration for the highest oxygen  concentra-
         tion would finished within a volume of the burette. The  titrator 
         used in the P9 cruise, Model ART-3TM, was a photometric type (372 
         nm), which has been manufactured by Hirama Riken Inc.  The volume 
         of burette is 5 ml, and the resolution of titration is 0.0025 ml.
              Reagent  blanks  (expressed as Vblk,dw in  WHPO91-1  manual) 
         were measured during the cruise, determined as 0.0050 ml both for 
         Leg-1 and Leg-2, and subtracted from all of thiosulfate titers of 
         the  samples.  The reagent blank (Vblk,dw) of 0.0050 ml  obtained 
         with our oxygen flask, of which nominal volume is 118 ml,  corre-
         sponds to a oxygen concentration of 0.0068 ml/l.  Seawater blanks 
         (Vblk,sw)  were measured only at Sta.92 (Ry8724) in Leg-2  (Table 
         2.2.1).   Considering the resolution of our  titrator,  0.0025ml, 
         this  measurement did not detect vertical variability of  Vblk,sw 
         at  Sta.92  from  surface to deep ocean.  Vblk,sw  of  0.0150  ml 
         corresponds  to a oxygen concentration of 0.0204 ml/l,  which  is 
         three times larger than Vblk,dw.  According to the suggestion  in 
         WHPO91-1 manual, the value of Vblk,sw was recorded, but not  used 
         for the calculations of oxygen concentrations.


         Table 2.2.1  Measurements of seawater blanks
         
         
            Date 14/08/94   Stn.92(Ry8724)
            Lat. 00 16N  Lon. 142 00E    Water depth 3420m
          -------------------------------------------------------
          Depth  Vblk,sw      Depth  Vblk,sw      Depth  Vblk,sw
           (m)     (ml)        (m)     (ml)        (m)     (ml)
          ------------------------------------------------------- 
              0   0.0150        300   0.0175       1750   0.0725*
             10   0.0125        400   0.0175       2000   0.0075
             25   0.0100        500   0.0125       2250   0.0150
             50   0.0100        600   0.0125       2500   0.0150
             75   0.0150        700   0.0225*      2750   0.0150
            100   0.0125        800   0.0125       3000   0.0175
            125   0.0100        900   0.0175       3250   0.0150
            150   0.0150       1250   0.0175       3385   0.0150
            200   0.0150       1500   0.0175
           ------------------------------------------------------
            *: bad measurement
         
         Indexes of precision and accuracy
         
              The results of comparisons between replicate/duplicate  sam-
         ples  are shown in Table 2.2.2.  Owing to frequent  misfires  and 
         double-fires  of  the rosette system, we often failed  to  obtain 
         duplicate samples at purposed layers.  We, therefore, had to make 
         the  best use of the samples from double-fired bottles as  dupli-
         cate  samples.  Duplicate  samples  were  classified  two  cases.  
         'Duplicate-A'  is the case that samples were drawn from two  bot-
         tles which had closed normally at adjacent depths.  'Duplicate-B' 
         is  the case that samples were drawn from two bottles which  were 
         judged  that they had closed at the same depths owing to  double-
         fires.


         Table 2.2.2  Oxygen analyses comparisons
         
                Case        Standard deviation    Number of data
                           umol/kg  (% of F.S.)  
               --------------------------------------------------
                 Leg 1
               Replicate       1.591   (0.68)          244                     
               Duplicate-A     1.604   (0.69)           18
               Duplicate-B     1.711   (0.73)           88
               --------------------------------------------------
                 Leg 2
               Replicate       0.595   (0.25)          252
               Duplicate-A     1.133   (0.48)           70
               Duplicate-B     0.576   (0.25)           85
               --------------------------------------------------
                F.S.: 234 umol/kg


              The precision during Leg-1 is not satisfactory.  The  sensor 
         circuit,  bad focus of the lamp and large vibration of the  table 
         are  speculated  as the cause of bad  titration.   The  precision 
         during  the Leg-2 was improved since we replaced the titrator  at 
         Palau by new parts of optical unit.  In Leg-2, mistrips frequent-
         ly  occurred at the time of duplicate sampling in the deep  ocean 
         and  made the depths of available 'Duplicate-A' data weighted  to 
         be shallow.  We, therefore, interpreted that the low-precision in 
         'Duplicate-A'  is  ascribed to large gradient or  fluctuation  of 
         vertical oxygen distribution in shallow layers.
              As  is  explained in the section of  salinity  measurements, 
         scattering of oxygen concentrations at constant potential temper-
         atures (Figure 2.1.2) is used for another estimate of  precision.  
         Table 2.1.3 includes the standard deviations for the  differences 
         between the interpolated oxygen data and a least squares  linear-
         fit  to their values at each of the potential  temperatures.  The 
         standard  deviations at the deepest layer range from 0.4  to  0.9 
         umol/kg.


         Table 2.1.3  Standard deviation of water sample data
         
         Whole section(from 34 15 N to 02 52 S)
         
         Theta        Press.  Salinity Oxygen   Silicate Nitrate  Phosphate
          ƒC   Points  dbar    PSS-78  umol/kg  umol/kg  umol/kg  umol/kg
         ------------------------------------------------------------------
          1.2    50     101    0.0009   0.8518   0.8346   0.1771   0.0243
          1.4    84     120    0.0012   0.8101   0.9432   0.2045   0.0259
          1.6    92      63    0.0023   1.2691   1.1396   0.2152   0.0282
          1.8    95      52    0.0042   1.4863   1.0212   0.2280   0.0254
          2.0    95      53    0.0068   2.8115   1.0746   0.2520   0.0248
         ------------------------------------------------------------------
         
         
         Shikoku Basin(from 34 15 N to 26 00 N)
         
         Theta        Press.  Salinity Oxygen   Silicate Nitrate  Phosphate
          ƒC   Points  dbar    PSS-78  umol/kg  umol/kg  umol/kg  umol/kg
         ------------------------------------------------------------------
          1.2     7     135    0.0015   0.8268   0.5752   0.0810   0.0059
          1.4    19      84    0.0011   0.5234   0.6193   0.1488   0.0094
          1.6    20      73    0.0016   1.0444   0.6171   0.1430   0.0135
          1.8    21      68    0.0015   1.0064   0.6370   0.2386   0.0186
          2.0    21      64    0.0014   1.6617   0.6697   0.1610   0.0146
         ------------------------------------------------------------------
         
         
         Transient Area(from 26 00 N to 24 00 N)
         
         Theta        Press.  Salinity Oxygen   Silicate Nitrate  Phosphate
          ƒC   Points  dbar    PSS-78  umol/kg  umol/kg  umol/kg  umol/kg
         ------------------------------------------------------------------
          1.2     5      84    0.0014   0.3961   0.2042   0.0911   0.0042
          1.4     5      37    0.0017   0.5051   0.4202   0.0874   0.0096
          1.6     5      32    0.0005   1.6340   0.2598   0.0830   0.0086
          1.8     5      34    0.0019   1.1954   0.6554   0.0591   0.0133
          2.0     5      30    0.0036   2.1174   0.6255   0.0813   0.0123
         ------------------------------------------------------------------
         

         West Mariana Basin(from 24 00 N to 08 20 N)
         
         Theta        Press.  Salinity Oxygen   Silicate Nitrate  Phosphate
          ƒC   Points  dbar    PSS-78  umol/kg  umol/kg  umol/kg  umol/kg
         ------------------------------------------------------------------
          1.2    30      94    0.0006   0.6649   0.6934   0.1368   0.0185
          1.4    31      81    0.0010   1.0329   0.9236   0.1668   0.0155
          1.6    31      57    0.0011   1.5957   1.0965   0.1441   0.0196
          1.8    33      45    0.0014   1.3663   1.0321   0.1503   0.0194
          2.0    33      51    0.0025   1.5907   0.7925   0.1521   0.0162
         ------------------------------------------------------------------


         West Caroline Basin(from 08 20 N to 02 00 N)
         
         Theta        Press.  Salinity Oxygen   Silicate Nitrate  Phosphate
          ƒC   Points  dbar    PSS-78  umol/kg  umol/kg  umol/kg  umol/kg
         ------------------------------------------------------------------
          1.2    10      47    0.0008   0.5618   0.6337   0.1733   0.0236
          1.4    15      35    0.0008   0.6066   0.6293   0.2133   0.0268
          1.6    19      29    0.0008   0.5618   0.5614   0.2023   0.0282
          1.8    20      27    0.0007   1.0387   0.9673   0.2439   0.0214
          2.0    20      32    0.0008   1.4090   0.8063   0.2627   0.0198
         ------------------------------------------------------------------
         
         
         Eauripik Ridge(from 02 00 N to 02 52 S)
         
         Theta        Press.  Salinity Oxygen   Silicate Nitrate  Phosphate
          ƒC   Points  dbar    PSS-78  umol/kg  umol/kg  umol/kg  umol/kg
         ------------------------------------------------------------------
          1.2     0       -       -        -        -        -        -
          1.4    16      40    0.0007   0.4097   0.4273   0.1157   0.0197
          1.6    20      34    0.0008   0.4800   0.4403   0.1459   0.0194
          1.8    20      32    0.0010   0.4849   0.8089   0.1812   0.0234
          2.0    20      33    0.0008   0.4649   0.4725   0.1392   0.0217
         ------------------------------------------------------------------


              The P9 section crosses with P3(1985) and P4(1989)  sections.  
         We  compared  our results with the data of these  sections.   Its 
         procedure  is  explained  in the  section  on  salinity  measure-
         ments (Sec.2.1), and the results are included in Table 2.1.4. Our 
         deep  oxygen concentrations seems to well agree with the ones  of 
         P3 section, but to be 2 or 3 % higher than those of P4 section.


         Table 2.1.4  Comparison of water sample data between P9 and P3/P4 
         
                      Salinity  Oxygen    Silicate  Nitrate   Phosphate
         ------------------------------------------------------------------
          Ratio(P9/P3)          1.0032    0.9843    0.9826    1.0245
          Diff.(P9-P3) 0.0025
         ------------------------------------------------------------------
         P3 station :  P3-320( 24 15.40N, 137  0.00E )
         P9 stations:  P9- 32( 24 30.14N, 137  0.09E )
                       P9- 33( 23 59.81N, 136 59.87E )
         
         
                       Salinity  Oxygen    Silicate  Nitrate   Phosphate
         ------------------------------------------------------------------
          Ratio(P9/P4)           1.0267    0.9860    1.0023    0.9958
          Diff.(P9-P4) 0.0008
         ------------------------------------------------------------------
         P4 stations:  P3- 26(  8 59.70N, 136 40.10E )
                       P3- 27(  9  2.00N, 136 38.50E )
                       P3- 28(  9  0.10N, 137 14.90E )
         P9 stations:  P9- 62(  9 29.99N, 136 59.85E )
                       P9- 63(  8 59.49N, 136 59.93E )
                       P9- 64(  8 40.29N, 137  0.95E )



         2.3  NUTRIENT MEASUREMENTS
              (H. Kamiya and I. Kaneko)

         Sampling Procedure
         
            Nutrient  samples  were  drawn  into 10  ml  polymethylpentene 
         test  tubes  with screw caps.  The tubes  (bottles)  were  always 
         handled  with  disposable polyethylene gloves.  Each  sample  was 
         collected in two bottles, one of which was immediately  refriger-
         ated  as a spare in case of questionable measurement or  malfunc-
         tion of our analyzer.  However in practice, we need not have used 
         the  spare samples throughout the P9 cruise.  The Niskin  bottles 
         were filled with distilled water when we stopped observations for 
         several days owing to bad weathers or a recess at Palau, and were 
         washed with 0.1 molar NaOH before casts after the breaks.  
         
         Equipment and Technique
         
             The  nutrient  analyses  were  performed  using  a  Technicon 
         AutoAnalyzerTM-II  (AA-II).   We prepared the reagents  and  flow 
         lines referred to the manual by L.I. Gordon et al.(13 July  1992; 
         Draft),  entitled  ' An Suggested Protocol  for  Continuous  Flow 
         Automated Analysis of Seawater Nutrients in the WOCE Hydrographic 
         Program  and the Joint Global Ocean Fluxes Study'.   However,  as 
         for  phosphate and silicate analyses, we introduced the  ascorbic 
         acid  method  for  convenience of  reagent  preservability.   The 
         manifolds  and reagent prescriptions are shown in Figures  2.3.1-
         2.3.4  for silicate, nitrate, nitrite and phosphate.  Our  system 
         heated  silicate and phosphate samples up to 37ƒC so as  to  keep 
         coloration rate stable.
            The  analyses  routinely  were started within one  hour  after 
         water sampling on deck.  Samples were introduced to the manifolds 
         through  the cycle of 80 seconds sampling and 45 seconds  washing 
         with  artificial seawater of salinity ca. 34.7.  Nominal  concen-
         trations of A, B and working standards are listed in Table 2.3.1. 
         Output from the AA-II was taken at each second by a  microcomput-
         er.  For  each sample, six output values were selected  from  ten 
         highest  values around a peak, by rejecting the two  highest  and 
         lowest values, and they are averaged to yield a peak-hold value.


