CRUISE REPORT: ARC01
(Updated MAR 2017)










Highlights



                           Cruise Summary Information

               Section Designation  ARC01
                           Aliases  HLY1502
Expedition designation (ExpoCodes)  33HQ20150809
                  Chief Scientists  David Kadko / FIU
                Co-Chief Scientist  William Landing / FSU
                             Dates  2015 AUG 09 - 2015 OCT 12
                              Ship  USCGC Healy
                     Ports of call  Dutch Harbor, Alaska.

                                                  89° 59' 27" N
             Geographic Boundaries  167° 2' 38" E               147° 46' 48"W
                                                   60° 9' 54" N

                          Stations  66
      Floats and drifters deployed  0
    Moorings deployed or recovered  0



                              Contact Information
                                  David Kadko
                        Florida International University
                                 dkadko@fiu.edu

                                William Landing
                            Florida State University
                                wlanding@fsu.edu









Cruise Report for HLY1502; The 2015 Initial Occupation of ARC01
***************************************************************


1.  GEOTRACES HLY1502/GO-SHIP ARC01 2015 Hydrographic Program


Fig. 1.1: Cruise track of HLY1502/Arc01


The US GEOTRACES and US Global Ocean Carbon and Repeat Hydrography
Program performed the first Arctic collaboration cruise in the fall of
2015. The first collaboration and occupation of the repeat
hydrographic line, Arc01 transect, also know as HLY1502, occurred on
the United States Coast Guard Cutter Healy. The Healy, a class 4
icebreaker, departed August 9th, 2015 for the North Pole and returned
October 12th, 2015 to the port of Dutch Harbor, Alaska.

This report is specific to the hydrographic aspect of the HLY1502
survey, which consisted of 66 stations, 147 casts between 3 different
rosette/*CTDO* packages. The GEOTRACES rosette/CTDO package operated
by *LDEO* consisted of a CTDO, 24-place rosette 12 liter GO-Flow
bottles and performed 40 successful casts and 1 additional cast 048/06
that was not recorded. However, the hydrographic bottle data was
preserved and reported for 048/06. The GEOTRACES package was used for
stations 1-6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 19, 26, 30, 32, 38, 41, 43, 46, 48,
51-54, 56, 57, 60, 61 and 66. The second rosette/CTDO package managed
and operated by both *STARC* and *SIO*/*ODF* teams, consisted of a
CTDO, 12pl rosette 30 liter Bullister-style niskin bottles and
performed 19 successful casts as seen in 12 Place Rosette Bottle Cross
Section, 1-10 & 26. The 12-place 30 L rosette was used for stations
1-10 and station 26. The final package was also managed and operated
by *STARC* and term:*SIO*/*ODF*. This package consisted of a CTDO,
*UVP*, 3 chipods, 36pl rosette, 10 liter Bullister-style niskin
bottles and performed 87 successful casts as seen in 36 Place Rosette
Bottle Cross Section, 11-25, 27-30 and 32 and 36 Place Rosette Bottle
Cross Section, 34-38, 40-41 and 43-66. The 36-place 10 L rosette was
used for stations 11-25, 27-30, 32, 34-38, 40-41, and 43-66.


Fig. 1.2: 12 Place Rosette Bottle Cross Section, 1-10 & 26


Station 26 is not featured in the 12 Place Rosette Bottle Cross
Section, 1-10 & 26 image.


Fig. 1.3: 36 Place Rosette Bottle Cross Section, 11-25, 27-30 and 32

Fig. 1.4: 36 Place Rosette Bottle Cross Section, 34-38, 40-41 and
          43-66


CTDO data and water samples were collected on each CTDO, rosette cast.
The following tables outline analysis performed from data collected on
each rosette and the responsible parties involved.


1.1  LDEO Operated 24 Place Rosette Analysis & Science Teams

The following table outlines data collected and analyzed from the LDEO
operated 24-place 12 liter rosette, the supporting institutions and
principal investigators.

Program                    Affiliation        Principal Investigator     Email                   
=========================  =================  =========================  ========================
*CTDO* / Rosette Data,     *LDEO*             Greg Cutter                gcutter@odu.edu         
  As, Se                                                                                           
Salinity, Nutrients        *SIO*              Jim Swift                  jswift@ucsd.edu         
  Zn                         *FSU*              Neal Wyatt, William        mwyatt@fsu.edu,         
                                                Landing                    wlanding@fsu.edu        
Co Speciation              *WHOI*             Mak Saito                  msaito@whoi.edu         
Dissolved Trace            *TAMU*, *Rutgers*  Jessica Fitzsimmons,       jessfitzsimmons@gmail.co
  Metals/Colloids                             Robert Sherrell            m, sherrell@marine.rutge
                                                                           rs.edu                  
Fe Isotopes                *TAMU*, *USC*      Jessica Fitzsimmons, Seth  jessfitzsimmons@gmail.co
                                                John                       m, sjohn@geol.sc.edu    
Trace Metal Isotopes       *USC*              Seth John                  sjohn@geol.sc.edu       
Cr Isotopes, Cr(III)       *MIT*              Ed Boyle                   eaboyle@mit.edu         
Pb Isotopes                *UAF*, *MIT*       Rob Rember, Ed Boyle       rrember@iarc.uaf.edu,   
                                                                           eaboyle@mit.edu         
Th Isotopes                *LDEO*             Robert Anderson            boba@ldeo.columbia.edu  
  Ga, Ba, V, Mo              *USM*              Alan Shiller               alan.shiller@usm.edu    
Fe, Mn, Al                 *UH*               Mariko Hatta, Chris        mhatta@hawaii.edu,      
                                                Measures                   chrism@soest.hawaii.edu 
Hg Organic/Total/Colloids  *UCSC*             Carl Lamborg               clamborg@ucsc.edu       
Fe(II)                     *UCSC*             Maija Heller, Pheobe Lam   maijaheller@gmail.com,  
                                                                           pjlam@ucsc.edu          
Particulate/ Cellular      *Bigelow*          Benjamin Twining           btwining@bigelow.org    
Trace Metals                                                                                     
PIC/POC, Si Biological     *UCSC*             Pheobe Lam                 pjlam@ucsc.edu          

The following table outlines the shipboard science teams responsible
for collecting and or analyzing data from the LDEO operated 24-place
12 liter rosette.

Duty                       Name                 Affiliation  Email Address            
=========================  ===================  ===========  =========================
Chief Scientist            David Kadko          *FIU*        dkadko@fiu.edu           
Co-Chief Scientist         William Landing      *FSU*        wlanding@fsu.edu         
CTD, As, Se                Greg Cutter          *LDEO*       gcutter@odu.edu          
As, Se                     Zoe Wambaugh         *ODU*        zwanb001@odu.edu         
GTC CTD                    Kyle McQuiggan       *ODU*        kmcqu001@odu.edu         
GTC CTD Data               Courtney Schatzman   term:*ODF*   cschatzman@ucsd.edu      
Dissolved Trace metals/    Jessica Fitzsimmons  *TAMU*       jessfitzsimmons@gmail.com
Colloids, Fe Isotopes                                                                 
Fe(II)                     Majia Heller         *UCSC*       maijaheller@gmail.com    
Fe, Mn, Al                 Mariko Hatta         *UH*         mhatta@hawaii.edu        
Fe, Mn, Al                 Chris Measures       *UH*         chrism@soest.hawaii.edu  
Ga, Ba, V, Mo              Laura Whitmore       *USM*        laura.whitmore@eagles.us 
                                                               m.edu                    
GTC Super Tech             Simone Moos          *MIT*        sbmoos@mit.edu           
GTC Super Tech             Peter Morton         *FSU*        pmorton@fsu.edu          
GTC Super Tech             Gabi Weiss           *UH*         weiss@hawaii.edu         
GTC Management             Lisa Oswald          *OSU*        loswald@odu.edu          
Hg Organics/Total/Coloids  Alison Agather       *Wright*     agather.2@wright.edu     
Hg Organics/Total/Coloids  Katlin Bowman        *UCSC*       klbowman@ucsc.edu        
Hg Organics/Total/Coloids  Carl Lamborg         *UCSC*       clamborg@ucsc.edu        
Nutrients                  Melissa Miller       *ODF*        melissa-miller@ucsd.edu  
Nutrients                  Susan Becker         *ODF*        sbecker@ucsd.edu         
Pb Isotopes                Rob Rember           *UAF*        rrember@iarc.uaf.edu     
Particuate/Cellular        Sara Rauchenberg     *Bigelow*    srauchenberg@bigelow.org 
  Trace Metals                                                                          
PIC/POC, Si Biological     Pheobe Lam           *UCSC*       pjlam@ucsc.edu           
PIC/POC, Si Biological     Yang Xiang           *UCSC*       yaxiang@ucsc.edu         
Zn                         Neal Wyatt           *FSU*        nwyatt@fsu.edu           


1.2  SIO/ODF Operated 12 Place and 36 Place Rosette Analysis & Science Teams

The following table outlines data collected and analyzed from the
SIO/ODF operated rosettes, the supporting institutions and principal
investigators.

Program                   Affiliation         Principal Investigator   Email                    
========================  ==================  =======================  ===========================
*CTDO* Data, Salinity,    *SIO*               Jim Swift, Susan Becker  jswift@ucsd.edu,         
Nutrients, Dissolved O2                                                sbecker@ucsd.edu         
Total CO2 (DIC), Total    *UM*, *RSMAS*       Frank Millero, Ryan      fmillero@rsmas.miami.edu,
Alkalinity, pH, Density                       Woosley                  rwoosley@fsmas.miami.edu 
3He, 3H, δ18O             *LDEO*              Peter Schlosser          schlosser@ldeo.columbia.edu  
*CFCs*, SF6               *LDEO*              William Smethie,         bsmeth@ldeo.columbia.edu,
                                                David Ho                 ho@hawaii.edu            
NO3-, δ15N, δ18O,         *UCONN*, *UMASSD*   Julie Granger, Mark      julie.granger@uconn.edu,  
  NH4+, N2 /Ar, N2O,                          Altabet                    maltabet@umassd.edu       
  δ15N-NH_3                                                                                      
CH4                       *SMISS*             Alan Schiller            alan.shiller@usm.edu     
13C/14C                   *UW*                Paul Quay                pdquay@u.washington.edu  
DOC                       *RSMAS*             Dennis Hansell           dhansell@rsmas.miami.edu 
Thiols                    *UCSC*              Carl Lamborg             clamborg@ucsc.edu        
Si Isotopes               *UCSB*              Mark Brzezinski          brzezins@lifesci.ucsb.edu
Th-Pa                     *LDEO*              Robert Anderson          boba@ldeo.columbia.edu   
Nd/Ree                    *OSU*, *LDEO*       Brian Haley, Steve       bhaley@coas.oregonstate. 
                                              Goldstien                edu,                     
                                                                       steveg@ldeo.columbia.edu 
Transmissometry           *TAMU*              Wilf Gardner             wgardner@ocean.tamu.edu  
Chipod                    *OSU*               Jonathan Nash            nash@coas.oregonstate.edu
*UVP*                     *UAF*               Andrew McDonnell         amcdonnell@alaska.edu    
STARC Support             *SIO*               Brett Hembrough          bhembrough@ucsd.edu      


The following table outlines the shipboard science team responsible
for collecting and or analyzing data from the SIO/ODF operated
rosettes.