         Table 2.3.1  Nominal concentrations of standards
         
         
                       A-standard      B-standard      Working-standard
                        (umol/l)        (umol/l)         (umol/l)
         --------------------------------------------------------------------
         Silicate        99840*          1996.8           159.74
         Nitrate         25000            500              40 + 1
         Nitrite         12500            250               1
         Phosphate        1875             37.5             3
         --------------------------------------------------------------------
         
         * Three ampoules of Silica, 1000 ppm StandardTM by J.T.Baker Inc. 
         were together diluted with 500ml water and preserved as  A-stand-
         ard.  
         

         Indexes of precision and accuracy
         
              The  results of comparison between duplicate/replicate  sam-
         ples  are  shown in Table 2.3.2.  In the same manner  as  oxygen, 
         duplicate samples were classified into two cases.   'Duplicate-A' 
         is  the case that samples were drawn from two bottles  which  had 
         closed  normally at adjacent depths.  'Duplicate-B' is  the  case 
         that  samples  were drawn from two bottles judged that  they  had 
         closed  at the same depths owing to double-fires.  The result  of 
         low-precision in 'Duplicate-A' during Leg-2 is similar to the one 
         in oxygen.  This supports our interpretation given in the section 
         of  oxygen  measurements; i.e. owing to the  mistrips,  the  data 
         available for 'Duplicate-A' had been weighted to shallow  layers, 
         where  gradients or fluctuations of vertical  nutrient  distribu-
         tions  are  relatively  large compared to the ones  in  the  deep 
         ocean.


         Table 2.3.2  Nutrient analyses comparisons
         
                 (Unit: upper: umol/kg  lower: % of full scale).  
         
           Case      Silicate  Nitrate   Nitrite   Phosphate  Num. of data
         -------------------------------------------------------------------
         Leg 1  
         
          Replicate    0.227     0.102     0.004     0.008       260
                      (0.16)    (0.24)    (0.42)    (0.27)
          Duplicate-A  0.244     0.075     0.003     0.005        19
                      (0.17)    (0.18)    (0.28)    (0.17)
          Duplicate-B  0.292     0.100     0.003     0.009        94
                      (0.20)    (0.24)    (0.29)    (0.30)
         -------------------------------------------------------------------
         Leg 2
         
          Replicate    0.370     0.137     0.005     0.011       295
                      (0.25)    (0.33)    (0.45)    (0.38)
          Duplicate-A  0.559     0.165     0.005     0.017        66
                      (0.38)    (0.38)    (0.48)    (0.56)
          Duplicate-B  0.413     0.098     0.005     0.013        89
                      (0.28)    (0.23)    (0.47)    (0.45)
         -------------------------------------------------------------------
         
         Full Scale     146        42         1         3     (umol/kg) 
         
         -------------------------------------------------------------------


              As  is  explained in the section of  salinity  measurements, 
         scattering  of nutrient concentrations at the constant  potential 
         temperatures  is used for another estimate of  precision.   Table 
         2.1.3 includes the standard deviations for the difference between 
         nutrient  concentrations interpolated at the  potential  tempera-
         tures and a least squares linear-fit to their values.


         Table 2.3.3  Nutrient laboratory temperatures for each station.
         
         --------------------------------------------------------------------
          Leg  Station   Date  Time  Temp.   Leg  Station   Date  Time  Temp.
               P9  Ry   ddmmyy (UT)   (C)         P9  Ry    ddmmyy(UT)   (C) 
         --------------------------------------------------------------------
         
           1    1 8633  080794 1740  28.2     2   61 8686  030894 0633  27.5 
           1    2 8634  080794 2034  28.3     2   60 8687  030894 1200  28.0 
           1    3 8635  080794 2246  27.8     2   59 8688  030894 1823  27.0 
           1    5 8637  090794 0435  28.3     2   58 8689  030894 1935  26.7 
           1    7 8639  090794 1230  28.5     2   57 8690  050894 0541  26.9 
           1    9 8641  090794 2126  28.0     2   56 8691  050894 1330  27.5 
           1   10 8642  100794 0515  29.5     2   55 8692  050894 1825  27.4 
           1   11 8643  100794 1230  29.8     2   54 8693  060894 0250  29.3 
           1   13 8645  100794 2117  27.3     2   62 8694  070894 0200  28.0 
           1   15 8647  110794 0505  28.5     2   63 8695  070894 0740  29.0 
           1   16 8648  110794 1350  28.5     2   64 8696  070894 1400  28.5
           1   17 8649  110794 1745  27.9     2   65 8697  070894 1656  27.5 
           1   18 8650  120794 0120  27.8     2   66 8698  070894 2100  28.6 
           1   19 8651  120794 0805  27.8     2   67 8699  080894 0256  28.9 
           1   20 8652  120794 1325  26.8     2   68 8700  080894 0505  29.3 
           1   21 8653  120794 1937  27.7     2   69 8701  080894 1300  28.5 
           1   22 8654  130794 0400  29.0     2   70 8702  080894 1941  28.5 
           1   23 8655  130794 1005  29.0     2   71 8703  090894 0030  28.8 
           1   24 8656  130794 1640  28.5     2   72 8704  090894 0930  28.8 
           1   25 8657  130794 2156  27.8     2   73 8705  090894 1502  28.1 
           1   26 8658  140794 0821  29.1     2   74 8706  100894 0750  28.3 
           1   27 8659  140794 1700  29.2     2   75 8707  100894 0509  28.2 
           1   28 8660  150794 0040  28.5     2   76 8708  100894 0750  29.1 
           1   29 8661  150794 0710  28.5     2   77 8709  100894 1638  28.1 
           1   30 8662  150794 1800  28.2     2   78 8710  100894 2130  28.5 
           1   31 8663  150794 2248  28.4     2   79 8711  110894 0910  29.0 
           1   32 8664  160794 0745  28.9     2   80 8712  110894 1300  28.5 
           1   33 8665  160794 1320  29.8     2   81 8713  110894 1630  28.5 
           1   34 8666  160794 2146  27.7     2   82 8714  120894 0130  28.9 
           1   35 8667  170794 0600  29.0     2   83 8715  120894 0502  28.7 
           1   36 8668  170794 1430  28.8     2   84 8716  120894 0850  28.9 
           1   40 8669  210794 0412  28.2     2   85 8717  120894 1230  28.3 
           1   39 8670  210794 1700  28.8     2   86 8718  120894 1920  28.3 
           1   38 8671  220794 0100  27.8     2   87 8719  130894 0000  28.8 
           1   37 8672  220794 0940  26.6     2   88 8720  130894 0400  28.5 
           1   41 8673  230794 0410  29.9     2   89 8721  130894 0805  28.7 
           1   42 8674  230794 1300  29.4     2   90 8722  130894 1500  28.0 
           1   43 8675  230794 1846  28.9     2   91 8723  130894 1811  27.6 
           1   44 8676  240794 0130  28.5     2   92 8724  140894 0200  28.9 
           1   45 8677  240794 0803  27.8     2   93 8725  140894 0416  28.4 
           1   46 8678  240794 1705  28.8     2   94 8726  150894 0230  28.0 
           1   47 8679  240794 2300  29.2     2   95 8727  150894 0830  29.0 
           1   48 8680  250794 0710  29.3     2   96 8728  150894 1000  28.8 
           1   49 8681  250794 1400  28.8     2   97 8729  150894 2000  28.8 
           1   50 8682  250794 2223  27.6     2   98 8730  150894 2230  28.9 
           1   51 8683  260794 0600  28.0     2   99 8731  160894 0400  28.0 
           1   52 8684  260794 1230  29.3     2  100 8732  160894 0800  29.0 
           1   53 8685  260794 2050  27.3     2  101 8733  160894 1430  29.0 
                                              2  102 8734  160894 2000  28.9 
                                              2  103 8735  170894 0230  29.2 
                                              2  104 8736  170894 0800  29.5 
                                              2  105 8737  180894 0045  28.3 
                                              2   92 8738  180894 1827  28.0 
         
         --------------------------------------------------------------------

              The P9 section crosses with P3(1985) and P4(1989)  sections.  
         We  compared  our results with the data of these  sections.   Its 
         procedure  is  explained  in the  section  of  salinity  measure-
         ments(Sec.2.1), and the results are included in Table 2.1.4.  Our 
         silicate and nitrate concentrations are ca. 2 % lower than the P3 
         data, while our phosphate concentrations are 2 % higher.  As  for 
         the  comparison with the P4 data, our nitrate and phosphate  con-
         centrations well agree with them, but the silicate concentrations 
         are  1 or 2 % lower, which level is close to the one obtained  in 
         the comparison with the P3 silicate data.
              Laboratory  temperatures at the measurements are  indispens-
         able  for the concentration conversion from volumetric  units  to 
         mass units.  They are given in Table 2.3.3.


         2.4  CFC-11 AND CFC-12 MEASUREMENTS
              (M. Tamaki and I. Kaneko)
         
         Equipment and Technique
         
              Concentrations  of the dissolved chlorofluorocarbons  (CFCs) 
         F-11  and F-12 were measured by  shipboard  electron-capture(ECD) 
         gas chromatography, according to the methods described by Bullis-
         ter  and  Weiss (1988).  Our extraction and analysis  system  was 
         assembled  by  GL  Science Corp.  The ECD  Gas  chromatograph  is 
         Hitachi  Corp., Model 263-30.  The CFC measurements were  carried 
         out  as a collaboration between the Japan  Meteorological  Agency 
         and Tokai University.  A total of 351 water samples were analyzed 
         for CFCs. 
         Replicate samples were taken at 200 m depth of nine stations.  
         
         Sampling Procedure and Data Processing
         
              We  used a 2.5Lx24 rosette system for water  sampling.   The 
         rosette bottles were designed by Dr. J. Bullister so that sampled 
         water is hard to be contaminated with CFCs contained in materials 
         of the bottles, and were made at the factory of NOAA/PMEL.
              On  board sampling for the CFCs were usually carried out  in 
         the  third cast.  CFC samples were always drawn firstly by  using 
         50  ml glass syringes.  The samples were injected in  the  system 
         and  processed within 12 hours after sampling.  Approximately  20 
         ml  of  samples  was flushed, and 30 ml was  transferred  to  the 
         stripping chamber. 
              Calibration  curves used for determining CFC  concentrations 
         are generated by multiple injections of known volumes of standard 
         gas.  However, at Stas. 9 (Ry8641) and 15 (Ry8647) in the  begin-
         ning  of  the first leg, the volume of standard gas  sample  loop 
         included in our system was so large that  the amounts of F-11 and 
         F-12  injected in one aliquot of standard exceed those  contained 
         in 30 ml surface seawater samples.  As linear regressions to only 
         two  data, system blank and one aliquot of standard, had to  used 
         for determining CFC concentrations at these stations, quality  of 
         the concentration data is not high, especially for the sample  at 
         deep  layers.  Before the third CFC station, Sta.18 (Ry8650),  we 
         replaced  the gas sample loop with a smaller one.  For  the  sta-
         tions  south  of  Sta.18 at 31 00N, the  curves  were  adequately 
         obtained  by  least-square fittings of quadratic  polynomials  to 
         five  calibration  data, from system blank to  four  aliquots  of 
         standard.   The  data at these two stations are,  therefore,  as-
         signed a value of 3 for the quality bytes in our .SEA file,  even 
         in the case of good sampling and analysis. 
         
         Sample blanks
         
              At  the factory of NOAA/PMEL, the bottles were tested  indi-
         vidually for CFC contamination.  They generally had F-11 and F-12 
         blanks of about 0.005 pmol/liter/hour for water stored inside (J. 
         Bullister,  1994;  personal  communication).   The  bottles  were 
         wrapped with blank paper, stored in a box of plain wood, and sent 
         by air from Seattle to Tokyo.
              Owing to many circumstances, we had no chance to measure the 
         sample blank of F-11 and F-12 for each bottle in the beginning of 
         the cruise.  The sample blank for each bottle were finally  meas-
         ured  at Sta. 79 (Ry8711; 3 43N, 140 17E) during the second  leg, 
         by  sampling  deep  water at 1500m depth.   No  bottle  seriously 
         contaminated was found for F-11 and the mean and standard  devia-
         tion of sample blanks were 0.015+0.003 pmol/kg.  However, as  for 
         F-12, very high concentrations, of which mean and standard devia-
         tion were 0.167+0.095 pmol/kg, were obtained.  The values of F-12 
         measurements sampled in the deepest layer had varied largely from 
         station  to station and often exceeded the level of 0.1  pmol/kg.  
         A  o-ring used in the connection of the glass  stripping  chamber 
         was  suspected of being a contamination source, but we could  not 
         replace it with other materials during the cruise.  
              As  the other estimates of the blanks, the  mean  concentra-
         tions  of  CFCs measured south of 10N in the layers  deeper  than 
         1250m were calculated.  The mean and standard deviation of the F-
         11  measurements was 0.014+0.006 pmol/kg, which is close  to  the 
         result  at  Sta.  79.  Those of  F-12  measurements,  0.112+0.042 
         pmol/kg,  were considerably large.  After all, we  adopted  these 
         mean  values as the sample blanks throughout the  cruise.   These 
         blanks were subtracted from the measurement values of F-11 and F-
         12.  Judging from the unacceptable large value and fluctuation of 
         F-12  measurements  in the deep ocean, all of the F-12  data  are 
         assigned  a  value  of  3  or 4  for  the  quality  byte  in  our 
         49RY9407.SEA file. 
          
         Precision
         
              The reproducibility was estimated from replicate analyses of 
         200m-depth water at nine stations.  It is about 1.3% for F-11 and 
         5.8% for F-12.  Quality of the F-12 data is far from that of  the 
         WHP requirements.
         
         Standard Gas
         
              A  standard gas used in our cruise was made by Nippon  Sanso 
         Inc.   Concentrations of F-11 and F-12 contained in our  standard 
         gas were calibrated with the standard of University of  Tokyo(UT) 
         on Nov. 1 of 1994, about two month after the P9 cruise.  F-11 and 
         F-12  concentrations of our standard gas were 288.5+1.8 pptv  and 
         485.3+3.0 pptv, respectively.  We used these values to  calculate 
         the  F-11 and F-12 concentrations of seawater sample obtained  in 
         the P9 cruise.
              Both  UT and SIO calibration scales were compared  with  the 
         scale  employed  in  the  ALE/GAGE  program.   According  to  the 
         result(Table  1.2.1 in the report ed. by J.A.Kaye et al.,  1994), 
         our  data can be converted to the level of data referred  to  SIO 
         scale by multiplying our data by 1.02 for F-11, 1.01 for F-12.


         2.5  CTD/O MEASUREMENTS
              (Y. TAKATSUKI)

         Calibration and Standards
         
              The CTDs used during Ry9407 cruise are Triton ICTDsTM, which 
         are  manufactured by Falmouth Scientific  Instruments  Inc.(FSI).  
         CTD  #1316  was  used at the  hydrographic  stations  from  Sta.1 
         (Ry8633)  to Sta.69 (Ry8701), till its temperature circuit  broke 
         down  at the second cast of Sta.69.  We replaced CTD  #1316  with 
         CTD #1318 and used it until the last cast of the cruise at Sta.92 
         (re-occupation;  Ry8738).  All of temperature,  conductivity  and 
         pressure sensors are manufactured by FSI while the oxygen  sensor 
         by Beckman Inc.
              As CTD #1318 was a new device delivered to JMA several  days 
         before the departure, we had no chance for pre-cruise calibration 
         of  its sensors.  We had to regard CTD #1318 as being  adequately 
         adjusted by FSI.  Fortunately, a Triton ICTD is the type that the 
         sensor  outputs are corrected by calibration tables written in  a 
         PROM  of internal circuit.  On the basis of the results of  post-
         cruise  calibrations and on-board check of the sensors  by  using 
         the RTMs and RPMs, we determined reasonable processing methods of 
         the data obtained by CTD #1318.
              FSI  claims  a  resolution of 0.0001ƒC and  an  accuracy  of 
         +0.003ƒC  for  the  platinum  temperature  sensors.   Post-cruise 
         calibrations  of CTD #1318 at FSI showed a trivial difference  of 
         CTD  temperature  from  the  standard,  0.00038ƒC  at  0.5ƒC  and 
         0.00111ƒC at 29ƒC (Figure 2.5.4).  However, as for CTD #1316, the 
         post-cruise temperature calibrations after the temporary  repairs 
         showed  an  extraordinary drift, of which values were  no  longer 
         available for the data processing.  The situation and  correction 
         method of this temperature drift are described in the section for 
         CTD calibration constants.
              The CTD pressure sensors, of which type is the one  consists 
         of  titanium diaphragm and strain-gage, have a resolution of  0.1 
         dbar  and an accuracy of +0.03% of full scale, according  to  the 
         manual by FSI.  Pre- and post- cruise calibrations for CTD  #1316 
         and  a post-cruise calibration for CTD #1318 were carried out  in 
         JMA  by  using a BudenbergTM Model 380D dead-weight  tester  with 
         'class-A' certificated weights.  The pair of calibrations detect-
         ed  a minute drift about 0.2 dbar in average for CTD #1316  (Fig-
         ures  2.5.1a  and  2.5.1b).  Condition of  the  pressure  sensors 
         during  the cruise can be monitored to some extent  through  com-
         parisons  of  CTD pressures with RPM pressures at  the  time  the 
         water bottle is tripped.  Any drift exceeding a nominal precision 
         of RPM was not detected for the two CTDs.
              Pre- and post- cruise calibrations of the conductivity  sen-
         sors were not carried out because we could not find the  facility 
         in Japan.  The calibration constants used were calculated from  a 
         fit  to the salinities measured from the water samples  collected 
         at each station.  Statistical analysis of the difference  between 
         the  CTD and water-sample salinities showed a standard  deviation 
         less than 0.0014 in the deep water (>2000 m; Table 2.5.1).


         Table 2.5.1  Standard deviation of salinity difference between 
                      CTD and water sampling.
         
         
          Station: Sta.1(Ry8633) - Sta.69(Ry8701),Cast-1
         
                      All data                  Not flagged data
          Layer       S.Dev.   Num. of data     S.Dev.   Num. of data     
         -------------------------------------------------------------
          all         0.0176     2272           0.0175     2257
          >1000m      0.0038     1024           0.0017     1010
          >2000m      0.0038      700           0.0014      691
          >3000m      0.0047      450           0.0014      442
          >4000m      0.0065      210           0.0013      206
         -------------------------------------------------------------
         
         
          Station: Sta.69(Ry8701),Cast-2 - Sta.92(Ry8738)
         
                      All data                  Not flagged data
          Layer       S.Dev.   Num. of data     S.Dev.   Num. of data     
         -------------------------------------------------------------
          all         0.0224     1243           0.0214     1238
          >1000m      0.0105      526           0.0018      522
          >2000m      0.0130      330           0.0013      326
          >3000m      0.0174      152           0.0011      150
          >4000m      0.0115       36           0.0009       35
         -------------------------------------------------------------


              The  oxygen sensor mounted on CTD #1316 was also  calibrated 
         with  shipboard oxygen measurements from the water  samples  col-
         lected  at  each station.  Oxygen measurements by CTD  have  been 
         discontinued at Sta.69, where CTD #1316 was replaced by the other 
         CTD, #1318.  The oxygen sensor used on CTD #1316 did not work  on 
         CTD  #1318  because its inside circuit did not adapt to  the  new 
         CTD.
         
         CTD Data Collection and Processing
         
              The  RS-232C signal from a FSI 1050 deck terminal was  taken 
         by  a Compaq DeskproTM PC to log and process data.  The CTD  data 
         at down- and up- casts were fully logged in real time to the  RAM 
         disk, and were copied to MO disks after CTD recovery.  Data  were 
         processed  on the Compaq Deskpro with the software programmed  by 
         the  members  of Nagasaki Marine Observatory,  according  to  the 
         method by Millard (1993).
              A  time-constant  difference  between  the  temperature  and 
         conductivity sensors, which is necessary for salinity  despiking, 
         was determined so as to minimize fluctuations of salinity profile 
         (Kawabe and Kawasaki, 1993).
         
         CTD Calibration Constants
         
         Pressure
         
              The results of pre-/post- cruise calibrations for CTD  #1316 
         and a post-cruise calibration for CTD #1318 are shown in  Figures 
         2.5.1  and 2.5.2, respectively.  The comparison between the  pre-
         cruise and post-cruise calibrations for CTD #1316 indicated  that  
         its pressure drift was about 0.2 dbar, of which effect on salini-
         ty  error is negligible.  Hence, so as to obtain the  calibration 
         constants for CTD #1316, the pre-cruise calibration data was used 
         for  a  polynomial fit.  For the data obtained by  CTD  #1318,  a 
         polynomial fit to the post-cruise calibration was applied because 
         of the lack of pre-cruise calibration data.  Any serious pressure 
         drift of CTD #1318 had not been detected with the  bottle-mounted 
         RPMs though their precision is lower than that of CTDs.
              The calibration constants are tabulated in Table 2.5.2.  Al-
         though  the pressure differences between the increasing  and  de-
         creasing  curves owing to sensor hysteresis are not more  than  1 
         dbar  for both the CTDs, a technique known as  exponential  decay 
         feathering  (Millard, 1991) is introduced to adjust  between  the 
         two curves.


         Table 2.5.2  Pressure calibration constants
         
          CTD #1316, Pre-cruise, 0-6000 dbar range
          
                        Increasing               Decreasing
                        (Linear fit)             (Cubic fit)
         --------------------------------------------------------------
          Bias           0.101671                 0.030432
          Slope          0.999808                 0.999893
          Coef. 1        0                       -1.06871E-7 
          Coef. 2        0                        1.65002E-11
         --------------------------------------------------------------
         
         
          CTD #1318, Post-cruise, 0-6000 dbar range
         
                        Increasing               Decreasing
                        (Cubic fit)              (Cubic fit)
         --------------------------------------------------------------
          Bias           0.118827                -0.360069
          Slope          0.999365                 0.999221
          Coef. 1        9.79631E-8               9.982900E-8
          Coef. 2       -1.60597E-11             -1.014070E-11 
         --------------------------------------------------------------

         Temperature
         
              The results of the pre-cruise calibration for CTD #1316  and 
         the  post-cruise calibration for CTD #1318 are shown  in  Figures 
         2.5.3  and  2.5.4, respectively.  The calibration  constants  are 
         listed in Table 2.5.3.


         Table 2.5.3  Temperature calibration constants
         
             CTD #1316, Pre-cruise, 0-30ƒC range
                        Quadratic fit
         ----------------------------------------------
               Bias            -0.0108521
               Slope            0.999385
               Coef. 1          1.33467E-5
         ----------------------------------------------
         
             CTD #1318, Post-cruise, 0-30ƒC range
                        Quadratic fit
         ----------------------------------------------
               Bias             -0.000325853
               Slope             1.00014
               Coef. 1          -5.66299E-6 
         ----------------------------------------------


              A  temperature drift of CTD #1316 before its  breakdown  had 
         been detected with seven RTMs mounted on the Niskin bottles.   As 
         an example, Figure 2.5.5 shows a time-series of temperature  dif-
         ference  between  CTD #1316 and RTM #T759.  The  drift  began  at 
         Ry8686 (Sta.61) and reached -0.02ƒC at Ry8700 (Sta.68), one  sta-
         tion before the breakdown.  The mean of drift during this  period 
         is estimated at -0.008ƒC from the comparison between the CTD  and 
         seven  RTMs.  We,  therefore, processed the  CTD  temperature  as 
         follows:
         
      (1)  The  constants  obtained  from the pre-cruise  calibration  for 
         CTD #1316 is applied to correct the data of Leg-1, because any so 
         large drift as to exceed 'WHP standards for CTD sensors' was  not 
         recognized through the monitoring with RTMs from Ry8633 to Ry8685 
         (Sta.1-53).  
      (2)  The  data at  the stations  from  Ry8686 to the first  cast  of 
         Ry8701 (Sta.61-54 & Sta.62-69) were processed in the same way  as 
         the data of Leg-1, and then, they were added by a constant  value 
         of +0.008ƒC.
      (3)  Despite of the  data  correction  above,  a flag '3'  (Question-
         able  measurement) was assigned to the data at the stations  from 
         RY8696  to the first cast of Ry8701(Sta.64-69).  This is  because 
         the  drift at these station was so large that we could  not  cor-
         rected it adequately.
      (4)  The  constants   obtaine  from the post-cruise calibration  for 
         CTD  #1318 was applied to correct the data at the  stations  from 
         the  second cast of Ry8701 to Ry8738(Sta.69-105 & the  re-occupa-
         tion of Sta.92).
         
              The  level of temperature differences between RTMs and  CTDs 
         is classified in three categories, CTD #1316 in Leg-1, CTD  #1316 
         in  Leg-2  and CTD #1318, and are compared in Table  2.5.4.   The 
         table indicates that the level of CTD temperature hardly  changed 
         before and after the replacement from CTD #1316 to CTD #1318 (see 
         Figure 2.5.5).


         Table 2.5.4  Difference between CTD and RTM temperatures
                      obtained below 2000m depth
         
         
         Leg-1   Sta. 1- 53(Ry8633-8685)
                 CTD #1316
         RTM #      T662    T710    T754    T755    T759    T760    T777
         ----------------------------------------------------------------
         Mean(1)  -0.0029 -0.0021 -0.0038 -0.0032 -0.0045 -0.0036  0.0044
         S.Dev.    0.0015  0.0022  0.0017  0.0023  0.0039  0.0015  0.0027
         N.D.        38      31      38      23      39      41      31
         ----------------------------------------------------------------           
         
         
         Leg-2a  Sta.61- 68(Ry8686-8700)
                 CTD #1316
         RTM #      T662    T710    T754    T755    T759    T760    T777
         ----------------------------------------------------------------
         Mean(2a)  0.0061  0.0035  0.0037  0.0033  0.0035  0.0039  0.0123
         S.Dev.    0.0038  0.0016  0.0020  0.0005  0.0039  0.0014  0.0027
         N.D.        16      13      15       7      16      10      13
         ----------------------------------------------------------------           
         Diff.
         (2a)-(1)  0.0090  0.0056  0.0075  0.0065  0.0079  0.0075  0.0079
         ----------------------------------------------------------------
         
          
         Leg-2b  Sta.69- 105,92(Ry8701-8738)
                 CTD #1318
         RTM #      T662    T710    T754    T755    T759    T760    T777
         ----------------------------------------------------------------
         Mean(2b) -0.0012 -0.0070 -0.0088 -0.0029 -0.0044 -0.0029  0.0051
         S.Dev.    0.0020  0.0020  0.0029  0.0013  0.0026  0.0034  0.0019
         N.D.        35      31      33      25      34      20      30
         ----------------------------------------------------------------           
         Diff.
         (2b)-(1)  0.0017 -0.0049 -0.0050  0.0003  0.0001  0.0007  0.0007 
         ----------------------------------------------------------------

         
         Conductivity
         
              As  mentioned above, we could not carry out pre-  and  post- 
         cruise  calibrations of the conductivity sensors.  The  bias  was 
         assumed  in  advance, and then, the slope was determined  from  a 
         linear-fit  to  the salinities measured from  the  water  samples 
         collected  at each station.  The scaling factors finally  adopted 
         for the data processing are listed in Table 2.5.5.