Duty                       Name                  Affiliation    Email Address            
=========================  ====================  =============  =============================
Chief Scientist            David Kadko           *FIU*          dkadko@fiu.edu           
Co-Chief Scientist         William Landing       *FSU*          wlanding@fsu.edu         
13C/14C, CH4               Laura Whitmore        *USM*          laura.whitmore@eagles.us 
  δ15N-NH_3                                                    m.edu                    
*CFCs*, SF6, N2/Ar,        Eugene Gorman         *LDEO*         egorman@ldeo.columbia.edu
  N2O                                                                                    
*CFCs*, SF6, N2/Ar,        Benjamin Hickman      *LDEO*         hickmanb@hawaii.edu      
  N2O                                                                                    
*CFCs*, SF6, 3He, 3H,      Angelica Pasqualini   *LDEO*         ap2776@columbia.edu      
  δ18O, I-129                                                                           
CTD Watchstander,          Jim Swift             *SIO*          jswift@ucsd.edu          
  Hydrographic Advisor                                                                   
CTD Watchstander,          Joseph Gum            *SIO*/*ODF*    jgum@ucsd.edu            
  Dissloved O2                                                                           
CTDO Processing, Database  Courtney Schatzman    *SIO*/*ODF*    cschatzman@ucsd.edu      
  Management                                                                             
Dissolved O2               Andrew Barna          *SIO*/*ODF*    abarna@gmail.com         
*DIC*, pH, Total           Ryan Woosley          *UM*, *RSMAS*  rwoosley@rsmas.miami.edu 
Alkalinity, Density                                                                      
*DIC*, pH, Total Alka-     Fen Huang             *UM*, *RSMAS*  fhuang@rsmas.miami.edu.  
  linity, Density                                                                        
*DIC*, pH, Total Alka-     Andrew Margolin       *UM*, *RSMAS*  amargolin@rsmas.miami.edu
  linity, Density,   DOC                                                                 
Nutrients, *ODF*           Susan Becker          *SIO*/*ODF*    sbecker@ucsd.edu         
  supervisor                                                                             
Nutrients                  Melissa Miller        *SIO*/*ODF*    melissa-miller@ucsd.edu  
NO3-, δ15N, δ18O,          Martin Fleisher       *LDEO*          martyq@ldeo.columbia.edu
  NH4+, Nd/Re, Th-P,                                                                     
  Thiols, Si Isotopes                                                                    
NO3-, δ15N, δ18O,          Tim Kenna             *LDEO*         tkenna@ldeo.columbia.edu
  NH4+, Nd/Re, Th-P,                                                                     
  Thiols, Si Isotopes                                                                    
Salinity                   Ted Cumminsky         *SIO* *STS*    ted@ucsd.edu             
STARC Tech, Chipod, UVP    Johna Winters         *OSU*          jwinters@coas.oregonstate.edu
STARC Tech, Chipod, UVP    Croy Carlin           *OSU*          carlincr@coas.oregonstate.edu 
STARC Tech, Chipod, UVP    Brett Hembrough       *SIO* *STS*    bhembrough@ucsd.edu      



1.3  Underwater Sampling Packages

CTDO/rosette casts were performed with 3 different rosette packages
consisting of a 24-place 12 liter CTDO/rosette, a 12-place 30 liter
CTDO/rosette, and a 36-place 10 liter CTDO/rosette/chipod/uvp rosette
frame. The underwater electronic packages primarily consisted of a
SeaBird Electronics pressure sensor and housing unit with dual
exhaust, dual pumps, dual temperature, dual conductivity, dissolved
oxygen, transmissometer, chlorophyll fluorometer and altimeter.

The temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, respective pumps and
exhaust tubing were mounted to the CTD and cage housing as recommended
by SBE. The transmissometers were mounted horizontally. The
fluorometers and altimeters were mounted vertically inside the bottom
ring of the rosette frames.

LDEO 24-place 12 liter CTDO/rosette configuration was primarily the
same for stations 1/1 - 46/5. The GEOTRACES package suffered an
electronic failure due to on-deck over-exposure to the Arctic climate.
The GTC CTDO deployments resumed after station 50 with the CTDO
provided for by the Healy, CTD S/N: 638.


Equipment         Model       S/N         Cal Date      Sta        Resp Party
================  ==========  ==========  ============  =========  ==========
Rosette           24-place    12L         _             1/1-66/1   *LDEO*    
CTD               SBE9+       888         _             1/1-46/9   *LDEO*    
Pressure Sensor   Digiquartz  _           May 18, 2015  1/1-46/9   *LDEO*    
CTD               SBE9+       638         _             48/1-66/1  *Healy*   
Pressure Sensor   Digiquartz  83009       Feb 10, 2015  48/1-66/1  *Healy*   
Primary           SBE3+       03P4817     May 27, 2015  1/1-46/9   *LDEO*    
Temperature                                                                  
Primary           SBE3+       03P4789     May 08, 2015  48/1-66/1  *LDEO*    
Temperature                                                                  
Primary           SBE4C       04C3269     May 14, 2015  1/1-46/9   *LDEO*    
Conductivity                                                                 
Primary           SBE4C       04C3270     May 14, 2015  48/1-66/1  *LDEO*    
Conductivity                                                                 
Secondary         SBE3+       03P4789     May 08, 2015  1/1-46/9   *LDEO*    
Temperature                                                                  
Secondary         SBE3+       03P4817     May 27, 2015  48/1-66/1  *LDEO*    
Temperature                                                                  
Secondary         SBE4C       04C3270     May 14, 2015  1/1-46/9   *LDEO*    
Conductivity                                                                 
Secondary         SBE4C       04C3269     May 14, 2015  48/1-66/1  *LDEO*    
Conductivity                                                                 
Transmissometer   Cstar       CST-1028DR  Jun 15, 2015  1/1-66/1   *LDEO*    
Fluorometer       WetLabs     SCF-2933    _             1/1-66/1   *LDEO*    
Chloro                                                                       
Primary           SBE43       431393      May 22, 2015  1/1-43/1   *LDEO*    
Dissolved Oxygen                                                             
Primary           SBE43       430458      Feb 24, 2015  46/6-66/1  *LDEO*    
Dissolved Oxygen                                                             
Carousel          SBE32       _           _             1-10, 26   *LDEO*    


SIO/ODF 12-place 30 liter rosette configuration was the same general
configuration as the LDEO rosette with the exception of a reference
temperature sensor (SBE35RT). The reference temperature sensor was
mounted between the primary and secondary temperature sensors at the
same level as the intake tubes for the exhaust lines.

Equipment         Model       S/N         Cal Date      Sta       Resp Party 
================  ==========  ==========  ============  ========  ===========
Rosette           12-place    30L         _             1-10, 26  *SIO*/*ODF*
CTD               SBE9+       638         _             1-10, 26  *SIO*/*ODF*
Pressure Sensor   Digiquartz  83009       Feb 10, 2015  1-10, 26  *SIO*/*ODF*
Primary           SBE3+       03P4213     May 12, 2015  1-10, 26  *SIO*/*ODF*
Temperature                                                                  
Primary           SBE4C       04C3176     May 21, 2015  1-10, 26  *SIO*/*ODF*
Conductivity                                                                 
Secondary         SBE3+       03P2165     May 14, 2015  1-10, 26  *SIO*/*ODF*
Temperature                                                                  
Secondary         SBE4C       04C2036     May 21, 2015  1-10, 26  *SIO*/*ODF*
Conductivity                                                                 
Transmissometer   Cstar       CST-1119DR  Apr 10, 2015  1-10, 26  *SIO*/*ODF*
Fluorometer       WetLabs     FLRTD-2050  _             1-10, 26  *SIO*/*ODF*
Chloro                                                                       
Primary           SBE43       431129      May 16, 2015  1-10, 26  *SIO*/*ODF*
Dissolved Oxygen                                                             
Biospherical PAR  QCP2300-HP  70444       Jun 22, 2015  1-10, 26  *SIO*/*ODF*
Carousel          SBE32       _           _             1-10, 26  *SIO*/*ODF*
Referense         SBE35       350034      Jan 15, 2014  1-10, 26  *SIO*/*ODF*
Temperature                                                                  

SIO/ODF 36-place 10 liter rosette configuration included additional
instrumentation. UVP and chipods were deployed with the CTD/rosette
package and their use is outlined in sections of this document
specific to their titled analysis. The reference temperature sensor
was mounted between the primary and secondary temperature sensors at
the same level as the intake tubes for the exhaust lines.

Equipment         Model       S/N          Cal Date      Sta             Resp Party 
================  ==========  ===========  ============  ===========================
Rosette           36-place    10L, Yellow  _             11-25, 27-32,   *SIO*/*ODF*
                                                         34-66                      
CTD               SBE9+       831          _             11-25, 27-32,   *SIO*/*ODF*
                                                         34-66                      
Pressure Sensor   Digiquartz  99676        Feb 6, 2015   11-25, 27-32,   *SIO*/*ODF*
                                                         34-66                      
Primary           SBE3+       03P2166      May 21, 2015  11-25, 27-32,   *SIO*/*ODF*
Temperature                                              34-66                      
Primary           SBE4C       04C3023      May 21, 2015  11-25, 27-32,   *SIO*/*ODF*
Conductivity                                             34-66                      
Secondary         SBE3+       03P4226      May 14, 2015  11-25, 27-32,   *SIO*/*ODF*
Temperature                                              34-66                      
Secondary         SBE4C       04C3057      May 21, 2015  11-25, 27-32,   *SIO*/*ODF*
Conductivity                                             34-66                      
Transmissometer   Cstar       CST-327DR    Jun 3, 2015   11-25, 27-32,   *TAMU*     
                                                         34-66                      
Fluorometer       Haardt                   _             11-25, 27-32,   Rainer     
Haardt Yellow                                            34-66           |           |
Seapoint          SCF         SCF3004      _             11-25, 27-32,   *SIO*/*ODF*
Fluorometer                                              34-66                      
Primary           SBE43       431138       Apr 18, 2015  11-25, 27-32/8  *SIO*/*ODF*
Dissolved Oxygen                                                                    
Primary           SBE43       430848       May 16, 2015  34-37, 38/8,    *SIO*/*ODF*
Dissolved Oxygen                                         41/1                       
Primary           SBE43       430875       May 16, 2015  38/2-38/4,      *SIO*/*ODF*
Dissolved Oxygen                                         40,43-57/1                 
Primary           SBE43       430459       Feb 21, 2015  57/2-58/1       *SIO*/*ODF*
Dissolved Oxygen                                                                    
Primary           SBE43       430456       Feb 21, 2015  59-66/2         *SIO*/*ODF*
Dissolved Oxygen                                                                    
RINKOIII Optode   ARO-CAV     143          Jun 23, 2014  11-25, 27-32,   *SIO*/*ODF*
                                                         34-66                      
Biospherical PAR  QCP2300HP   70444        Jun 22, 2015  28-32, 34-66    *SIO*/*ODF*
Benthos           PSA-916     1184         _             11              *SIO*/*ODF*
Altimeter                                                                           
Tritech           LRPA200     _            _             12-26, 27-32,   *SIO*/*ODF*
Altimeter                                                34-66                      
Carousel          SBE32       _            _             11-25, 27-32,   *SIO*/*ODF*
                                                         34-66                      
Referense         SBE35       350035       Jan 15, 2014  11-25, 27-32    *SIO*/*ODF*
Temperature                                                                         
Referense         SBE35       350034       Jan 15, 2014  34-66           *SIO*/*ODF*
Temperature                                                                          