         Table 2.5.5  Conductivity scaling factors 
         
              Station                CTD No.   Bias       Slope         
         ----------------------------------------------------------------
         1 -  4    (Ry8633-8636)     #1316     0.0150     0.999852 
         5 - 11    (Ry8637-8643)     #1316     0.0150     0.999690
         12 - 21   (Ry8644-8653)     #1316     0.0150     0.999533
         22 - 36   (Ry8654-8668)     #1316     0.0150     0.999520
         40        (Ry8669)          #1316     0.0150     0.999422
         39, 38    (Ry8670,8671)     #1316     0.0150     0.999497
         37, 41    (Ry8672,8673)     #1316     0.0150     0.999596
         42 - 53   (Ry8674-8685)     #1316     0.0150     0.999546
         61 - 59   (Ry8686-8688)     #1316     0.0500     0.998507
         58 - 56   (Ry8689-8691)     #1316     0.0500     0.998349
         55,54,62  (Ry8692-8694)     #1316     0.0500     0.998440
         63 - 65   (Ry8695-8697)     #1316     0.0500     0.998364
         66 - 68   (Ry8698-8700)     #1316     0.0500     0.998343
         69 Cast1  (Ry8701 Cast1)    #1316     0.0500     0.998508

         69 Cast2  (Ry8701 Cast2
        -70             -8702)       #1318    -0.0100     1.000700
         71 - 93   (Ry8703-8725)     #1318    -0.0100     1.000659
         94 -105,92(Ry8726-8738)     #1318    -0.0100     1.000641
         ----------------------------------------------------------------

         
         Oxygen
         
            The  scaling  factors were determined according to the  method 
         developed  by  Millard (WHPO91-1 manual, 1991).   The  values  of 
         parameters  used  for  each station groups are  listed  in  Table 
         2.5.6.


         Table 2.5.6  Oxygen scaling factors (for CTD #1316)
                                    
         Station      Bias   Slope   Pcor       Tcor      Wt     Lag
         ----------------------------------------------------------------
          1-  6       0.142  1.828  2.507E-4  -2.129E-2  0.911  5.712 
         (Ry8633-8638)
         
          7- 21       0.154  1.756  1.938E-4  -2.080E-2  0.841  2.597
         (Ry8639-8653)  
         
         22- 36       0.164  1.968  1.578E-4  -2.462E-2  0.893  1.051
         (Ry8654-8668)
         
         40- 37       0.164  1.968  1.578E-4  -2.462E-2  0.893  1.051
         (Ry8669-8672)
         
         41- 53       0.165  2.450  1.471E-4  -2.974E-2  0.943  0.734
         (Ry8673-8685)
         
         61- 59       0.158  2.294  1.508E-4  -2.992E-2  0.932  0.724
         (Ry8686-8688)
         
         58- 54       0.172  2.229  1.475E-4  -3.003E-2  0.676  0.715
         (Ry8689-8693)
         
         62- 69       0.181  2.247  1.461E-4  -2.764E-2  0.931  1.057
         (Ry8694-8701)
         ----------------------------------------------------------------
         
         
         2.6  HELIUM AND TRITIUM SAMPLING
              (T. Miyao)
         
         Samples for Helium Isotopes Measurement
         
            Soft  annealed, refrigeration-grade 5/8" copper  tubing  coils 
         were  used  to collect crimped tube helium  samples.  The  copper 
         tubing  was  cut into 2' lengths and immediately  placed  plastic 
         caps on both ends. Each tube was marked at the center and 2" from 
         each end. Consequently, each 10" section between the center  mark 
         and the end mark was partially flattened. The sampling tubes were 
         prepared by each arrival at sampling station.
            Helium  sampling always followed that for CFC's which  started 
         just  after the rosette is on deck. To draw a sample, a  pair  of 
         Tygon  tube with pinch clamp was attached to the both ends  of  a 
         sampling  tube  and one end was connected to the  spigot  on  the 
         Niskin  bottle.  Then the valve was opened  to  establish  sample 
         flow. The sampling tube was pounded during the flushing period to 
         eliminate air bubbles. After purging air bubbles, the  downstream 
         clamp was closed first, and then the upstream one. 
            Immediately, the sample tube was crimped first at the end mark 
         on  one  side, then at the center mark, finally  at  another  end 
         mark. Thus, two replicate crimped samples were taken. Each sample 
         was  re-rounded  so that the inner pressure can be  reduced.  The 
         crimped  samples  were carefully rinsed with fresh  water.  After 
         towel  drying,  the samples were stored in  foam-lined  cardboard 
         boxes.
            A total of 521 pairs of samples were taken from seasurface  to 
         deep  layer at 25 stations. It was found, however, that 9  sample 
         tubes might contain some air bubbles. Thus, 512 pairs of complete 
         samples might be successfully obtained during Ryofu-maru WOCE  P9 
         cruise.
            Samples  were sent to the laboratory of Dr. John Lupton,  NOAA 
         MRRD. They will then be shipped in flame-sealed glass ampoules to 
         L-DEO  for  mass spectrometric measurement. The  He-3/He-4  ratio 
         with  a precision of about +/-0.2 percent or better and the  He-4 
         concentration  with a precision of about +/-0.5 percent  will  be 
         reported in two years or so.
         
         
         Samples for Tritium Measurement

            The  1 liter tape-sealed flint glass bottles, pre-baked for  a 
         few hours at about 180 deg.C in an argon-atmosphere and put screw 
         caps with polyethylene cones on, were used for tritium sampling. 

            Tritium sampling followed that for another elements but salin-
         ity.  The  sealed  bottles were untaped and  opened  just  before 
         sample  drawing.  Sample was carefully led into the  bottle  with 
         pre-soaked plastic tubing, not to . Each sample bottle was filled 
         to  within  a cm or two of the top without rinse  procedure.  The 
         sample  bottle  was immediately replaced with a cap,  then  tape-
         sealed, wrapped up with cushion sheet and stored in wooden box. 
            A total of 425 samples were taken from upper 1500m layer at 25 
         stations.  However, sample volume was small for 4 bottles, and  2 
         bottles were overflowed. 
            Samples  were sent to the laboratory of Dr.  Peter  Schlosser, 
         Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. Then the 
         samples for He-3 ingrowth from tritium decay will be flame-sealed 
         after gas extraction. After a storage time of 6 to 9 months,  the 
         tritium  concentration will be determined by  mass  spectrometric 
         measurement of the tritiogenic He-3. Precision of these  measure-
         ments  will be approximately +/-1 to +/-2 percent and the  detec-
         tion limit will be below 0.01TU. The results will be reported  in 
         two years or so. 
         

         2.7  CARBON-14 OF THE TOTAL DISSOLVED INORGANIC CARBON
              (M. Ishii)
              16 June 1995
         
         Equipment and Technique
         
              Carbon-14  isotopic ratio of the total  dissolved  inorganic 
         carbon  was analyzed using the AMS facility at the  Institute  of 
         Geological  and Nuclear Sciences Limited at Lower Hutt, New  Zea-
         land, which is based on a 6MV EN tandem Van de Graaff accelerator 
         and  uses  a Chapman-type inverted sputter source  with  graphite 
         targets produced by direct deposition (G. Wallace et al. 1987)
         
         Sampling Procedure
         
              Subsamples  for carbon-14 of the total  dissolved  inorganic 
         carbon analyses were collected after those for the  concentration 
         of  the total dissolved inorganic carbon.  Subsamples were  drawn 
         into  120  cm3  glass bottles carefully (i.e.,  no  bubbles,  low 
         turbulence)  after the bottles had been rinsed three  times  with 
         approximately  one forth of their volume and overflowed  with  at 
         least  half their volume.  Then 0.2 cm3 of saturated HgCl2  solu-
         tion  was added and rubber cap lubricated with Apiezon  H  grease 
         was clamped with aluminum cap.  These samples were stored at room 
         temperature.
              In  the laboratory on land, CO2 was extracted from the  sea-
         water  samples using a vacuum line.  A 300 cm3 flask in  which  2 
         cm3 of conc. phosphoric acid and a magnetic stirring bar were put  
         was  attached to the vacuum line and evacuated. Then  a  seawater 
         sample  was sucked into the flask.  The evolved CO2 was  purified 
         by the cryogenic distillation using electric cooler of -65 degree 
         C  and  liquid  nitrogen,  and  sealed  in  a  9  mm  o.d.  glass 
         break-seal-tube.  
              Those CO2 samples were sent to the Institute of the Geologi-
         cal and Nuclear Sciences Limited, where graphite targets for  AMS 
         were  prepared using excess H2 and an iron catalyst (D.C.Lowe  et 
         al., 1987). 
         
         Status
         
              Delta-C14 analyses for 140 samples have been finished so far 
         and their mean uncertainty is +/- 7.9 per mille. 
         

         2.8  TOTAL DISSOLVED INORGANIC CARBON ANALYSES
              (M. Ishii)
         
         Equipment and Technique
         
              Total  dissolved  inorganic carbon analyses  were  performed 
         using a commercially available coulometer (UIC Inc., Model  5012) 
         and  hand-made automated CO2 extraction unit.  Sample bottles  to 
         be  analyzed were placed in a temperature-controlled  water  bath  
         (20.0  +/-  0.1 degree C ) at least 30 minutes  before  analysis. 
         Seawater subsamples were delivered to the carefully pre-calibrat-
         ed  pipette bulb with water jacket on the CO2 extraction unit  at 
         20.0  +/- 0.1degree C  by pressurizing the sample  with  nitrogen 
         gas.   The  pipette was flushed with approximately 2  volumes  of 
         sample.  Approximately  3 cm3 of 10% phosphoric acid  was  poured 
         into the stripping chamber and was purged for 2 minutes with CO2-
         free  nitrogen  gas treated with Ascarite before  the  coulometer 
         reading  was reset and the sample in the pipette was loaded  into 
         the  stripping chamber.  The carrier nitrogen gas containing  the 
         evolved CO2 was dried with an electric desiccant unit,  magnesium 
         perchlorate and silica gel before entering the titration cell  of 
         the coulometer.  The acidified sample was allowed to purge for 12 
         minutes.  
              The coulometer blank was determined once every 2 or 3  hours 
         by allowing approximately 3 cm3 of pre-purged phosphoric acid  to 
         be purged with CO2-free nitrogen gas for 12 minutes. It was  0.49 
         +/- 0.28 ugC/12 minutes (n=115).  
              Concentrations of the total dissolved inorganic carbon  were 
         calculated according to DOE(1994).
         
         Sampling Procedure
         
              Subsamples  for  total dissolved inorganic  carbon  analyses 
         were  collected immediately after those for dissolved  oxygen  as 
         soon as the rosette arrived on deck.  Subsamples were drawn  into 
         300  cm3 borosilicate glass reagent bottles carefully  (i.e.,  no 
         bubbles, low turbulence) after the bottles had been rinsed  three 
         times  with  approximately one fourth of their  volume  and  over 
         flowed  with at least half their volume.  Samples were stored  in 
         boxes  at room temperature and analyses were completed within  15 
         hours after the rosette reached the deck.
         
         Calibrations and Standards
         
              We used sodium carbonate solutions in order to calibrate the 
         extraction/coulometric   system.   Anhydrous   sodium   carbonate 
         (primary  standard grade,  99.97%, Asahi glass Co.) dried at  600 
         degree C  for 1 hour was carefully weighed in 3 cm3 vials in  the 
         laboratory  on land and stored in 20 cm3 screw-capped vials  with 
         silica gel.  The standard solutions were prepared in 1 dm3  volu-
         metric  flasks  under CO2-free nitrogen at 20.0 +/-  0.1degree  C  
         using  deionized water prepared by a  MILLI-Q.SP.TOC.  (Millipore 
         Co.)  system.  These standards were run immediately in  order  to 
         avoid  errors due to the absorption of atmospheric CO2.  Recovery 
         (calibration  factor)  was calculated as 99.244  %.
              We assessed accuracy by analyzing Certified Reference  Mate-
         rials for total dissolved inorganic carbon provided by Dr. A.  G. 
         Dickson at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (batch #20;1983.40 
         +/-  1.59(1s)  umol/kg (n=13)) once every run. The  mean  of  the 
         results  for the CRM analyses during this cruise was  1982.3  +/- 
         1.3(1s)  umol/kg (n=23).  The means agreed at the 98%  confidence 
         level but disagreed at the 95%  confidence level.  Data presented 
         are not corrected for the probable systematic error.
              We monitored precision by analyzing duplicate samples  taken 
         from the same Niskin bottle and by taking duplicate samples  from 
         Niskin  bottles  tripped at the same depths.    The mean  of  the 
         absolute  difference of duplicate analyses from the  same  Niskin 
         bottle,  shown in Table 2.8.1, was 1.2 umol/kg near  surface  and 
         increased to 2.2 umol/kg in deep layers.  The standard  deviation 
         estimated for the 10m - 75m layer and that for the 3250m -  4750m 
         layer  are significantly different at the 95%  confidence  level.  
         The  mean of the absolute difference of duplicate  analyses  from 
         the  different  Niskin  bottles was 2.0 umol/kg.   All  data  for 
         duplicate  analyses from the same bottle and from different  bot-
         tles are tabulated in Tables 2.8.2 and 2.8.3, respectively.


         Table 2.8.1: Mean of the absolute value of the difference 
                      between duplicate analyses from the same Niskin bottle.
         
         ----------------------------------------------------------------
         Layer        Mean of the absolute   Estimate of the    Number of
                      difference in umol/kg  standard deviation analyses
         ----------------------------------------------------------------
           10m -   75m         1.2                  1.0            20
          500m -  700m         1.5                  1.2             6
         1000m - 2250m         1.7                  1.4            18
         3250m - 4750m         2.2                  1.8            11
         Total                 1.6                  1.4            55
         ----------------------------------------------------------------
         

         Table 2.8.2: All data for duplicate analyses from the same
                      Niskin bottle.
         
         -------------------------------------------------------
          STN     Cast BTL  Depth TCARBN    average  difference
                               m  umol/kg   umol/kg  umol/kg
         -------------------------------------------------------
         RY-8642   1    23     75 1965.9    1964.8    2.0
                                  1963.8         
         RY-8642   2    13   1249 2345.0    2346.1    2.2
                                  2347.2         
         RY-8647   1     3     75 1969.0    1969.9    1.7
                                  1970.7         
         RY-8647   2    21   1249 2342.3    2343.5    2.4
                                  2344.6         
         RY-8653   1     8     25 1944.1    1944.1    0.2
                                  1944.0         
         RY-8653   2    15    999 2317.4    2317.9    1.0
                                  2318.3         
         RY-8653   2     4   3749 2323.6    2325.4    3.6
                                  2327.1         
         RY-8658   2    15   1248 2346.6    2346.1    1.1
                                  2345.5         
         RY-8663   1    16     50 1959.6    1959.6    0.0
                                  1959.6         
         RY-8663   2     1   1249 2350.0    2350.4    0.8
                                  2350.9         
         RY-8663   2    13   4000 2321.6    2320.9    1.5
                                  2320.1         
         RY-8668   1    19     10 1908.5    1908.3    0.4
                                  1908.1         
         RY-8668   2    23   1249 2339.5    2340.4    1.9
                                  2341.4         
         RY-8673   1    16     50 1925.1    1924.6    0.9
                                  1924.2         
         RY-8673   2    24   1501 2340.1    2340.8    1.4
                                  2341.5         
         RY-8673   2    12   4001 2316.6    2317.5    1.7
                                  2318.3         
         RY-8678   1    21     25 1892.8    1892.7    0.2
                                  1892.6         
         RY-8678   2     2   1500 2338.0    2339.4    2.9
                                  2340.9         
         RY-8678   2    14   4252 2318.9    2320.4    2.9
                                  2321.9         
         RY-8683   1    22     25 1891.1    1891.6    1.1
                                  1892.2         
         RY-8683   2     5   1500 2328.3    2327.8    0.9
                                  2327.3         
         RY-8683   2    16   4502 2311.4    2311.0    0.8
                                  2310.6         
         RY-8691   3     5     49 1883.5    1882.3    2.5
                                  1881.0         
         RY-8691   2     2   1502 2329.6    2329.7    0.1
                                  2329.7         
         RY-8691   1     2   4504 2311.2    2311.3    0.2
                                  2311.4         
         RY-8686   1    21      9 1872.0    1872.7    1.2
                                  1873.3         
         RY-8686   2     3   1250 2319.9    2318.6    2.5
                                  2317.4         
         RY-8686   2    15   4003 2317.0    2316.4    1.2
                                  2315.8         
         RY-8698   2     6     50 1890.4    1889.2    2.4
                                  1887.9         
         RY-8698   1     3    500 2248.8    2249.5    1.4
                                  2250.2         
         RY-8702   1    17     50 1904.9    1904.5    0.8
                                  1904.1         
         RY-8702   2    22   2001 2336.0    2335.1    1.8
                                  2334.1         
         RY-8702   2    14   3754 2319.8    2321.8    3.9
                                  2323.7         
         RY-8707   1    18     26 1866.6    1866.0    1.2
                                  1865.5         
         RY-8710   1    18     25 1887.4    1888.6    2.4
                                  1889.8         
         RY-8710   2    21   2252 2336.7    2338.9    4.4
                                  2341.2         
         RY-8710   2    14   3753 2325.2    2326.8    3.1
                                  2328.3         
         RY-8717   1    10     25 1905.6    1905.4    0.4
                                  1905.2         
         RY-8717   1     1    500 2239.4    2238.1    2.5
                                  2236.9         
         RY-8717   1    15   2001 2334.6    2334.7    0.1
                                  2334.8         
         RY-8721   1    17     51 1939.2    1939.4    0.4
                                  1939.7         
         RY-8721   2     2    701 2248.5    2248.1    0.7
                                  2247.7         
         RY-8725   1    17     50 1899.5    1898.6    2.0
                                  1897.6         
         RY-8725   2    19   2001 2331.0    2330.5    1.0
                                  2330.0         
         RY-8725   2    15   3002 2327.6    2329.1    3.0
                                  2330.6         
         RY-8729   1    19     25 1892.8    1891.8    2.0
                                  1890.8         
         RY-8729   2     3    700 2255.3    2255.6    0.7
                                  2256.0         
         RY-8733   1    19     25 1889.6    1889.8    0.5
                                  1890.1         
         RY-8733   2     4    700 2232.8    2233.9    2.2
                                  2235.0         
         RY-8733   2    20   2001 2332.8    2333.5    1.4
                                  2334.2         
         RY-8735   2    23   2251 2331.1    2332.6    3.0
                                  2334.1         
         RY-8735   2    15   3753 2328.5    2330.0    2.9
                                  2331.5         
         RY-8737   1     9     25 1911.8    1912.3    1.0
                                  1912.8         
         RY-8737   1    21    699 2206.5    2207.4    1.7
                                  2208.3         
         RY-8737   1    15   1251 2307.5    2308.4    1.7
                                  2309.3         
         -------------------------------------------------
         

         Table 2.8.3: All data for duplicate analyses from different
                      Niskin bottles tripped at the same depth.
         ------------------------------------------------------
           STN   Cast  BTL  Depth TCARBN   average    difference
                              m   umol/kg  umol/kg    umol/kg
         ------------------------------------------------------
         RY-8642   1    20    149 2003.0    2003.3    0.7
                        19    149 2003.7         
         RY-8642   2    22    298 2037.5    2036.0    3.0
                        21    298 2034.5         
         RY-8642   2    20    499 2166.7    2167.9    2.3
                        19    499 2169.1         
         RY-8642   2    12   1749 2342.3    2343.1    1.6
                        11   1749 2343.9         
         RY-8642   2    10   2249 2337.1    2335.9    2.3
                         9   2249 2334.7         
         RY-8647   2    21   1249 2343.5    2342.5    2.0
                        20   1249 2341.5         
         RY-8653   2    21    500 2070.7    2071.5    1.6
                        20    500 2072.3         
         RY-8653   2     7   3249 2325.0    2326.0    2.1
                         6   3249 2327.0         
         RY-8658   2    21    600 2107.3    2107.0    0.5
                        20    600 2106.8         
         RY-8658   2    12   2249 2336.5    2338.8    4.6
                        11   2249 2341.1         
         RY-8658   2     6   3749 2323.6    2323.6    0.1
                         5   3749 2323.6         
         RY-8658   2     3   4409 2321.0    2321.3    0.7
                         2   4409 2321.7         
         RY-8663   2     8    499 2131.5    2132.6    2.3
                         7    499 2133.8         
         RY-8663   2    22   1999 2342.7    2344.1    2.7
                        21   1999 2345.4         
         RY-8668   2    23   1249 2340.4    2340.8    0.7
                        22   1249 2341.2         
         RY-8678   1    13    399 2130.8    2131.9    2.3
                        12    399 2133.0         
         RY-8678   2    22   2501 2336.3    2338.9    5.3
                        21   2501 2341.5         
         RY-8683   1    13    500 2241.8    2242.3    0.9
                        12    500 2242.8         
         RY-8683   2    20   3753 2322.2    2323.0    1.7
                        19   3753 2323.9         
         RY-8686   1    16    124 2021.4    2019.8    3.3
                        15    124 2018.1         
         RY-8686   2     7    699 2259.6    2259.7    0.2
                         6    699 2259.8         
         RY-8702   2     7    499 2242.3    2243.2    1.9
                         6    499 2244.2         
         RY-8702   2    22   2001 2335.0    2336.1    2.2
                        21   2001 2337.2         
         RY-8710   2     7    502 2232.8    2232.3    1.0
                         6    502 2231.8         
         RY-8710   2    21   2252 2339.0    2337.8    2.3
                        20   2252 2336.7         
         RY-8717   1    20   1000 2300.4    2302.2    3.7
                        19   1000 2304.1         
         RY-8729   2     7    401 2199.2    2198.8    0.8
                         6    401 2198.4         
         RY-8733   2     7    500 2186.2    2186.7    1.0
                         6    500 2187.2         
         RY-8735   2    20   3003 2333.6    2333.3    0.6
                        19   3003 2333.0         
         RY-8735   2    16   3753 2332.5    2330.5    4.0
                        15   3753 2328.5         
         RY-8737   1    20    800 2228.0    2228.6    1.1
                        19    800 2229.1         
         RY-8737   1    17   1000 2270.6    2268.1    4.9
                        16   1000 2265.7         
         RY-8737   1    14   1500 2321.3    2322.0    1.4
                        13   1501 2322.7         
         ------------------------------------------------------
         

         REFERENCES
         
         Bullister, J.L. and R.F. Weiss(1988): Determination of CCl3F and
           CCl2F2 in seawater and air. Deep-Sea Research, 35, 839-853.
         
         Carpenter, J.H.(1965): The Chesapeake Bay Institute technique for
           the Winkler dissolved oxygen method.  Limnol. Oceanogr. 10, 
           141-143.
         
         DOE(1994): Handbook of methods for analysis of the various 
           parameters  of the carbon dioxide system in sea water;  version
           2, A.G. Dickson and C. Goyet, eds.
         
         Gordon L.I., J.C. Jennings,Jr, A.A. Ross and J.M. Krest(1992):
           An Suggested Protocol for Continuous Flow Automated Analysis
           of Seawater Nutrients in the WOCE Hydrographic Program and 
           the Joint Global Ocean Fluxes Study.  13 July 1992, Draft.
         
         Green, E.J. and D.E. Carritt(1966): An Improved Iodine Determina
           tion Flask for Whole-bottle Titrations.  Analyst, 91, 207-208.
         
         Kawabe, M. and K. Kawasaki(1993): Introduction to CTD data
           calibration.  JODC Manual Guide No.4, JP013-93-1, Japan
           Oceanographic Data Center. 
         
         Kaye J.A., S.A. Penkett and F.M. Ormond(1994): Report on
           Concentrations, Lifetimes, and Trends of CFCs, Halons, 
           and Related Species.  NASA Reference Publication 1339,
           NASA Office of Mission to Planet Earth Science Division,
           Washington, D.C.
         
         Lowe, D.C., G.Wallace and R.J.Sparks (1987): Applications of
           AMS in the atmospheric and oceanographic sciences. 
           Nuclear instruments and methods in physics Research B29,
           291-296.
         
         Mantyla, A.W.(1987): Standard seawater comparisons updated. 
           J. Phys. Oceanogr., 17, 543-548. 
         
         Millard, R.C. and K. Yang(1993): CTD Calibration and Processing
           Methods used at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.  WHOI-93-
           44, Technical Report, Woods Hole, MA., USA.
         
         Takatsuki, Y., M. Aoyama, T. Nakano, H. Miyagi, T. Ishihara
           and T. Tsutsumida(1991): Standard Seawater Comparisons of
           Some Recent Batches. J. Atmos. Oceanic. Tech., 8, 895-897.
         
         Wallace, G., R.J.Sparks, D.C.Lowe and K.P.Pohl (1987):
           The New Zealand accelerator mass spectrometry facility. 
           Nuclear instruments and methods in physics Research B29,
           124-128.
         
         WHPO(1991): WOCE Operations Manual. Part 3.1.2:Requirements
           for   WHP Data Reporting.  WHP Office Report WHPO90-1.
           July 1991, Rev.1.
         
         WHPO(1911): WOCE Operations Manual. Part 3.1.3:WHP Operations
           and Methods.  WHP Office Report WHPO91-1.  Nov.1994, Rev.1.
         
         WHPO(1991): A Comparison of Methods for the Determination of
           Dissolved Oxygen in Seawater.  WHP Office Report WHPO91-2.