1.4  SIO/ODF Packages & Deployment


Both SIO/ODF operated rosettes were deployed from the starboard
staging bay. The rosettes were carted on-deck once on station. Both
rosettes were deployed with a InterOcean Systems and Power Engineering
and Mfg winch model:712176100. The rosette systems were suspended from
an oceanographic three-conductor 0.322" electro-mechanical sea cable.
The sea cable was terminated at the beginning of HLY1502. The deck
watch prepared the rosette 10-30 minutes prior to each cast. The
bottles were cocked and all valves, vents and lanyards were checked
for proper orientation. The chipod battery was monitored for charge
and connectors were checked for fouling and connectivity.

Recovering the package at the end of the deployment was essentially
the reverse of launching. The rosette, CTD and carousel were rinsed
with fresh water frequently. CTD maintenance included rinsing de-
ionized water through both plumbed sensor lines between casts. On
average, once every 20 stations, 1% Triton-x solution was also rinsed
through both conductivity sensors. The rosette was routinely examined
for valves and o-rings leaks, which were maintained as needed.

Initially these two rosette systems were utilized for HLY1502 mission.
The 36-place 10 liter CTDO/rosette is typically used in the SIO US
Repeat Hydrography program. The 12-place rosette was requested to
satisfy GEOTRACES volume requirement of 30 liters. The 30 liter
bottles were notably leaky due to insufficient spring tension for the
volume of water collected. After station 26 the GEOTRACES program
chose to use the 36-place 10 liter rosette exclusively throughout the
rest of the cruise.




2  CRUISE NARRATIVE


SIO Oceanographic Data Facility CTD/Hydrographic Support for the US
Geotraces Arctic Ocean Expedition and Repeat Hydrography Program J.
Swift (SIO)


2.1  Summary

A seven-person team from the Oceanographic Data Facility (ODF) of the
Shipboard Technical Support group (STS) at the UCSD Scripps
Institution of Oceanography carried out NSFfunded CTDO casts,
salinity, oxygen, and nutrient analyses, data processing, and
oceanographic interpretative activities on the US Geotraces Arctic
Expedition on USCGC Healy, 09 August to 12 October 2015, Dutch Harbor,
AK, round trip. The ODF team also supported extra casts at separate
stations for an addon repeat hydrography component which improved the
horizontal resolution provided by the relatively sparse Geotraces
stations alone. The extra casts were sanctioned by the US Global Ocean
Carbon and Repeat Hydrography Program (now US GOSHIP) and received
supplementary NSF support; also, support for five additional days at
sea was added. The budgets and work force for the CFC/SF6 and ocean
carbon teams which were already part of the Geotraces work plan were
also supplemented so that a more nearly complete repeat hydrography
suite of measurements could be made at all stations.

The CTD/hydrographic group included: two nutrient analysts (Susan
Becker ODF team leader and Melissa Miller), a data processor/analyst
(Courtney Schatzman), an oxygen and data tech (Andrew Barna), a CTD
and oxygen tech (Joseph Gum), a CTD/electronics/marine technician
(John 'Ted' Cummiskey), and a scientist (James Swift), who was also
the scientific leader for the repeat hydrography work. Gum and Swift
ran the CTD console. Swift also assisted with data quality control and
prepared data interpretation documents for use by the onboard
Geotraces science team.

The CTD/hydrographic team provided at sea, in addition to basic
CTD/hydrographic data collection: CTD and bottle data processing,
oceanographic leadership of the CTD/hydrographic team, interpretation
of the CTD/hydrographic data, and nutrient and salinity analyses for
other Geotraces casts (e.g., from trace metal rosette casts, small
boat casts, and ice samples). CTD/hydrographic data were processed and
most documentation completed at sea, scientifically useful
CTD/hydrographic data available to participants daily at sea, bottle
data parameters analyzed at sea were merged with others at sea when
provided in a timely manner to the ODF data specialist, and
oceanographic interpretation of the CTD/hydrographic data was provided
to the groups at sea.

The precruise plan was that ODF would operate two CTD/rosette systems,
one equipped with 12 30liter bottles for all ODF casts at each
Geotraces station and one equipped with 36 10liter bottles for the
single cast at each repeat hydrography station. This would provide the
large volumes per level needed on Geotraces casts, provide excellent
singlecast vertical resolution at repeat hydrography stations, and
avoid switching rosettes at any given station type. The original plan
was to store one on deck, covered and with heaters, while the inuse
rosette would be kept in the Healy's starboard staging bay. It was
quickly realized both that it would be difficult to switch rosettes in
and out of the staging bay, and also that there was adequate space and
facilities in the staging bay to keep both in the bay in an
inboardoutboard tandem, with just enough lateral (foreaft in ship
direction) space to pass one by the other to switch them. [There was
also a trace metal clean rosette system with 24 10liter GoFlo bottles,
kept on the fantail with a specialized UNOLS trace metal clean winch,
operated by a team supervised by Greg Cutter, Old Dominion University,
which provided Geotraces samples and CTD data which were part of the
ODF data processing responsibilities on the cruise.]

There were no serious problems with this plan, but experience quickly
showed that the 10liter bottles were much less prone to leaking than
were the 30liter bottles, and that three 10liter bottles delivered
more water than did one 30liter bottle. It was also determined that in
nearly all situations a lowvolume nutrient sample could be the only
check sample needed when three 10liter bottles were closed at one
level and one of them had salinity, oxygen, and nutrient samples. The
samplers also stated that they preferred the 10liter bottles. Thus, at
the cost of tripling the nutrient sample load for ODF casts at
Geotraces stations, ODF switched to using only the 36x10liter rosette.
One remaining issue was that there were two Geotraces instruments on
the 12x30liter rosette that were not on the 36x10liter rosette, which
was already thought to be 'full up' on sensors, but the STARC techs,
working with ODF and also the SIO/STS engineers in San Diego, worked
out an installation plan that placed all instruments onto the
36x10liter rosette, which was then used for the remainder of the
cruise. (The 12x30liter rosette was disassembled and the frame stored
on deck.)

Overall, ODF CTD operations went well, especially considering some of
the operational challenges the expedition faced. There was a sizeable
deck and MST force which took care of pushing the rosette in and out
of the staging bay (the rosette was kept on a platform which slid on
'railroad tracks'), launch preparations, launch, and recovery.
[Although the rosette frame was nearly as large as the cart, it never
slipped off (which could have damaged some of the instruments close to
the frame bottom).] The STARC tech on watch and/or ODF tech was
responsible for seeing that the water sample bottles were prepared for
deployment and all equipment mounted on the rosette frame was ready
for the cast. The ship supplied winch operators from the deck crew,
and the CTD computer operator (Gum or Swift) ran each cast from a seat
near the winch operator, who could see the deck crew, Aframe, and
water from the aft control room. The USCGC Healy's bridge staff
sometimes required significant time to come onto station. Before this
was understood, during some stations early in the expedition the
rosette sat on deck longer than desirable, especially so when air
temperatures started to reach well below freezing. Thus a procedure
was developed to deal with this: the rosette was readied as usual, but
the staging bay door was kept shut and deck crew did not open it to
move the rosette out onto deck until permission to deploy had been
received from the bridge. At that point the staging bay rollup door
was opened and subsequent deployment was as rapid as could be managed.
In very cold conditions, the STARC tech blew air from a large
heaterfan onto the rosette while it was on deck. One complication
which affected a small group of stations roughly in the middle of the
cruise was that the staging bay door motor ceased functioning, and the
manual rollup took about 10 minutes, during which time the CTD could
become quite cold unless it was kept warm with the heater fan. Despite
use of the heater fan there was some freeze damage to the CTD
dissolved oxygen sensors and possibly a pump, but very little harm
done to the CTD data. Warm air was ducted onto the rosette on recovery
in an effort to keep any water sample freezing to the water in the
spigots. As the ship worked south, air temperatures warmed a little
and the engineers worked on the door mechanism one way or the other
the door began working again.

On the final deep ODF cast at many of the Geotraces stations, the
rosette was equipped with a monocorer device to capture a sediment
sample. The monocorer was attached via a 26meter rope to the bottom of
the rosette frame. The altimeter on the rosette would 'see' only the
monocorer i.e. it would constantly report 26 meters 'height above
bottom'. Based on past Geotraces experience a pyramidal device
constructed from 4 plastic panels was attached above the monocorer to
deflect sound impulses instead of reflecting them upward. This device,
nicknamed 'the cone of silence', worked well, enabling normal
altimeter function. Special cast procedures were used - deploy no
faster than 40 meters/minute, slow to 10-20 meters per minute before
the monocorer would hit the bottom, leave at bottom one minute, pull
out slowly - were employed. Some monocorer casts were successful, some
were not. The device caused no problems other than the extra time for
the slower down cast.

Water sampling was carried out in the starboard staging bay, with the
roll-up door in the closed position. The staging bay was kept cold
(but well above freezing) during gas sampling: heaters in the staging
bay were regulated to avoid all but a small degree of warming of the
water in the 10-liter ODF bottles.

There were relatively few mishaps during ODF rosette casts other than
continual concerns regarding effects of sub-freezing temperatures as
noted above. The most serious incident occurred near the start of work
in the ice when the CTD cable was snagged by an ice floe drifting aft
and carried more than 100 meters aft. Eventually it was freed, at the
only cost of needing to cut off damaged cable and reterminate. Another
serious incident, near the end of the expedition, arose when the winch
operator lowered the rosette, rather than raising it, after bottom
approach. With tension off the wire, the wire kinked, and a
retermination was required - there were no effects on the data.