FIGURE CAPTIONS 
(Figures available in PDF file)

Figure  1.1     WHP-P09 station locations
Figure  1.2a    Location of oxygen samples collected on WHP-P09
Figure  1.2b    Location of nutrient samples collected on WHP-P09
Figure  1.2c    Location of CFCs samples collected on WHP-P09
Figure  1.2d    Location of tritium samples collected on WHP-P09
Figure  1.2e    Location of helium-3 samples collected on WHP-P09
Figure  1.2f    Location of carbon-14 samples collected on WHP-P09
Figure  1.3a    Potential temperature section by the CTD
Figure  1.3b    Salinity section by the CTD
Figure  2.1.1   Meridional distribution of salinity
Figure  2.1.2   Meridional distribution of oxygen concentration
Figure  2.3.1   Reagents and flow diagram for the silicate determination
Figure  2.3.2   Reagents and flow diagram for the nitrate determination
Figure  2.3.3   Reagents and flow diagram for the nitrite determination
Figure  2.3.4   Reagents and flow, diagram, for the phosphate determination
Figure  2.5.1a  Pressure sensor difference (CTD #1316, pre-cruise)
Figure  2.5.lb  Pressure sensor difference (CTD #1316, post-cruise)
Figure  2.5.2   Pressure sensor difference (CTD #1318, post-cruise)
Figure  2.5.3   Temperature sensor difference (CTD #1316, pre-cruise)
Figure  2.5.4   Temperature sensor difference (CTD #1318, post-cruise)
Figure  2.5.5   Drift of CTD temperature referred to RTM temperature




COMMENTS ON DQ EVALUATION OF WOCE P09 CTD DATA 
(Michio AOYAMA)
29 March 1996

General: 

The data quality of WOCE P09 CTD data (EXPOCODE: 49RY9407_1 & 49RY9407_2) and 
the CTD salinity and oxygen found in dot sea file are examined.  The individual 
2 dbar profiles were observed in temperature, salinity and oxygen by comparing 
the profiles obtained in the same basin. The 105 profiles of P09 CTD data were 
divided into five groups described in the cruise report as listed below; 

                   Station number   Corresponding basin name
                   -----------------------------------------
                   from 1 to 28     Shikoku Basin
                   from 29 to 33     
                   from 33 to 65    West Mariana Basin
                   from 65 to 85    West Caroline basin
                   from 85 to 105   Eauripik Ridge
                   

The CTD salinity and oxygen calibrations are examined using the water sample 
data file p1 0.mka. DQE used the original water sample data flagged "2" only for 
the DOE work. 

Details:

1.  CTD profiles 

CTD temperature, salinity and oxygen look good in general. CTD salinity profiles 
look a little bit noisy even in the deeper layers among the first 68 stations, 
while the quality of CTD salinity profiles becomes better among the stations 
from 69 to 105. DQE guesses that the first CTD unit used on the P09 cruise might 
have a problem from the beginning of the cruise. DOE also observed clear 
salinity spikes in a few CTD files obtained by both first CTD unit and second 
CTD unit. DOE also observed spikes and unreasonable values in the oxygen profile 
for a few stations. 

Details for each problem are listed in Sec. 3. 

2  Evaluation of CTD calibrations to water samples

2.1  Salinity calibration;
 
Standard deviation of Ds, Ds = CTD salinity in dot sea file - bottle salinity, 
is 0.0186 psu for all data and 0.00806 psu for deeper than 2000 dbar, 
respectively. These values are fairly large considering the required accuracy of 
CTD salinity and sample water salinity.

The histogram of Ds for all depths shows a non-symmetric distribution having a 
bias of negative Ds (fig.1). For the deep salinity fit, DQE also observed the 
non-symmetric distribution having a bias of positive Ds (fig. 2). Ds vs. 
pressure plot shows the strong pressure dependency of Ds (fig. 3). This pressure 
dependency can explain the non-symmetric distributions and opposite sign of 
biases in the histograms of Ds for all depth and deep.

Since the deep water sample salinity data among the first 60 stations bounced 
toward fresher values and pressure dependency mentioned above, standard 
deviation of Ds might account for a larger value of 0.00806 psu than one would 
expect from good salinometer operation and CTD salinity calibration.

After flagged out the fresher values as suggested by DQE, standard deviation of 
Ds becomes 0.00115 psu for deeper than 2000 dbar. Although this smaller value 
of0.00115 psu is well enough, the histogram of Ds for deeper than 2000 dbar 
still shows a non-symmetric distribution (fig. 4), DQE suggests that 
further/additional correction will improve the quality of CTD salinity.

2.2  Oxygen calibration; 

Although the Dox, Dox = CTD oxygen in dot sea file - bottle oxygen, histogram 
for all depths (fig. 5) looks symmetric, Dox has a strong pressure dependency as 
shown in fig. 6. DQE also observed that this pressure dependency of Dox was 
unquestionable at the beginning of the cruise but settled down as the cruise 
progressed. Dox vs. pressure plots for the stations 1 to 10 (fig. 7), 21 to 30 
(fig. 8), 41 to 50 (fig. 9) and 60 to 69 (fig. 10) show the gradual transition 
of the pressure dependency of CTD oxygen sensor. DQE strongly suggest further 
correction for CTD oxygen calibration considering the characteristics of the 
pressure dependency using several station groupings. 

3.  The following are some specific problems that should be looked at: 

stn.  11  Theta-salinity plot for stn. 11 does not overlay the theta-salinity  
          plots for nearby stations. It may have originated from higher salinity 
          and/or higher temperature. Check the conductivity scaling factor 
          and/or temperature profile. 
stn.  37  from ca. 3230 dbar to 3427 dbar; oxygen shows extremely high. 
          Suggest flag "4". 
stn.  53  from 3100 dbar to 3200 dbar: Oxygen spikes of 4 - 5 µmol/kg were 
          observed among these depths. Suggest flag "4". 
stn.  56  Many oxygen spikes were observed in the deep. Suggest flag "3" or "4".
stn.  58  Many oxygen spikes were observed in the deep. Suggest flag "3" or "4". 
stn.  58  at 4140 dbar, 4213 dbar and 4315 dbar: Salinity spikes were observed 
          at these depths. Suggest flag "4". 
stn.  62  within deepest 60 dbar: Noisy salinity profile. Suggest flag "T. 
stn.  69  at 2833 dbar: Salinity shift of 0.004 pss was observed clearly. 
          Suggest check the whole profile. 
stn.  78  between 3700 dbar and 4200 dbar: Salinity profile looks noisy. 
          Suggest flag "3". 
stn.  92  at 3379 dbar: Salinity spike/noise observed. Suggest flag "4".
stn. 103  at 2333 dbar: Salinity spike/noise observed. Suggest flag "4".




COMMENTS ON DQ EVALUATION OF WOCE P9 HYDROGRAPHIC DATA 
(EXPOCODE: 49RY9407/1 & 49RY9407/2). 
Michio AOYAMA
29 March 1996

The data quality of the hydrographic data of the WOCE P9 cruise (EXPOCODE: 
49RY9407/1 & 49RY9407/2) are examined.  The data files for this DQE work were 
P9.sum and P9.mka ( this P9.mka file is created for DQE, then it has a new 
column of quality 2 word) provided by WHPO.

General;

The station spacing ranged from ca. 7 to ca. 38 nautical miles. Aside from 
suffering some lost data due to the trip malfunctions on the Rosette samplers 
throughout the cruise, the sampling layer spacing was kept ca. 250 dbar in the 
deeper layers during this P9 cruise. The ctd lowerings were made to within 20 
meters to the sea bottom except several stations. The data originators have 
done a good job in evaluating the data and in solving trip problems. DQE, 
however, observed a few unreasonable values among the data flagged "good" by 
the data originators.

Aside from these small problems mentioned above, the Ryofu maru P9 cruise at 
137Ewill improve our knowledge on the western North Pacific and update the deep 
water data set at this area.

DQE used the data flagged "2" by the data originators for this DQE work.

DQE examined 6 profiles and 7 property vs. property plots as listed below:
salinity, oxygen, silicate, nitrate, nitrite and phosphate profiles 

   1  theta vs. salinity plot 
   2  theta vs. oxygen plot 
   3  salinity vs. oxygen plot 
   4  nitrate vs. phosphate plot 
   5  salinity vs. silicate plot 
   6  theta vs. silicate plot 
   7  silicate vs. nitrate plot
   
1. Salinity;

The deep water salinity data bounced mostly toward fresher among the first 40 
stations. This tendency observed among the stations between 54 and 60 again, 
but settled down as the cruise progressed. 

Since the data originator had not flagged out these bounced values, DS, DS=CTD 
salinity - bottle salinity in dot sea file, vs. station # plot for the deeper 
layer (deeper than 2000 dbar) shows a larger variability of salinity difference 
among the stations up to 60 (fig. 1)

2. Oxygen;

Bottle oxygen profile looks good. Salinity vs. oxygen and theta vs. oxygen 
plots also looks reasonable. DQE thinks that the flags of the bottle oxygen 
data are reliable.

3. Nutrients;

The profiles of nitrate, nitrite and phosphate look well. Nitrate vs. phosphate 
plot also looks pretty reasonable. Although DQE observes that silicate 
concentration seems to be slightly fluctuating station by station and higher as 
already stated in the cruise report (2.3 Nutrient measurements and Table 
2.1.4), P9 silicate overlays pre-woce (P3 and P4) silicate data within the 
accuracy of 1-3 %.

4. The following are some specific problems that should be looked at:

STNNBR XX/ CASTNO X/ SAMPNO XX at XXXX dbar:

4/1/3    at 1515 dbar: Bottle salinity looks low. Suggest flag "3".
10/2/17  at 2276 dbar: Bottle salinity looks low. Suggest fig. "3".
11/2/19  at 2022 dbar: Nitrate and phosphate concentrations look low and 
                       observed almost identical with the values at 2275 dbar.
13/2/11  at 3550 dbar: Bottle oxygen looks high. Suggest flag  "3".
14/1/1   at 3806 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like high. Suggest flag "3".
14/1/4   at 3296 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "3".
15/2/12  at 4063 dbar: Bottle oxygen looks high. Suggest flag  "3".
15/3/34  at 1006 dbar: Bottle salinity looks low. Suggest flag  "3".
17/2/10  at 4064 dbar: Bottle oxygen looks high. Suggest flag  "3".
19/2/14  at 3298 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "3".
20/2/12  at 4063 dbar: Bottle salinity looks low. Suggest flag  "3".
20/2/13  at 3087 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "3".
20/2/17  at 3040 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "3".
21/2/14  at 3296 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "3".
21/2/15  at 3296 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "3".
21/2/16  at 3550 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "3".
21/2/18  at 2529 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "3".
24/2/15  at 3550 dbar: Bottle salinity and oxygen look low. Suggest flag  "3".
24/2/16  at 3550 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "3".
25/2/17  at 2783 dbar: Bottle oxygen looks high. Suggest flag  "3".
26/2/12  at 4320 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like high. Suggest flag "3".
26/2/14  at 3807 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like high. Suggest flag "3".
28/ */   at all depths: Silicate seems to be shifted toward lower considering 
                       the silicate concentrations at nearby stations. 
                       Suggest flag "3".
29/1/2   at  402 dbar: Bottle salinity looks very high. Suggest flag "4".
29/2/13  at 5683 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "3".
29/2/16  at 5092 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "3".
35/2/29  at 1512 dbar: Bottle salinity looks low. Suggest flag  "3".
36/2/25  at 1513 dbar: Bottle salinity looks low. Suggest flag  "3".
37/1/7   at   50 dbar: Bottle oxygen looks high. Suggest flag  "3".
37/2/18  at 3039 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "3".
38/11/8  at 2780 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "3".
42/2/20  at 3038 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "3".
43/2/13  at 4576 dbar: Bottle salinity, oxygen and nutrients should be at 
                       shallower layer. Suggest flag "4".
43/2/16  at 3806 dbar: Silicate concentration looks low. Suggest flag  "3".
43/2/34  at  402 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "3".
48/2/14  at 5697 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like very low. Suggest flag "4".
51/2/19  at 4320 dbar: Phosphate concentration looks high. Suggest flag  "3".
54/*/* to 77/*/* at    all depths: BTLNBRs for the stations 54 to 77 were blank 
                       or zero. Put correct BTLNBR
54/2/15  at 5091 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "3".
55/2/20  at 3042 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "3".
55/2/22  at 2531 dbar: Bottle salinity looks low. Suggest flag  "3".
56/1/4   at 4063 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "3".
60/2/17  at 4320 dbar: Phosphate concentration looks high. Suggest flag  "3".
60/2/20  at 3808 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "3".
61/2/16  at 3807 dbar: Bottle oxygen looks high. Suggest flag  "3".
61/2/18  at 3295 dbar: Bottle oxygen looks high. Suggest flag  "3".
61/2/20  at 2785 dbar: Phosphate concentration looks high. Suggest flag  "3".
62/2/22  at 4319 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like high. Suggest flag "3".
62/2/34  at 1515 dbar: Bottle salinity looks low. Suggest flag  "3".
69/2/29  at 3294 dbar: Phosphate concentration looks low . Suggest flag  "3".
69/2/32  at 2530 dbar: Phosphate concentration looks low. Suggest flag  "3".
69/2/37  at 1260 dbar: Bottle salinity looks low. Suggest flag  "3".
69/2/39  at  907 dbar: Phosphate concentration looks low. Suggest flag  "3".
70/2/12  at 3807 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like high. Suggest flag "3".
70/2/13  at 3552 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like high. Suggest flag "3".
71/2/12  at 4151 dbar: Bottle salinity looks low. Suggest flag  "3".
73/2/13  at 4064 dbar: Bottle salinity looks low. Suggest flag  "3".
75/2/20  at 2276 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "3".
77/2/19  at 2022 dbar: Bottle salinity, oxygen and nutrients should be at 
                       shallower layer. Suggest flag "4".
79/2/ 10-33 at 1517-1518 dbar: Although the sampling depths are almost same for 
                       these layers, bottle oxygen varied from 155 µmol/kg to 
                       70 µmol/kg. Put correct values with appropriate flags.
75/2/14  at 3552 dbar: Bottle salinity looks low. Suggest flag  "3".
79/3/35  at 4061 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like low. Suggest flag "4".
89/3/30  at 1513 dbar: Bottle salinity looks low. And this salinity seems 
                       similar with the salinity at one layer shallower. 
                       Suggest flag "4".
90/2/19  at 1512 dbar: Bottle oxygen and nutrients should be at shallower 
                       layer. Suggest flag "4".
92/2/12  at 3296 dbar: Bottle salinity, oxygen and nutrients should be at 
                       shallower. Suggest flag "4".
92/4/ 14-17, 24-26, 28 and 31-37: Although the depth ranged from 152 dbar to 
                       3433 dbar, phosphate concentrations are zero. Put 
                       correct values with appropriate flags.
92/4/22  at 2275 dbar: Bottle oxygen looks high. Suggest flag  "3".
100/2/18 at 2276 dbar. Bottle salinity looks low. Suggest flag  "3".
103/2/15 at 4225 dbar: Bottle oxygen looks very high. Suggest flag  "4".
105/1/5  at 1008 dbar: Phosphate looks low. Suggest flag  "3".
105/1/12 at  502 dbar: Phosphate looks low. Suggest flag "3".




DATA QUALITY EVALUATION OF HYDROGRAPHIC DATA FOR P09
(George C. Anderson)
October 25, 1998 and updated several times since

Notes on the DQ Evaluation of Cruise P09, 
  a Japanese cruise along 137E and 142E from about 35 deg N to 3 deg South
  EXPOCODE: 49RY9407_1 & 49RY9407_2 
  PI:       Dr. Hiroki Kondo 
  DQE of the discrete data listing for:

            temperature, 
            salinity (CTD and bottle data), 
            oxygen (CTD and bottle data), 
            silicate, 
            nitrate, 
            nitrite, and 
            phosphate.

After completing the DQE work on this cruise, it was discovered that 
this cruise had already been DQE'd, a report written, corrections made, and 
an updated file submitted. The initial DQ evaluation had been done by Michio 
Aoyama and was dated 29 March 1996.

Unfortunately the file I examined was not the most recent, so many of 
the items I would have flagged had already been discovered and corrected.

The processing scheme consisted of preparing plots of the parameters to 
be investigated. All parameters were plotted versus pressure. As necessary, 
supplementary plots of theta-salinity and salinity-silicate were prepared for 
individual stations or groups of stations. In addition, plots of phosphate 
(x-axis) versus nitrate (y-axis) were prepared for each station. From these 
data, plots of the N03/PO4 ratio, and y-intercept were prepared plotting 
these values versus station number (copy attached).

Positions from the sum file were plotted and appear to be correct. Cast 
times and dates were checked for consistency. No errors were found.

The work of Dr. Hiroki Kondo is to be commended in resolving bottle 
tripping problems. These are described in the Cruise Report.

Results:

Overall the data look quite good. There are some "bad" bottle salts; 
excluding the surface levels (1st and 2nd bottles) CTD-oxygens look very 
reasonable. There are some "bad" nutrient samples, mostly phosphate, and a 
few leaky bottles. The phosphate values on stations 104 and 105 are not of 
the quality of the rest of the cruise. On a few stations it appeared as 
though there were some key entry errors, double sampling from the same Niskin 
bottle, or data for two levels reversed.

At station 69 the CTD-02 sensor. failed and the back-up sensor was 
found to be faulty. As a result CTD-02 data were not available for the 
remainder of the cruise. This has been pointed out in the Cruise Report.

On four stations, numbers 55, 66, 68 and 70, some to all the silicates 
had been flagged uncertain. There does appear to be somewhat more scatter in 
the data than on other stations, but calling the data uncertain may be a bit 
harsh. I am recommending that the flags be changed back to "2".

The values of the N03/PO4 ratio change during the course of the cruise 
from about 14.2 at the beginning to about 14.8 at the end. At the same time, 
the value of the y-intercept changes from about 0 to ~ -1. These negative 
intercepts are quite reasonable and to be expected. The reason(s) for the 
change in the ratio over the duration of the cruise should be checked. There 
may have been a problem with one of the phosphate standards (See the attached 
report on the comparison of nitrate and phosphate data for Cruises P09 and 
P10).

Data from this cruise were compared with data from the following:


P09 Station No.  Cruise              Date                Station No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
      11         Geosecs (Pacific)   (October of 1973)      224
      32         TPS 24 [WOCE P03]   (May of 1985)          320
      63         P04                 (March of 1989)         28
      81         WEPOC II            (February of 1986)      93

The data for TPS 24 and WEPOC 11 had oxygen concentrations listed in 
units of ml/l and nutrient values in units of µMoles. These were converted to 
the WHPO units of µmoles/kg using approximate conversion factors. For oxygen, 
the values in ml/l were divided by 43.50; for nutrients, the µM units were 
divided by a density value of 1.0236, based on an approximate lab temperature 
of 25 degrees Celsius and a salinity of 35 p.s.u.

Salinities from P09 compare very well with the data from P04, but are 
typically 0.002 to 0.004 p.s.u. higher than reported on the other cruises. 
This is consistent with the observations recorded in the Cruise Report (pages 
7 & 8). Part of this offset may be the result of the batch of Wormley water 
used in standardizing the salinometer (Aoyama, WOCE Newsletter, No. 32, Sept. 
1998).

Oxygen values are comparable to those reported on the other cruises.

The nutrients below 3000 meters show the following: excluding the data from 
Geosecs, P09 silicates are lower than those reported on the other cruises by 
2 to 3 µmoles/kg [at a conc. of 141.0, 2.5 µmoles/kg is 1.8%]; nitrates are 
within ±1 µmoles/kg of those reported on the other cruises [at a conc. of 
36.5 µmoles/kg, this is ~ 2.7% ]; excluding the data for WEPOCII where the 
phosphates are 0.05 µmoles/kg lower, phosphates are higher than those 
reported on the other cruises by approximately 0.05 µmoles/kg [at a conc. of 
2.55 µmoles/kg, this is ~ 2.0%]. These observations are similar to those 
described in the Cruise Report (page 13). Except for nitrate, all 
observations have met the "data quality goals" specified in WOCE Report No. 
67/91, Rev. 2, May 1994, page 20).

A philosophical question that has no bearing on the quality of the data 
for this cruise has to do with the use of quality flags when calibration data 
are not available for a cast. As an example when the CTD oxygen sensor was 
operational, there were casts made for water samples which did not include 
discrete samples for oxygen. One could make an argument that without these 
calibration data, one's confidence in the data is somewhat less than if 
discrete samples had been collected and analyzed. To this extent at best flag 
"3" should be used. However, since previous casts at this station and casts 
on adjacent stations had calibration data, quality flags should be assigned 
based on this information and normally would be "2". As stated above, this is 
a philosophical question whose answer goes beyond the scope of this DQE work.

George C. Anderson
DQE, WHPO



CRUISE P09 DQE DATA SUMMARY

The following are some specific problems that should be checked:

Station  Cast  Bottle  Pressure  Notes
Number         Number  (dbars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  2       1     13      100.3    CTD salinity appears to be low; 
                                 suggest flag it 3
          1     13               Bottle salinity appears to be okay; 
                                 suggest change flag from 3 to 2
  4       1      5     1009.7    Bottle salinity is low; suggest flag it 3
          1      2     1515.2    Bottle data look okay; 
                                 suggest change the bottle flag from 4 to 2
          1      3     1515.2    Bottle appears to have leaked; 
                                 suggest flag 4 for bottle
 11       1      6       50.1    CTD salinity is high; suspect a salinity 
                                 spike or a key entry error
          2      1     4235.4    Phosphate value is low; suggest flag 3
 13       2      7     3550.2    Bottle oxygen appears to be okay; 
                                 suggest change flag to 2
          2      6     3805.6    Bottle oxygen low; suggest flag 3
 15       2      9     4063.3    Bottle oxygen appears to be okay; 
                                 suggest change flag to 2
          2      7     4306.8    Bottle oxygen low; suggest flag 3
 16       2     10     2783.8    Bottle oxygen low; suggest flag 3
 18       2     18      906.6    CTD oxygen looks okay; 
                                 suggest change flag to 2  
 19       2     12     2274.9    Bottle oxygen high; suggest flag 3
 23       1      7       49.9    CTD salinity spike; suggest flag 4
 24       2      2     4577.1    Bottle oxygen low; suggest flag 3
 27       2     11     2531.0    Phosphate value is low; suggest flag 3
 30       2      7     3807.6    Oxygen and nutrient values low; 
                                 suggest flag 3 for both parameters
          2      4     4834.0    Bottle oxygen low; suggest flag 3
 31       2     22     2021.2    Phosphate value is low; suggest flag 3
          2     10     4834.5    Bottle oxygen low; suggest flag 3
 32       1     15      125.8    CTD salinity high; suggest flag 3
          2      4     1008.7    CTD salinity is high; suggest flag 3
          2      4               Bottle salinity looks okay; 
                                 suggest change flag from 3 to 2
          2     15     4064.7    Phosphate value is low; suggest flag 3
 33       1     16       24.9    CTD salinity spike; suggest flag 3
 36       2     13     3547.8    Bottle salinity is low; suggest flag it 3
          2     14     3547.8    Bottle salinity is low; suggest flag it 3
          2     12     3805.5    Bottle salt looks okay; 
                                 suggest change flag from 3 to 2
          2      9     4307.5    Bottle salinity is low; suggest flag it 3
 39       2      1     2015.4    Bottle salinity is low; suggest flag it 3
 41       2      3      907.9    CTD oxygen looks okay; 
                                 suggest change flag from 3 to 2
          2     11     4320.0    CTD oxygen high; suggest flag 3
 43       2     21     2020.9    Nutrient values look okay; 
                                 suggest change flags from 4 to 2
          2     14     3806.5    Silicate value is suspect but not bad; 
                                 suggest change flag from 4 to 3
 47       2     21     3040.1    Silicate value is low; suggest flag 3

Cruise P09 DQE data summary (continued)

The following are some specific problems that should be checked:
	
Station  Cast  Bottle  Pressure  Notes
Number         Number  (dbars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 50       1     18      100.5    CTD oxygen looks okay; 
                                 suggest change flag to 2 
          1     18      100.5    Bottle oxygen looks very low; suggest flag 4
          2     22     3040.1    Bottle salinity is low; suggest flag it 3
          2     16     4318.3    CTD oxygen value is high; suggest flag 3
 52       2     12     4513.6    Bottle data appear to be okay; 
                                 suggest change bottle flag from 3 to 2
 55       2     10      503.8    Silicates from here to bottom flagged 3; 
                                 data a bit noisy but okay; 
                                 suggest change flags to 2
          2     20     3041.8    Bottle oxygen looks okay; 
                                 suggest change flag from 3 to 2
 61       2     17     3551.8    Bottle salinity is low; suggest flag it 3
 60       2     13     5098.6    CTD salinity is low; suggest flag 3
 57       2      3     1767.5    Bottle salinity is low; suggest flag it 3
 56       2      8      604.6    CTD salinity is low; suggest flag 3
 62       2     16     3805.0    Phosphate value high; suggest flag 3
 63       2     19     2276.4    CTD salinity is low; suggest flag 3
 66       2                      all depths  Silicates flagged 3; 
                                 data a bit ragged but okay; 
                                 suggest change flags to 2
 68       2     15     2529.6    Phosphate value is low; suggest flag 3
          2      7      150.2    Silicates at all depths between 150.2 and 
                                 3261.3 flagged 3;           
          2     12     3261.3    data a bit noisy but okay; 
                                 suggest change flags to 2         
 69       2      8     1260.6    CTD salinity is high; suggest flag 3
          2      8               Bottle salinity appears to be okay; 
                                 suggest change bottle flag from 3 to 2
          2     12     6122.6    Bottle salinity is low; suggest flag it 3
 70                  all depths  Silicates flagged 3 but appear to be okay; 
                                 suggest change flags to 2
 72       2     17     3294.0    Bottle salinity is low; suggest flag it 3
 75       2     22     2275.6    Bottle oxygen is suspect; suggest flag 3
          2     22               Phosphate value is low; suggest flag 3
 78       2     20     2275.9    Phosphate value is low; suggest flag 3
 80       2     19     2022.5    Phosphate value is low; suggest flag 3
          2     13     3552.2    CTD salinity is high; suggest flag 3
 93       2     15     3038.4    Bottle salinity is okay; 
                                 suggest change flag from 3 to 2
          2     15               Bottle oxygen is suspect; flag it 3
          2     14     3295.9    Bottle oxygen low; suggest flag 3
101       2     6       503.9    CTD salinity is low; suggest flag 3
          2     19     2275.6    Phosphate value is low; suggest flag 3
103       1     16      301.7    Phosphate value is low; suggest flag 3
104       3     15      907.2    CTD salinity is high; suggest flag 3
  92                             The second occupation of this station
          3     16      127.0    The phosphates at these depths appear to be
          3     15      151.6    low; suggest all be flagged 3.
          3     13      302.2    many missing or suspect phosphates on this 
          3     14      302.2    station
          3     11      404.5
          3     12      404.5


Review of the Nitrate and Phosphate Data from Selected Stations
WOCE Cruises P09 and P10

As part of the repeat DQE of WOCE Cruise P09, the nitrate and phosphate 
data from a station were plotted against each other. A least squares fit was 
used to determine the N03/PO4 ratio and intercept. Subsequently, plots were 
made of the slope and intercept values at each station versus the station 
number. There appeared to be a transition zone in the curves between stations 
44 and 60. Between these stations the N03/PO4 ratio increased from ~ 14.3 to 
~ 14.7 while the intercept changed from ~ -0. 15 to ~ -1.0. Initially it was 
thought that this might have been the result of changes in the primary 
phosphate standards being used on the cruise.