It bears noting that the Arctic Ocean sea ice Healy traversed appeared
to be mostly first-year ice. Good progress was often made on one
engine in the ice, though on the heavier stretches two engines were
sometimes used. Extra power appears to have been required remarkably
few times for an expedition working in the central Arctic Ocean. Over
the Alpha Ridge Healy traversed the heaviest ice overall encountered
during the expedition, but the navigators in the aloft control station
were always able to spot a feasible route, avoiding heavy, impassible
pressure ridges. Sometimes it took some back-and-ram operations to get
through a thicker, older ice floe, and there was one short instance
when three engines were needed. In ice covered water during parts of
the expedition where there was darkness the ship typically did not
navigate the pack at night, but this affected only a small number of
days of the expedition. Once the ship was south of the crest of the
Alpha Ridge, there were many-miles-long, wide leads that Healy
followed. Overall, progress through the ice was remarkable for a
single icebreaker in this domain. For example, Healy made it solo
through some areas that were too tough for Healy and Oden together in
2005, and was able to operate freely in areas out of the question
during the 1994 expedition by two heavy icebreakers.

During the cruise there was a fair amount of snow, and the decks were
often slippery. By mid-September there was some full darkness every
night, and by the end of the month and early October there were
beautiful aurora displays visible in open areas of the sky.



2.2  ODF Data Quality, Management and Availability


The ODF rosette casts meet a similar quality as for the at-sea
temperature and salinity data from cruises for the US Global Ocean
Carbon and Repeat Hydrography program, and provide usable CTD
dissolved oxygen profiles (and CTD fluorometer and transmissometer
profiles). ODF carried out analyses of inorganic nutrients (nitrate,
nitrite, phosphate, and silicate) from every rosette bottle closed at
every rosette level sampled (and from ice stations, samples from small
boat casts, and niskins paired with McLane pumps), dissolved oxygen at
every ODF rosette level sampled, and conductivity (salinity) check
samples from every CTD/rosette cast (and from ice stations, samples
from small boat casts, and niskins paired with McLane pumps).

Bottle data are indexed by cruise, station, cast, and sample/bottle,
and Geotraces identifiers are used as per Geotraces policy. Each/every
sample drawn is logged, and scans of the log sheets will be archived
at STS/ODF. Experience during WOCE, CLIVAR, SBI, previous Geotraces
cruises and many other programs has amply demonstrated that these
procedures make it straightforward to merge disparate bottle parameter
data from different laboratories.

The core ODF CTD/hydrographic data (CTD pressure, temperature,
salinity, oxygen; bottle salinity, oxygen, and nutrients) from all ODF
rosette casts from this expedition (both 12x30 and 36x10, from both
Geotraces and repeat hydrography stations) are by NSF, US Geotraces,
and US repeat hydrography (now US GOSHIP) policies officially "public"
data. The CFC/SF6 and ocean carbon data in the hydrographic data files
are also included in this data availability policy for all ODF rosette
casts.

The data citation information for the water column
CTD/hydrographic/CFC/carbon data is as follows: # Data Provided by: #
# Program Affiliation PI email # # Chief Scientist FIU David Kadko
dkadko@fiu.edu # CTDO UCSD/SIO James Swift jswift@ucsd.edu # (and
Salinity, Oxygen, Nutrients) # CFCs/SF6 LDEO William Smethie
bsmeth@ldeo.columbia.edu # Ocean Carbon UofMiami/RSMAS Frank Millero
fmillero@rsmas.miami.edu # Dennis Hansell dhansell@rsmas.miami.edu #
(Total Alkalinity, pH, DIC, DOC) # # The data included in these files
are preliminary, and are # subject to final calibration and
processing. They have been made # available for public access as soon
as possible following # their collection. Users should maintain
caution in their # interpretation and use. Following American
Geophysical Union # recommendations, the data should be cited as:
"data # provider(s), cruise name or cruise ID, data file name(s), #
CLIVAR and Carbon Hydrographic Data Office, La Jolla, CA, # USA, and
data file date." For further information, please # contact one of the
parties listed above or cchdo@ucsd.edu. # Users are also requested to
acknowledge the NSF/NOAAfunded # U.S. Repeat Hydrography Program and
the NSFfunded Geotraces # program in publications and presentations
resulting from their use.




3  ODF CTDO AND HYDROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS


3.1  CTDO and Bottle Data Acquisition


The CTD data acquisition system consisted of an SBE-11+ (V2) deck unit
and a networked generic PC workstation running Windows 7 2009 SBE
SeaSave v.7.18c software was used for data acquisition and to close
bottles on the rosette.

Once the bridge notified science operation in aft control that the
ship was on station, CTD deployments began with the console watch
operators (CWO). The watch maintained a CTD Cast log for each
attempted cast containing a description of each deployment event.

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

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

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

Additionally, the watch created a sample log for rosette/CTDO cast
deployments used to record the depths the bottles were tripped as well
as correspondence between rosette bottles and analytical samples
drawn.

Normally the CTD sensors were rinsed after each station using syringes
fitted with Tygon tubing and filled with a fresh solution of dilute
Triton-X in de-ionized water. The syringes were left on the CTD
between casts, with the temperature and conductivity sensors immersed
in the rinsing solution.

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

A few complications impacted the CTD data acquisition. Station/cast
010/02 towards the end of the cast an ice floe caught the sea-cable
the 12-place rosette was suspended from, causing the wire to fall out
of the shiv and dragging the rosette package up 200m before the
package was freed. SOn stations 019/01 and 032/08 the exhaust lines
and pumps were frozen and it was necessary to have the package descend
to 200+m to clear the lines before starting the cast.



3.2  CTDO Data Processing


Shipboard CTD data processing was performed after deployment using
SIO/ODF CTD processing software v.5.1.0. CTD acquisition data were
copied onto the Linux system and database, then processed to a
0.5-second time-series. CTD data at bottle trips were extracted, and a
2-decibar down-cast pressure series created. The pressure series data
set was submitted for CTD data distribution after corrections outlined
in the following sections were applied. A total of 66 CTD stations
were occupied. 41 CTDO/rosette casts were completed with the 24-place
12 liter GEOTRACES rosette, 19 CTDO/rosette casts were completed with
the 12-place 30 liter rosette and 87 CTDO/rosette casts were completed
with the 36-place 10 liter rosette.

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

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



3.3  Pressure Analysis


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

The Paroscientific Digiquartz pressure transducer S/N: 638-83009 was
calibrated on February 10th, 2015 at the SBE Calibration Facility. The
Paroscientific Digiquartz pressure transducer S/N: 831-99677 was
calibrated on February 13th, 2015 at the SIO/ Calibration Facility.
The lab calibration coefficients provided on the calibration report
were used to convert frequencies to pressure. Initially SIO/STS
pressure lab calibration slope and offsets coefficients were applied
to cast data. A shipboard calibration offset was applied to the
converted pressures during each cast. These offsets were determined by
the pre- and post-cast on-deck pressure offsets. The pressure offsets
were applied per configuration cast sets.

Ideal initial slope and offset for any sensor is 1.0 and 0.0
respectively. Factory calibrations indicated an initial slope and
offset of 0.99990863 and 0.10746 for the CTD S/N: 638. On deck
pressures were not ideal for this pressure sensor. Before additional
offset was applied the pre-cast min and max values were 1.0 and 1.4
dbar to post-cast min and max values were 0.5 and 0.6 dbar. An
additional offset of -0.90 was applied to every cast performed by CTD
S/N: 638 and the improved pre and post-cast average differences were
-0.2 and 0.2 dbar.

Other than the non-ideal on deck pre- and post-cast pressure readings,
there were no other performance issues noted with the CTD: S/N
638-83009 digiquartz pressure sensor unit.


* CTD Serial Number 638-83009

                Start P (dbar)  End P (dbar
==============  ==============  ===========
Min                  0.0           -0.4    
Max                  0.5           -0.2    
Average              0.34          -0.33   
Applied Offset                     -0.90   


Factory calibrations for the pressure sensor on the CTD S/N: 831
package indicated an initial slope and offset of 1.0 and 0.0. Before
additional offset was applied the pre-cast min and max values were
-0.2 and 0.5 dbar. The post-cast min and max values were -0.2 and 0.5
dbar. An additional offset of -0.430 was applied to every cast
performed by CTD 831 and the improved pre- and post-cast average
difference was near zero.

No issues were noted with the performance of the CTD S/N: 831-99677
digiquartz pressure sensor.


* CTD Serial Number 831-99677

                 Start P (dbar)  End P (dbar)
===============  ==============  ============
Min                   -0.5           -0.4    
Max                    1.1            0.2     
Average                0.0           -0.04   
Applied Offset                       -0.430  



3.4  Temperature Analysis


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

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

The SBE35RT Digital Reversing Thermometer is an internally recorded
temperature sensor that operates independently of the CTD. The SBE35RT
was located equidistant between the two SBE3plus temperature sensors.
The SBE32 carousel in response to a bottle closure triggers the
SBE35RT. According to the manufacturer's specifications, the typical
stability is 0.001°C/year. The SBE35RT was set to internally average
over a 5 second period.

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


        T = T + D  P_ + D P + D T + D T + Offset
         cor     1  2    2     3 2   4

                       T  = T + tp_P + t
                        90        1     0

             T  = T + aP_ + bP + cT_ + dT + Offset
              90        2          2


Primary and secondary temperature data from S/N: 638 were consistent
and stable for the 19 casts performed. Second order fit with pressure
was applied to the entire depth of both primary and secondary sensors
and again applied to depths of 500-3200 dbar range. CTD S/N: 638 did
not perform enough casts to evaluate certain aspects of shipboard
calibration. Specifically, S/N: 638 did not collect enough data for
time dependent drift analysis or deep (pressure > 2000 dbar) data
corrections. The following figures SBE35RT-T1 by station (-0.002°C
T1-T2  0.002°C). through Deep T1-T2 by station (Pressure  500dbar).
show the modified version of corrected temperature differences for CTD
S/N: 638.


Fig. 3.1: SBE35RT-T1 by station (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.2: SBE35RT-T2 by station (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.3: T1-T2 by station (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.4: SBE35RT-T1 by pressure (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.5: Deep SBE35RT-T1 by station (Pressure ≥ 500dbar).

Fig. 3.6: SBE35RT-T2 by pressure (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.7: Deep SBE35RT-T2 by station (Pressure ≥ 500dbar).

Fig. 3.8: T1-T2 by pressure (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.9: Deep T1-T2 by station (Pressure ≥ 500dbar).


The temperature data for CTD S/N: 638 meets the WHP standards for CTD
data [Joyce91]. The 95% confidence limits for the mean low-gradient
(values -0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C) of CTD S/N: 638 differences
are ±0.0074°C for SBE35RT-T1, ±0.0070°C for SBE35RT-T2 and ±0.0015°C
for T1-T2. The standard deviation for the mean low-gradient (values
-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C) of CTD S/N: 638 differences are
±0.0038°C for SBE35RT-T1, ±0.0036°C for SBE35RT-T2 and ±0.0008°C for
T1-T2. The 95% confidence limits for the deep temperature residuals
(where pressure ≥ 500dbar) are ±0.0038°C for SBE35RT-T1, ±0.0029°C
for SBE35RT-T2 and ±0.0014°C for T1-T2. The standard deviation for the
deep temperature residuals (where pressure ≥ 500dbar) are ±0.0019°C
for SBE35RT-T1, ±0.0015°C for SBE35RT-T2 and ±0.0007°C for T1-T2.

Primary and secondary temperature data from S/N: 831 were consistent
and stable for the 87 casts performed. CTD S/N: 831 was not used until
station 11 on this cruise. The following figures SBE35RT-T1 by station
(-0.002°C  T1-T2  0.002°C). through T1-T2 by pressure (Pressure
2000dbar). the corrected temperature differences for CTD S/N: 831.


Fig. 3.10: SBE35RT-T1 by station (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.11: Deep SBE35RT-T1 by station (Pressure ≥ 2000dbar).

Fig. 3.12: SBE35RT-T2 by station (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.13: Deep SBE35RT-T2 by station (Pressure ≥ 2000dbar).

Fig. 3.14: T1-T2 by station (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.15: Deep T1-T2 by station (Pressure ≥ 2000dbar).

Fig. 3.16: SBE35RT-T1 by pressure (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.17: SBE35RT-T1 by pressure (Pressure ≥ 2000dbar).

Fig. 3.18: SBE35RT-T2 by pressure (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.19: SBE35RT-T2 by pressure (Pressure ≥ 2000dbar).

Fig. 3.20: T1-T2 by pressure (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.21: T1-T2 by pressure (Pressure ≥ 2000dbar).


The temperature data for CTD S/N: 831 meets the WHP standards for CTD
data [Joyce1991]. The 95% confidence limits for the mean low-gradient
(values -0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C) of CTD S/N: 831 differences
are ±0.0037°C for SBE35RT-T1, ±0.0038°C for SBE35RT-T2 and ±0.0060°C
for T1-T2. The standard deviation for the mean low gradient (values
-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C) of CTD S/N: 638 differences are
±0.0019°C for SBE35RT-T1, ±0.0019°C for SBE35RT-T2 and ±0.0031°C for
T1-T2. The 95% confidence limits for the deep temperature residuals
(where pressure ≥ 500dbar) are ±0.0005°C for SBE35RT-T1, ±0.0005°C
for SBE35RT-T2 and ±0.0002°C for T1-T2. The standard deviation for the
deep temperature residuals (where pressure ≥ 500dbar) are ±0.0003°C
for SBE35RT-T1, ±0.0002°C for SBE35RT-T2 and ±0.0001°C for T1-T2.

The 36-place 10 liter CTD S/N: 831 package had a few issues that
affected data processing. The available memory for the SBE35RT unit
was full and unable to record bottle trip temperatures for station 27,
34, and 35. The SBE35RT S/N: 350035 originally placed on the CTD S/N:
831 appeared to have communication issues. The result was a steady
decline in the number bottle trips recorded for each cast by the
SBE35RT sensor. The SBE35RT sensor (S/N: 350035) was replaced with
S/N: 350034 on the 36-place 10 liter CTD S/N: 831 package after
station 32.



3.5  Conductivity Analysis


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

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

An SBE4C sensor typically exhibits a predictable well-modeled
response. Offsets for each C sensor were determined using C(Bottle) -
C(CTD) differences in a deeper pressure range (500 or more dbars). The
response model is second order with respect to pressure, a first order
with respect to temperature, first order with respect to conductivity
and a first order with respect to time. The functions used to apply
shipboard calibrations are as follows.

Corrections made to all conductivity sensors are of the form:


C :sub: `cor` = C + cp :sub:`2`P :sup:`2` + cp :sub:`1` P + c :sub:`1`C + c :sub:`0`


The differences between primary and secondary temperature sensors on
the CTD S/N: 638 were used as filtering criteria to reduce the
contamination of conductivity comparisons by package wake. The
coherence of this relationship is shown in the following figure.


Fig. 3.22: Coherence of conductivity differences as a function of
           temperature differences.


Primary and secondary conductivity data from S/N: 638 were consistent
and stable for the 19 casts performed. No issues were noted with
either primary or secondary conductivity sensors on the CTD S/N: 638.
However, CTD S/N: 638 did not perform enough casts or enough deep
casts to evaluate certain aspects of shipboard calibration.
Specifically, S/N: 638 did not collect enough data for time dependent
drift analysis nor deep (pressure > 2000 dbar) data corrections. A
modified deep pressure analysis (pressure > 500dbar) was adapted to
correct for pressure dependent affects commonly noted in CTD sensors.
The following figures Corrected CBottle - C1 by station (-0.002°C
T1-T2  0.002°C). through Modified Deep Corrected C1-C2 by pressure
(Pressure >= 500dbar). illustrate the modified version of residual
conductivity differences for CTD S/N: 638 as best applied with a
limited number of N samples.


Fig. 3.23: Corrected C(Bottle) - C1 by station (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.24: Corrected C(Bottle) - C2 by station (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.25: Corrected C1-C2 by station (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.26: Corrected C(Bottle) - C1 by pressure (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.27: Modified Deep Corrected C(Bottle) - C1 by pressure (Pressure >= 500dbar).

Fig. 3.28: Corrected C(Bottle) - C2 by pressure (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.29: Modified Deep Corrected C(Bottle) - C2 by pressure (Pressure >= 500dbar).

Fig. 3.30: Corrected C1-C2 by pressure (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.31: Modified Deep Corrected C1-C2 by pressure (Pressure >= 500dbar).


Salinity residuals for CTD S/N: 638 after applying shipboard P/T/C
corrections are summarized in figures Salinity residuals by station
(-0.002°C  T1-T2  0.002°C). through Modified Deep Salinity residuals
by pressure (Pressure >= 500dbar).. Only CTD and bottle salinity data
with "acceptable" quality codes are included in the differences.


Fig. 3.32: Salinity residuals by station (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.33: Salinity residuals by pressure (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.34: Modified Deep Salinity residuals by pressure (Pressure >= 500dbar).


The 95% confidence limits for the mean low-gradient (values -0.002°C
≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C) differences are ±0.0013°C for salnity-S1. The
95% confidence limits for the modified deep salinity residuals (where
pressure ≥ 500dbar) are ±0.0017°C for salinity-S1. The standard
deviation for the mean low-gradient (values -0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤
0.002°C) differences are ±0.0067°C for salnity-S1. The standard
deviation for the modified deep salinity residuals (where pressure
≥ 500dbar) are ±0.0009°C for salinity-S1.

Primary and secondary conductivity data from CTD S/N: 831 were not
completely consistent nor stable for the 87 casts performed during
this cruise. The primary conductivity sensor S/N: 43023 on CTD S/N:
831 was replaced with S/N: 43176 after a significant drift was noted
with respect to pressure. High gradient near surface salinity was
present due to ice melt. This proved problematic in fitting
conductivity data where conductivity sensor response time and
conductivity cell sensitivity within the salinometer are not ideally
suited to precisely measuring high gradient in a relatively shallow
depths. In other words, surface freshening of Arctic waters occur at a
rate that proved problematic for the threshold limits of both the
conductivity sensor and salinometer cell tolerances. Certain
analytical methods can be adopted to modify the overall limited
measurement response of either piece of equipment. The first is to
increase the number of salinometer cell flushes before cell
measurement from the standard 2 flushes to 3 or 4 depending on the
sample volume. The second is to increase the poly-fit order of the
conductivity measurements from the standard first order fit with
response to temperature to a second order fit.


Fig. 3.35: Coherence of conductivity differences as a function of
           temperature differences.


The following figures Corrected CBottle - C1 by station (-0.002°C
T1-T2  0.002°C). through Deep Corrected C1-C2 by pressure (Pressure >=
2000dbar). illustrate the residual conductivity differences for CTD
S/N: 831.


Fig. 3.36: Corrected C(Bottle) - C1 by station (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.37: Deep Corrected C(Bottle) - C2 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

Fig. 3.38: Corrected C(Bottle) - C2 by station (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.39: Deep Corrected C(Bottle) - C2 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

Fig. 3.40: Corrected C(Bottle) - C1 by pressure (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.41: Deep Corrected C(Bottle)  - C1 by pressure (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

Fig. 3.42: Corrected C(Bottle) - C2 by pressure (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.43: Deep Corrected C(Bottle) - C2 by pressure (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

Fig. 3.44: Corrected C1-C2 by pressure (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.45: Deep Corrected C1-C2 by pressure (Pressure >= 2000dbar).


Salinity residuals for CTD S/N: 831 after applying shipboard P/T/C
corrections are summarized in figures Salinity residuals by pressure
(-0.002°C  T1-T2  0.002°C) through ref:*Corrected_36pl-s12*. Only CTD
and bottle salinity data with "acceptable" quality codes are included
in the differences.


Fig. 3.46: Salinity residuals by pressure (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C)

Fig. 3.47: Salinity residuals by station (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C)

Fig. 3.48: Modified Deep Salinity residuals by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar)


The 95% confidence limits for the mean low-gradient (values -0.002°C
≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C) differences are ±0.010°C for salnity-S1. The
95% confidence limits for the modified deep salinity residuals (where
pressure ≥ 2000dbar) are ±0.0016°C for salinity-S1. The standard
deviation for the mean low-gradient (values -0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤
0.002°C) differences are ±0.0052°C for salnity-S1. The standard
deviation for the modified deep salinity residuals (where pressure
≥ 500dbar) are ±0.0008°C for salinity-S1.



3.6  CTD Dissolved Oxygen


Laboratory calibrations of the dissolved oxygen sensors were performed
prior to the cruise at the SeaBird Calibration Facility. Dates of
laboratory calibrations are recorded on the Underway Sampling Package
table and calibration documents are provided in the APPENDIX.