To investigate this, data from WOCE Cruise P10, stations 29-31 and 
70-72, were treated similarly as those from P09. The two groups of stations 
from P10 were at similar northern latitudes as those of P09 but were 12 
degrees of longitude to the east at the northern stations and ~6 degrees of 
longitude to the east at the southern stations.

The N03/PO4 ratios from P09 & P10 are similar and increase towards the 
equator. At the northern stations the values are 14.27 and 14.44 respectively 
for P09 and P10. At the southern stations the values are 14.74 and 14.66 
respectively. There is also an increase in the value of the intercepts in 
moving towards the equator. At the northern stations the values are -0.08 and 
-0.29 respectively for P09 and P10. At the southern stations the values are 
-0.74 and -1.30 respectively.

These data would suggest that the changes in the values of the N03/PO4 
ratio and intercept seen on Cruise P09 are real. They are related to changes 
in the surface phosphate and nitrate values as one moves south rather than to 
problems with one of the standards used during the cruise.

As a second approach in examining, this phenomenon, the N03/PO4 ratio 
was calculated for each bottle deeper than 3000 decibars at all stations from 
both cruises. The mean was determined for all values within each group of 
stations.

At the northern part of the pattern, the mean of the P09 station data 
is ~14.45, for P10, the mean is ~14.44, almost identical. At the southern 
part of the pattern, the mean of the P09 station data is ~ 14.6, for P10, the 
mean is ~ 14.2, so P09 is ~ 0.4 units higher than P10. In going from the 
northern to the southern groups of stations, the P09 value increases by 
~ 0. 15 units while the P10 value decreases by ~ 0.24 units.

From these data, it would appear that there has been a shift in the 
deep data. Other sections need to be reviewed before resolving this.

It should be noted that station depths on P10 were ~1000 decibars 
deeper than on P09. As a result a few more values were included in the 
averages at each P10 location.



FINAL CFC DATA QUALITY EVALUATION (DQE) COMMENTS ON P09.
(David Wisegarver)
Dec 2000

  Based on the data quality evaluation,  this data set meets the relaxed WOCE 
  standard (3% or 0.015 pmol/kg overall precision) for CFC's.  Detailed comments 
  on the DQE process have been sent to the PI and to the WHPO.

  The CFC concentrations have been adjusted to the SIO98 calibration Scale  
  (Prinn et al. 2000) so that all of the Pacific WOCE CFC data will be on a 
  common calibration scale.

For further information, comments or questions, please, contact the CFC PI for 
  this section (Dr. I. Kaneko, ikuo-kaneko@met.kishou.go.jp, or Y. Takatsui, 
  yasushit@jamstec.go.jp, knemoto@mri-jma.go.jp) or David Wisegarver 
  (wise@pmel.noaa.gov).

  More information may be available at www.pmel.noaa.gov/cfc.

********************************************************************************
Prinn, R. G., R. F. Weiss, P. J. Fraser, P. G. Simmonds, D. M. Cunnold,  F. N. 
Alyea, S. O'Doherty, P. Salameh, B. R. Miller, J. Huang, R. H. J.  Wang, D. E. 
Hartley, C. Harth, L. P. Steele, G. Sturrock, P. M. Midgley,  and A. McCulloch, 
A history of chemically and radiatively important gases  in air deduced from 
ALE/GAGE/AGAGE J. Geophys. Res., 105, 17,751-17,792, 2000.
********************************************************************************


  
                             DATA PROCESSING HISTORY

DATE      CONTACT     DATA TYPE           DATA STATUS SUMMARY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/29/96   Aoyama      CTD/S/O             DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO

8/15/97   Uribe       DOC                 Submitted
  2000.12.11 KJU   File contained here is a CRUISE SUMMARY and NOT sumfile. 
    Documentation is online.
  2000.10.11 KJU   Files were found in incoming directory under whp_reports. 
    This directory was zipped, files were separated and placed under proper 
    cruise. All of them are sum files.
    Received 1997 August 15th.

9/15/98   Talley      SUM/BTL             Website Updated
  SUM, S/O, NUTs, CFCs online

10/30/98  Anderson    NUTs/S/O            DQE nearly complete
 
5/5/99   Anderson     NUTs/S/O            Letter from DQE to Chief Scientist:
     Enclosed is a DQE report on the hydrographic data submitted to the WHPO 
  for onetime line P9 (49RY9407/1 &2). As it turns out, this is the second 
  review of the data for this cruise, and I think you deserve an explanation.
  I have recently been employed to do DQE work for the WHPO. Originally this 
  work was coordinated through the WHPO office at the Woods Hole Oceanographic 
  Institution located in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. About two years ago, the 
  WHPO office was moved to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. 
  Unfortunately, during the transition, some records were misplaced including 
  the original DQE evaluation of these data by M. Aoyama. It wasn't until after 
  I completed my evaluation, the end of 1998, that his report and related 
  records were discovered. This included a copy of correspondence sent to you 
  by Terrence M. Joyce, Director, WHPO, dated 12 June, 1996, with M. Aoyama's 
  DQE report.
    When the error was discovered, there was some discussion as to whether I 
  should continue my efforts on this cruise. It was decided that since I had 
  done as much work as I had, I should complete this task.
  Many of the items that I flagged had already been flagged by M. Aoyama, had 
  been reviewed by your personnel, and differences in Q I and Q2 flags had been 
  resolved. These items will not be found in my listing. There are a few other 
  items that I have flagged, only a few of which would affect the use of or 
  interpretation of these data by other users.
  I found the nitrate/phosphate data plots of particular interest. As a result 
  I went well beyond what might normally be done by a DQ Evaluator in examining 
  the patterns in these plots. I have not resolved the question of the deep 
  nitrate data discrepancies, but this is something that I will be looking at 
  as I evaluate other cruises.

5/10/99   Anderson    NUTs/S/O            DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO

12/6/99   Huynh       CTD/BTL/SUM         Data Update
     New data files received

4/14/00   Key   DELC14   Data are Public
  As of 3/2000 the 2 year clock expired on the last of the Pacific Ocean C14 
  data (P10).  All Pacific Ocean WOCE C-14 data should be made public.

4/19/00   Bartolacci  DELC14              Website Updated
  P09  Changed to indicate WHPO has data.

6/7/00    Schlosser   HELIUM/DELHE3/NEON  Submitted

8/4/00    Saiki       CTD/BTL   Data are Public: 
  I am pleased to inform you that the PIs and participants of the one-time 
  and repeat cruises conducted by the Japan Meteorological Agency's vessels 
  agreed to change most of the data status to public.  The only exception is 
  the He/Tr of P09 and He/Tr, C-14 of P24.  In this respect, a list of the 
  cruises which we wish to change the status from non-public to public follows 
  for confirmation.  P09 Salinity, Oxygen, Nutrients, CFCs, C-14 and CTD
      
9/26/00   Schlosser   TRITUM              No Data Submitted; See Note:
  Tritium data will be submitted later (after intercalibration).
  We hold tritium data for a subset of our He lines only.
  WHP lines with tritium:  S04P. S04I (East). I08S, I09S, P09

9/29/00   Talley      He/Tr               Schlosser responsible for all He/Tr
  There will be one data set submitted from L-DEO. It covers the shallow 
  water column for tritium and He and the deep water column for He only. - P. 
  Schlosser

1/5/01    Kappa       DOC                 Doc Update txt version created

1/8/01    Huynh       DOC                 Website Updated; txt version online

2/16/01   Schlosser   HELIUM/DELHE3       Data NonPublic
  final calibration not yet done
  Thanks for your message. The reason that the he data are classified non-
  public is probably due to the fact that the final calibration has not yet 
  been carried out. If there is a way to make them public with the note of 
  caution that a small correction might be applied later, we should move the 
  data into the public domain. we probably wanted to look at a 'funny' feature 
  of elevated tritium concentrations that seem to fall along a certain 
  isopycnal. We will transmit the tritium data within a short time (I would 
  like to have another look at this feature and correlate it with some other 
  properties).

2/26/01   Schlosser   HELIUM/DELHE3       Data are Public
    Minor corrections may be needed post-intercal. Effort.
  Following up on bill Jenkins's message, I would like to ask you to make 
  public all ldeo woce tritium/he data that have been submitted to you.  
  Because the tritium/he community has not yet finished the final calibration 
  of the data, I might have to apply minor corrections to these data once the 
  intercal. effort has been completed.  Our acce work was funded over a 5-year 
  period that ended in 2000.  Consequently, this data set is further behind in 
  quality control before submission, but I expect that we will get these data 
  ready soon.
    SR3 was never funded in a 'regular' fashion, but I used NOA corc funds to 
  keep the measurements of this sample set moving. I expect to finish the 
  analyses this summer and submit them in fall.
     
3/29/01   Kaneko      CFCs/NUTs/C14/CO2   Update Needed; See Note:
  Through DQE of P9-CFCs, we found considerable amount of errors in CFCs 
  sampling layers at Stas.15, 33, 66, 73.  These errors were occurred when CFC 
  data were merged with the other property data.
  For the second cast at Sta. 66, three sampling bottles and layers of oxygen, 
  nutrients, radio-carbon and total carbon were wrong.  Oxygen value drawn from 
  bottle 5 should be re-calculated because density used for the conversion from 
  µmol/l to µmol/kg is changed.
  Mr. Takatsuki (yasushit@jamstec.go.jp) is now reconstructing new data set of 
  water sampling.  He will send it to WHPO/SIO via FTP, as soon as possible.

4/9/01    Takatsuki   CFCs/NUTs/C14/CO2   DQE Issues Resolved
  The Bottle File has the following parameters:
  OXYGEN,SILCAT,NITRAT,NITRIT,PHSPHT,CFC-11,CFC-12,DELC14,TCARBN.
  The Bottle File contains: 
     CastNumber StationNumber BottleNumber SampleNumber 
  TAKATSUKI, YASUSHI would like the data PUBLIC. And would like the following 
     done to the data:  correct errors in CFCs (Stn.15,33,66,73) and Nutrients 
     /Total Carbon /C-14 (Stn.66)
     
6/22/01   Muus        HELIUM              Submitted/not on web
  Helium received June 7, 2000: /usr/export/html-public/data/onetime/pacific 
  /p09/ original/2000.06.07_P9_DOC_SEA/P9HeNe.SEA/P9HeNe.SEA and made public by 
  P Schlosser Feb 26, 2001, are not yet on web bottle file.  (19980914WHPOSIOSA)

6/22/01   Uribe       CTD/BTL             Website Updated; CSV File Added
  CTD and Bottle files in exchange format have been put online.

9/14/01   Muus        CFCs                Data Merged into BTL file
  Notes on P09 CFC merging Sept 14, 2001.     D. Muus
  1  New CFC-11 and CFC-12 from:
     /usr/export/html-public/data/onetime/pacific/p09/original/20010907_P09_CFC 
     _UPDT_WISEGARVER/20010907.121249_WISEGARVER_P09/20010907. 
     121249_WISEGARVER_P09_CFC_DQE.dat  merged into SEA file received from 
     web, Sept 7, 2001 (19980914WHPOSIOSA)
     No SEA file QUALT2 words so added QUALT2 identical to QUALT1 prior to 
     merging.
     .SEA file name changed from p09hy.txt to p09_hy.txt.
     .SUM file name p09su.txt and text left unchanged.
  2  Exchange file checked using Java Ocean Atlas.
   
9/18/01   Muus        BTL/DOC             Website Updated
  New CSV file w/ updated CFCs now online. Created directory in p09/orignal 
  for new files and moved new file to p09 directory. New bottle and exchange 
  files are now on line

9/18/01   Muus        CFCs                Website Updated
  New btl file w/ updated CFCs now online

11/9/01   Kappa       DOC                 Doc Update
  added PDF version w/ figs, cfc/ctd/btl dqe reports in both versions
  
  