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

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


O ml/l = 
 2

 /            Ph      \                  /                   dOc      dP        \
|          c2----      |                |C t + C t + C P + C --- + C  --- + C dT |
|C · V  · e  5000 + C  | · f   (T,P) · e \4 l   5 s   7 l   6 dT    8 dTt    9  /
 \1   DO             3/     sat


Where:

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

• V              Raw sensor output
   DO

• C              Sensor slope
   1

• C              Hysteresis response coefficient
   2

• C              Sensor offset
   3

• f   (T,P)|O2|  saturation at T,P (ml/l)
   sat 
• T              In-situ temperature (°C)

• P              In-situ pressure (decibars)

• P              Low-pass filtered hysteresis pressure (decibars)
   h

• T              Long-response low-pass filtered temperature (°C)
   l

* T              Short-response low-pass filtered temperature (°C)
   s

• P_             Low-pass filtered pressure (decibars)
   1

• dO / dt        Sensor current gradient (¬µamps/sec)
    c

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

• dT             Low-pass filtered thermal diffusion estimate (T  - T )
                                                                s    1
• C  - C         Response coefficients
   4    9


No sensor complications or issues affected analysis of dissolved
oxygen sensor data of the CTD S/N: 638. As previously stated, CTD S/N:
638 did not perform enough casts or enough deep casts to evaluate
certain aspects of shipboard calibration. A modified deep pressure
(pressure > 500dbar) was adapted to complete partial analysis. The CTD
S/N: 638 dissolved O2 residuals are shown in the following figures O2
residuals by pressure (-0.002°C  T1-T2  0.002°C). through Deep O2
residuals by station (Pressure >= 500dbar)..


Fig. 3.49: O2 residuals by pressure (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.50: O2 residuals by station (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.51: Deep O2 residuals by station (Pressure >= 500dbar).


The standard deviations are 8.79 (µmol/kg) for low gradient dissolved
oxygen data values and 1.15 (µmol/kg) for deep dissolved oxygen
values. CLIVAR GO-SHIP standards for CTD dissolved oxygen data are <
1% accuracy against on board Winkler titrated dissolved O2 lab
measurements [Joyce91].

A number of complications arose with the acquisition and processing of
CTD S/N: 831 dissolved oxygen data. Dissolved oxygen sensors were
routinely replaced due to over-exposure to below freezing ambient
artic air temperatures. SBE43 (S/N: 431138) was replaced with (S/N:
430848) prior to station 34 after sustaining damage when the staging
bay hangar door was left open. SBE43 (S/N: 430848) was replaced with
(S/N: 430875) after station 041/01 also due to over-exposure when left
on deck prior to station/cast 041/01. Subsequent data profile appeared
noisy and did not match bottle data. SBE43 (S/N: 430875) was replaced
with (S/N: 430459) after station/cast 057/02 under similar
circumstances. SBE43 (S/N: 430459) was replaced with (S/N: 430456)
after station/cast 058/01 under similar circumstances.

CTD dissolved O2 residuals are shown in the following figures O2
residuals by pressure (-0.002°C  T1-T2  0.002°C). through Deep O2
residuals by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).


Fig. 3.52: O2 residuals by pressure (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.53: O2 residuals by station (-0.002°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.002°C).

Fig. 3.54: Deep O2 residuals by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).


The standard deviations of are 5.67 (µmol/kg) for low gradient
dissolved oxygen data values and 0.57 (µmol/kg) for deep dissolved
oxygen values. CLIVAR GO-SHIP standards for CTD dissolved oxygen data
are < 1% accuracy against on board Winkler titrated dissolved O2 lab
measurements.

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


[Joyce91] Joyce, T. ed. 1991. WHP Operations and Methods.
          WHP Office Report 91-1, WOCE Report No. 68/91.

[Mill82] Millard, R. C., Jr., ‚ÄúCTD calibration and data
         processing techniques at WHOI using the practical salinity
         scale,‚Äù Proc. Int. STD Conference and Workshop, p. 19, Mar.
         Tech. Soc., La Jolla, Ca. (1982).

[Owen85] Owens, W. B. and Millard, R. C., Jr., ‚ÄúA new
         algorithm for CTD oxygen calibration,‚Äù Journ. of Am.
         Meteorological Soc., 15, p. 621 (1985).


4  NUTRIENTS

PIs
   • Susan Becker
   • James Swift

Technicians
   • Susan Becker
   • Melissa Miller



4.1  Summary of Analysis

• 4,049 samples were analyzed from 66 stations.

• The cruise started with new pump tubes and they were changed 4
  times, before stations 021, 034, 046, and 056.

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

• The cadmium column efficiency was checked periodically and ranged
  between 93%-100%.  The column was replaced if/when the efficiency
  dropped below 97%.



4.2  Equipment and Techniques

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



4.3  Nitrate/Nitrite Analysis

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


REAGENTS

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

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

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

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

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



4.4  Phosphate Analysis

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


REAGENTS

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

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

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



4.5  Silicate Analysis

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


REAGENTS

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

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

Stannous Chloride
   stock: (as needed)

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

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

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



4.6  Sampling

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



4.7  Data collection and processing

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



4.8  Standards and Glassware calibration

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

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

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

Standardizations were performed at the beginning of each group of
analyses with working standards prepared prior to each run from a
secondary. Working standards were made up in low nutrient seawater
(LNSW). LNSW used for this cruise was deep water collected at a test
station at the beginning of the cruise track. The actual concentration
of nutrients in this water was empirically determined during the
standardization calculations.

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

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



4.9  Quality Control

All final data was reported in micro-moles/kg. NO^3, PO_4, NO2 and
NH_4 were reported to two decimals places and SIL to one. Accuracy is
based on the quality of the standards the levels are:


                  NO3  0.05 µM (micro moles/Liter)
                  PO4  0.004 µM                   
                  SIL  2-4 µM                     
                  NO2  0.05 µM                    


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


                Parameter  Concentration (µM)  stddev 
                ---------  ------------------  ------
                   NO3           31.66         0.11  
                   PO4            1.18         0.01  
                   SIL           22.5          0.1   
                   NO2            0.477        0.016 


SIO/ODF has been using Reference Materials for Nutrients in Seawater
(RMNS) on repeat Hydrography cruises as another estimate of accuracy
and precision for each cruise since 2009. The accuracy and precision
(standard deviation) for this cruise were measured by analysis of a
RMNS with each run. The RMNS preparation, verification, and suggested
protocol for use of the material are described by Aoyama [Aoyama2006]
[Aoyama2007], [Aoyama2008] and Sato [Sato2010]. RMNS batch BV was used
on this cruise, with each bottle being used  twice before being
discarded and a new one opened. Data are tabulated below.


            Parameter  Concentration  stddev  Assigned conc
            =========  ==============  ======  ==============
                -        (µmol/kg)       -     (µmol/kg)   
               NO3         19.94       0.11      20.02     
               PO4          1.45       0.01       1.45     
               Sil         37.3        0.2       36.9      
               NO2          0.07       0.008      0.06     



4.10  Analytical problems

No major analytical problems.

[Armstrong1967] Armstrong, F.A.J., Stearns, C.A., and
                Strickland, J.D.H., "The measurement of upwelling and
                subsequent biological processes by means of the
                Technicon Autoanalyzer and associated equipment,"
                Deep-Sea Research, 14, pp.381-389 (1967).

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

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

[Aoyama2007]    Aoyama, M., Susan B., Minhan, D., Hideshi,
                D., Louis, I. G., Kasai, H., Roger, K., Nurit, K., Doug,
                M., Murata, A., Nagai, N., Ogawa, H., Ota, H., Saito, H.,
                Saito, K., Shimizu, T., Takano, H., Tsuda, A., Yokouchi,
                K., and Agnes, Y. 2007. Recent Comparability of
                Oceanographic Nutrients Data: Results of a 2003
                Intercomparison Exercise Using Reference Materials.
                Analytical Sciences, 23: 1151-1154.
   
[Aoyama2008]    Aoyama M., J. Barwell-Clarke, S. Becker, M.
                Blum, Braga E. S., S. C. Coverly,E. Czobik, I. Dahllof,
                M. H. Dai, G. O. Donnell, C. Engelke, G. C. Gong, Gi-Hoon
                Hong, D. J. Hydes, M. M. Jin, H. Kasai, R. Kerouel, Y.
                Kiyomono, M. Knockaert, N. Kress, K. A. Krogslund, M.
                Kumagai, S. Leterme, Yarong Li, S. Masuda, T. Miyao, T.
                Moutin, A. Murata, N. Nagai, G.Nausch, M. K. Ngirchechol,
                A. Nybakk, H. Ogawa, J. van Ooijen, H. Ota, J. M. Pan, C.
                Payne, O. Pierre-Duplessix, M. Pujo-Pay, T. Raabe, K.
                Saito, K. Sato, C. Schmidt, M. Schuett, T. M. Shammon, J.
                Sun, T. Tanhua, L. White, E.M.S. Woodward, P. Worsfold,
                P. Yeats, T. Yoshimura, A.Youenou, J. Z. Zhang, 2008:
                2006 Intercomparison Exercise for Reference Material for
                Nutrients in Seawater in a Seawater Matrix, Technical
                Reports of the Meteorological Research Institute No. 58,
                104pp.

[Bernhardt1967] Bernhardt, H., and  Wilhelms, A., "The
                continuous determination of low level iron, soluble
                phosphate and total phosphate with the AutoAnalyzer,"
                Technicon Symposia, I,pp.385-389 (1967).

[Gordon1992]    Gordon, L.I., Jennings, J.C., Ross, A.A.,
                Krest, J.M., "A suggested Protocol for Continuous Flow
                Automated Analysis of Seawater Nutrients in the WOCE
                Hydrographic Program and the Joint Global Ocean Fluxes
                Study," Grp. Tech Rpt 92-1, OSU College of Oceanography
                Descr. Chem Oc. (1992).

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

[Hydes2010]     Hydes, D.J., Aoyama, M., Aminot, A., Bakker,
                K., Becker, S., Coverly, S., Daniel,A.,Dickson,A.G.,
                Grosso, O., Kerouel, R., Ooijen, J. van, Sato, K., Tanhua,
                T., Woodward, E.M.S., Zhang, J.Z., 2010. Determination of
                Dissolved Nutrients (N, P, Si) in Seawater with High
                Precision and Inter-Comparability Using Gas-Segmented
                Continuous Flow Analysers, In: GO-SHIP Repeat Hydrography
                Manual: A Collection of Expert Reports and Guidelines.
                IOCCP Report No. 14, ICPO Publication Series No 134.
    
[Kerouel1997]   Kerouel, R., Aminot, A., ‚ÄúFluorometric
                determination of ammonia in sea and estuarine waters by
                direct segmented flow analysis.‚Äù Marine Chemistry, vol
                57, no. 3-4, pp. 265-275, July 1997.
  
[Sato2010]      Sato, K., Aoyama, M., Becker, S., 2010. RMNS as
                Calibration Standard Solution to Keep Comparability for
                Several Cruises in the World Ocean in 2000s. In: Aoyama,
                M., Dickson, A.G., Hydes, D.J., Murata, A., Oh, J.R.,
                Roose, P., Woodward, E.M.S., (Eds.), Comparability of
                nutrients in the world‚Äôs ocean. Tsukuba, JAPAN: MOTHER
                TANK, pp 43-56.




5  OXYGEN ANALYSIS


PIs
   • Susan Becker
   • James Swift

Technicians
   • Andrew Barna
   • Joseph Gum



5.1  Equipment and Techniques

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



5.2  Sampling and Data Processing

1724 oxygen measurements were made. Samples were collected for
dissolved oxygen analyses soon after the rosette was brought on board.
Using a silicone drawing tube, nominal 125ml volume-calibrated iodine
flasks were rinsed 3 times with minimal agitation, then filled and
allowed to overflow for at least 3 flask volumes. The sample drawing
temperatures were measured with an electronic resistance temperature
detector (RTD) embedded in the drawing tube. These temperatures were
used to calculate umol/kg concentrations, and as a diagnostic check of
bottle integrity. Reagents (MnCl_2 then NaI/NaOH) were added to fix
the oxygen before stoppering. The flasks were shaken twice (10-12
inversions) to assure thorough dispersion of the precipitate, once
immediately after drawing, and then again after about 30-40 minutes.

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

Thiosulfate normalities were calculated for each standardization and
corrected to 20 deg C. The 20 deg C normalities and the blanks were
plotted versus time and were reviewed for possible problems. The
blanks and thiosulfate normalities for each batch of thiosulfate were
stable enough that no smoothing was necessary.



5.3  Volumetric Calibration

Oxygen flask volumes were determined gravimetrically with degassed
deionized water to determine flask volumes at ODF's chemistry
laboratory. This is done once before using flasks for the first time
and periodically thereafter when a suspect volume is detected. The
volumetric flasks used in preparing standards were volume-calibrated
by the same method, as was the 10 ml Dosimat buret used to dispense
standard iodate solution.



5.4  Standards

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



5.5  Narrative

Setup in Dutch Harbor occurred on 2015-08-05, initial reagents were
made. Reagents were allowed to settle for 24 hours before the first
standardization runs were conducted. Reagents were stable throughout
frequent initial standardization runs. Standards were run once a day
regardless of station spacing.

A very wide range of oxygen concentrations were encountered at the
early stations, from approximately 19 umol/kg to 480 umol/kg. The low
concentrations required using the slower ‚ÄúLOW O2‚Äù titration option.
The higher concentrations often needed over 1ml of thiosulfate for the
titration, required a burette refill. The automatic titration would
not always resume after a burette refill. If the burette refill
occurred while the program was attempting to find the end point, the
software would sometimes force an over titration. The thiosulfate
concentration was increased after station/cast 026/03 by adding a few
extra grains to the stock. Only two samples after the increased
thiosulfate concentration required a burette refill. A new stronger
batch of thiosulfate was utilized starting with station 47. No sample
required over 1ml of thiosulfate since using the stronger batch.

The stir plate failed while running station/cast 044/01, resulting in
the loss of a sample. The stir plate was immediately replaced with a
spare. Upon rig reassembly, the UV pen lamp would not turn back on.
Both the lamp and the power supply were evaluated for stability, it
was found that the only stable combination was using a spare power
supply with a spare lamp. The lamp was stable since replacement.

The day to day thiosulfate stability was excellent, averaging less
than ¬±0.00015N per day with a small trend toward increasing
concentration with age. The entire min/max range for any single batch
of thiosulfate was approximately 0.00065 over a 20 day period. One
standard run exceeded the day to day concentration change
specification, this was likely the result of using an almost depleted
KIO3 standard. The out of spec standardization was removed during
thiosulfate smoothing.

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

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




6  SALINITY



6.1  Equipment and Techniques

A Guildline Autosal 8400B salinometer (S/N 65-715), located in the wet
lab, was used for salinity measurements. The salinometer was
configured by SIO/STS to provide an interface for computer-aided
measurement.

The salinity analyses were performed after samples had equilibrated to
laboratory temperature, usually within 12-24 hours after collection.
The salinometer was standardized for each group of analyses (usually
2-4 casts, up to approximately 75 samples using at least two fresh
vials of standard seawater per group. Once it was determined that the
salinometer was providing stable readings, standardization was
performed every 24 hours and additionally if a bath temperature change
occurred. Salinometer measurements were made by computer, the analyst
prompted by the software to change samples and flush.


6.2  Sampling and Data Processing

A total of 2,726 salinity measurements were made and approximately 120
vials of standard seawater (IAPSO SSW batch P158) were used.

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

PSS-78 salinity [UNESCO1981] was calculated for each sample from the
measured conductivity ratios. The difference (if any) between the
initial vial of standard water and the next one run as an unknown was
applied as a linear function of elapsed run time to the data. The
corrected salinity data were then incorporated into the cruise
database.



6.3  Laboratory Temperature

The water bath temperature was set to 24 degrees Celsius during setup.
With lab temperatures around 22 degrees Celsius, the water bath
temperature was lowered to 21 degrees Celsius before running samples
from station 6, cast 2. The lab temperature then averaged higher,
closer to 23-24 degrees Celsius, so the salinometer water bath
temperature was changed back to 24 degrees Celsius before running
samples from station 17, cast 7.

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





7  CFC Cruise report for HLY-1502


Analysts
   • Eugene Gorman (LDEO)
   • Ben Hickman (LDEO)
   • Angelica Pasqualini (LDEO)


The Lamont CFC group measured F12,F11, F113, and SF6 on Geotraces
2015. A total of 1140 samples were collected on a 12 bottle and a 36
bottle rosette. A total of 66 stations were sampled. The samples were
collected in 500 ml bottles and analyzed on a purge-and-trap system in
tandem with a gas chromatograph.




8  DISCRETE PH ANALYSES


PI
   • Dr Frank Millero/ Ryan Woosley.

Cruise Participant
   • Ryan Woosley
   • Fen Huang
   • Andrew Margolin



8.1  Sampling

Samples were collected in 50ml borosilicate glass syringes rinsing a
minimum of 2 times and thermostated to 25 or 20°C before analysis. Two
duplicates were collected from each repeat hydrography station. Due to
water budget limitations, no duplicates could be collected on
GEOTRACES station. Samples were collected on the same bottles as total
alkalinity or dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) in order to completely
characterize the carbon system. One sample per station was collected
and analyzed with double the amount of indicator in order to correct
for pH changes as a result of adding the indicator, this correction
has not been applied to the preliminary data. All data should be
considered preliminary.



8.2  Analysis


pH (µmol/kg seawater) on the seawater scale was measured using an
Agilent 8453 spectrophotometer according to the methods outlined by
Clayton and Byrne (1993) [Clayton1993]. An RTE10 water bath maintained
spectrophotometric cell temperature at 25 or 20°C. A 10cm micro-flow
through cell (Sterna, Inc) was filled automatically using a Kloehn 6v
syringe pump. The sulfonephthalein indicator m-cresol purple (mCP) was
also injected automatically by the Kloehn 6v syringe pump  into the
spectrophotometric cells, and the absorbance of light was measured at
four different wavelengths (434 nm, 578 nm, 730 nm, and 488 nm). The
ratios of absorbances at the different wavelengths were input and used
to calculate pH on the total and seawater scales using the equations
of Liu et al (2011) [Liu2011]. The equations of Dickson and Millero
(1987) [Dickson1987], Dickson and Riley (1979) [Dickson1979], and
Dickson (1990) [Dickson1990] were used to convert pH from the total to
seawater scale. The isobestic point (488nm) will be used for the
indicator correction. Salinity data were obtained from the
conductivity sensor on the CTD. These data were later corroborated by
shipboard measurements. Temperature of the samples was measured
immediately after spectrophotometric measurements using a Fluke Hart
1523 digital platinum resistance thermometer.



8.3  Reagents


The mCP indicator dye was a concentrated solution of ~2.0 mM. Purfied
indicator batch 7 provided by Dr. Robert Byrne, University of South
Florida was used.



8.4  Standardization


The precision of the data can be accessed from measurements of
duplicate samples, certified reference material (CRM) Batch 146 (Dr.
Andrew Dickson, UCSD) and TRIS buffers (Ramette et al. 1977
[Ramette1977]). The measurement of CRM and TRIS was alternated at each
station. The mean and standard deviation for the CRMs was 7.8927 ¬±
0.0044 (n=32). For TRIS buffer there was a sudden jump in the value at
station 32, before station 32 and after station 32 the mean and
standard deviation was 8.0947 ¬± 0.0040 (n=15) and 8.1694 ? 0.0047
(n=22) respectively. The cause of the jump is currently unknown, but
it was constant over the 3 bottles run after station 32.



8.5  Data Processing


Addition of the indicator affects the pH of the sample, and the degree
to which pH is affected is a function of the pH difference between the
seawater and indicator. Therefore, a correction is applied for each
batch of dye. One sample from each station was measured twice, once
normally and a second time with double the amount of indicator. The
change in the ratio is then plotted verses the change in the isobestic
point to develop an empirical relationship for the effect of the
indicator on the pH. This correction has not yet been applied to the
preliminary data.

                    Number of Samples      1274
                    Good (flag=2)          1141
                    Dup (flag=6)           58  
                    Questionable (flag=3)  12  
                    Bad (flag=4)           42  
                    Lost (flag=5)          21  



8.6  Problems

One major problem occurred on the first station when the four water
baths running the lab van caused the temperature to rise rapidly to
90¬± F (and still rising), causing bubbles to form in the cell and
instruments to over-heat. Due to the location of the van on the ship,
the seawater air conditioning unit could not be connected. In order to
maintain the temperature at a reasonable level the door to the van was
left open whenever the instruments were run. Temperatures throughout
the cruise were maintained between 50-75°F.

On station 32 the water bath would not longer heat to 25°C, starting
at this station through the remainder of the cruise samples were
measured at 20°C and corrected to 25°C using the equation of Millero
(2007) [Millero2007].

[Clayton1993] Clayton, T. D. and Byrne, R. H.,
              "Spectrophotometric seawater pH measurements: Total
              hydrogen ion concentration scale calibration of m-cresol
              purple and at-sea results" Deep-Sea Res., 40, pp.
              2315-2329 (1993).

[Dickson1987] Dickson, A. G. and Millero, F. J., "A
              comparison of the equilibrium constants for the
              dissociation of carbonic acid in seawater media" Deep-
              Sea Res., Part A, 34, 10, pp. 1733-1743 (1987).

[Dickson1979] Dickson, A. G. and Riley, J. P., "The
              estimation of acid dissociation constants in seawater
              media from potentiometric titration with strong base, 1:
              The ionic product of water-KSUS-w" Mar. Chem., 7, 2,
              pp. 89-99 (1979).

[Dickson1990] Dickson, A. G., ‚ÄúThermodynamics of the
              dissociation of boric acid in synthetic seawater from
              273.15 to 318.15 K,‚Äù Deep-Sea Res., Part A, 37, 5, pp.
              755-766 (1990).

[Liu2011]     Liu, X, Patsavas, M. C., and Byrne, R. H.,
              "Purification and charagcterization of meta-cresol purple
              for spectrophotometric seawater pH measurements" Environ.
              Sci. and Tech. 45, pp 4862-4868 (2011).

[Millero2007] Millero, F.J., The Marine Inorganic Carbon
              Cycle, Chemical Reviews, 107(2) 308-341 (2007)

[Ramette1977] Ramette, R. W., Culberson, C. H., and
              Bates, R. G., "Acid-base properties of
              Tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane (Tris) buffers in
              seawater from 5 to 40°C" Anal. Chem., 49, pp. 867-870
              (1977).




9  TOTAL ALKALINITY

PI
   • Frank Millero/Ryan Woosley

Technicians
   • Ryan Woosley
   • Fen Huang
   • Andrew Margolin



9.1  Sampling


At each station, total alkalinity (TA) samples are drawn from Niskin
bottles into 500 ml borosilicate flasks using silicone tubing that fit
over the petcock. Bottles are rinsed with a small volume, then filled
from the bottom and allowed to overflowing half of the bottle volume.
The sampler is careful not to entrain any bubbles during the filling
procedure. Approximately 15 ml of water is withdrawn from the flask by
halting the sample flow and removing the sampling tube, thus creating
a reproducible headspace for thermal expansion during thermal
equilibration. The sample bottles are sealed at a ground glass joint
with a glass stopper. The samples are then thermostated at 25°C before
analysis. Three duplicates are collected at each repeat hydrography
station. Due to water budget issues, no duplicates could be taken on
GEOTRACES stations. Samples are collected on the same bottles as pH or
dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) in order to completely characterize
the carbon system.



9.2  Analyzer Description


The sample TA is then evaluated from the proton balance at the
alkalinity equivalence point, 4.5 at 25°C and zero ionic strength.
This method utilizes a multi-point hydrochloric acid titration of
seawater (Dickson 1981i [Dickson1981]). The instrument program uses a
Levenberg-Marquardt nonlinear least-squares algorithm to calculate the
TA and DIC from the potentiometric titration data. The program is
patterned after those developed by Dickson (1981) [Dickson1981],
Johansson and Wedborg (1982) [Johansson1982], and U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) (1994) [DOE1994]. The least-squares algorithm of the
potentiometric titrations not only give values of TA but also those of
DIC, initial pH as calculated from the initial emf, the standard
potential of the electrode system (E0), and the first dissociation
constant of CO2 at the given temperature and ionic strength (pK1). Two
titration systems, A and B are used for TA analysis. Each of them
consists of a Metrohm 765 Dosimat titrator, an Orion 720A, or 720A+,
pH meter and a custom designed plexiglass water-jacketed titration
cell (Millero et al, 1993 [Millero1993]). The titration cell allows
for the titration to be conducted in a closed system by incorporating
a 5mL ground glass syringe to allow for volume expansion during the
acid addition. Both the seawater sample and acid titrant are
temperature equilibrated to a constant temperature of 25 ? 0.1°C with
a water bath (Neslab, RTE-10). The electrodes used to measure the EMF
of the sample during a titration are a ROSS glass pH electrode (Orion,
model 810100) and a double junction Ag, AgCl reference electrode
(Orion, model 900200). The water-jacketed cell is similar to the cells
used by Bradshaw and Brewer (1988) [Bradshaw1988] except a larger
volume (~200 ml) is employed to increase the precision. Each cell has
a solenoid fill and drain valve which increases the reproducibility of
the volume of sample contained in the cell. A typical titration
records the stable solution EMF (deviation less than 0.09 mV) and adds
enough acid to change the voltage a pre-assigned increment (~13 mV). A
full titration (~25 points) takes about 20 minutes. A 6-port valve
(VICI, Valco EMTCA-CE) allows 6 samples to be loaded into the
instrument and successively measured.



9.3  Reagents


A single 50-l batch of ~0.25 m HCl acid was prepared in 0.45 m NaCl by
dilution of concentrated HCl, AR Select, Mallinckrodt, to yield a
total ionic strength similar to seawater of salinity 35.0 (I = 0.7 M).
The acid is standardized with alkalinity titrations on seawater of
known alkalinity (certified reference material, CRM, provided by Dr.
Andrew Dickson, Marine Physical Laboratory, La Jolla, California. The
calibrated molarity of the acid used was 0.24361 ¬± 0.0001 N HCl. The
acid is stored in 500-ml glass bottles sealed with Apiezon® M grease
for use at sea.



9.4  Standardization


The reproducibility and precision of measurements are checked using
low nutrient surface seawater collected from the ship's underway
seawater system, used as a substandard, and Certified Reference
Material (Dr. Andrew Dickson, Marine Physical Laboratory, La Jolla,
California). The CRM is utilized to account for instrument drift over
the duration of the cruise and to maintain measurement precision. A
CRM was measured on each system on all odd numbered station and a low
nutrient surface water sample was measured on each. Duplicate analyses
provide additional quality assurance, and three duplicates, 2 samples
taken from the same Niskin bottle, at each repeat hydrography station.
The duplicates are then analyzed on system A, system B, or split
between systems A and B. This provides a measure of the precision on
the same system and between systems. Laboratory calibrations of the
Dosimat burette system with water indicate the systems deliver 3.000
ml of acid (the approximate value for a titration of 200 ml of
seawater) to a precision of ± 0.0004 ml, resulting in an error of ±0.3
µmol/kg in TA. All samples were analyzed less than 12 hours after
collection.



9.5  Data Processing


Measurements were made on CRM bath 146. The difference between the
measured and certified values on system A is -2.60 ± 2.43 (N=30) and
on B is 0.65 ± 2.28 (N=39). System A tended to run low, no correction
to the CRM has been made on the preliminary data. Nine different
batches of low nutrient surface water were used. They generally had
standard deviations of ~3 µmol/kg or less except for batch 1 which was
slightly higher. The mean and standard deviations of the duplicates
were 0.40 ± 1.80 (N=33), -0.46 ± 2.13 (N=36), and -2.04 ±  3.18 (N=21)
on system A, system B, and one on each system respectively (A-B). The
preliminary quality control results are shown in table 1.


                   Total Samples         1266 
                   Good (flag=2)         1149 
                   Dup (flag=6)          90   
                   Quetionable (flag=3)  7    
                   Bad (flag=4)          12   
                   Lost (flag=5)         8    



9.6  Problems


The only major problem occurred on the first station when the four
water baths running the lab van caused the temperature to rise rapidly
to 90± F (and still rising), causing bubbles to form in the acid and
instruments to over-heat. Due to the location of the van on the ship,
the seawater air conditioning unit could not be connected. In order to
maintain the temperature at a reasonable level the door to the van was
left open whenever the instruments were run. Temperatures through out
the cruise were maintained between 50-75°F.

[Bradshaw1988]  Bradshaw, A. L. and Brewer, P. G., High
                precision measurements of alkalinity and total carbon
                dioxide in seawater by potentiometric titration, Mar.
                Chem., 23, pp. 69-86 (1988).
 
[DOE1994]       DOE, (U.S. Department of Energy), Handbook of
                Methods for the Analysis of the Various Parameters of the
                Carbon Dioxide System in Seawater. Version 2.0.
                ORNL/CDIAC-74, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center,
                Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn. (1994).
      
[Dickson1981]   Dickson, A. G., An exact definition of
                total alkalinity and a procedure for the estimation of
                alkalinity and total CO2 from titration data, Deep-Sea
                Res., Part A, 28, pp. 609-623 (1981).
  
[Johansson1982] Johansson, 0. and Wedborg, M., "On the
                evaluation of potentiometric titrations of seawater
                with hydrochloric acid," Oceanologica Acta, 5, pp. 209
                218 (1982).

[Millero1993]   Millero, F. J., Zhang, J-Z., Lee, K., and
                Campbell, D. M., Titration alkalinity of seawater, Mar.
                Chem., 44,pp. 153-165 (1993b).
  
  


10  DISSOLVED INORGANIC CARBON (DIC)


PIs
   • Frank Millero
   • Ryan Woosley

Technicians
   • Ryan Woosley
   • Fen Huang
   • Andrew Margolin



10.1  Analysis


The DIC analytical equipment (DICE) was designed based upon the
original SOMMA systems ([Johnson1985], [Johnson1987], [Johnson1992],
[Johnson1993]). These new systems have improved on the original design
by use of more modern National Instruments electronics and other
available technology. In the coulometric analysis of DIC, all
carbonate species are converted to CO2 (gas) by addition of excess
hydrogen to the seawater sample using 8.5% H3PO4. The evolved CO2 gas
is carried into the titration cell of the coulometer, where it reacts
quantitatively with a proprietary reagent based on ethanolamine to
generate hydrogen ions. These are subsequently titrated with
coulometrically generated OH-. CO2 is thus measured by integrating
the total charge required to achieve this. (Dickson, et al 2007).



10.2  Standardization


The coulometer was calibrated by injecting aliquots of pure CO2
(99.995%) by means of an 8-port valve outfitted with two calibrated
sample loops of different sizes (~1ml and ~2ml) [Wilke1993]. The
instrument was calibrated at the beginning of each cell with a minimum
of two sets of the gas loop injections. 256 loop calibrations were run
during this cruise.

Secondary standards were run throughout the cruise. These standards
are Certified Reference Materials (CRMs), consisting of poisoned,
filtered, and UV irradiated seawater supplied by Dr. A. Dickson of
Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO). Their accuracy is
determined manometrically on land in San Diego. DIC data reported to
the database have been corrected to the batch 146 CRM value. The
reported CRM value for this batch is 2002.93 µmol/kg. The average and
standard deviation measured values was 2000.72 ? 2.45 (N=61) µmol/kg.
Tubing was replaced on valves 4 and 5, which may have altered the
volume of the pipette. There was an increase in the CRM value after
changing the tubing, and the volume will be recalibrated upon return
to the lab.



10.3  Sample Collection


The DIC water samples were drawn from Niskin-type bottles into
cleaned, pre-combusted 500mL borosilicate glass bottles using silicon
tubing. Bottles were rinsed twice and filled from the bottom,
overflowing by at least one-half volume. Care was taken not to entrain
any bubbles. The tube was pinched off and withdrawn, creating a 5mL
headspace, and 0.400mL of 100% saturated HgCl2 solution was added as a
preservative. The sample bottles were sealed with glass stoppers
lightly covered with Apiezon-L grease, and were stored in a 20°C water
bath for a minimum of 20 minutes to bring them to temperature prior to
analysis.



10.4  Data Processing


About 1,000 samples were analyzed for discrete DIC. Only about  8% of
these samples were taken as replicates as a check of our precision.
These replicate samples were typically taken from the surface, oxygen
minimum, and bottom bottles. Due to water budget limits duplicates
could not be taken on GEOTRACES stations, and were thus only collected
on repeat hydrography stations. The replicate samples were
interspersed throughout the station analysis for quality assurance and
integrity of the coulometer cell solutions and no systematic
differences between the replicates were observed. The mean and
standard deviation between duplicates was -0.21 ¬± 2.77 (N=73)

The DIC data reported at sea is to be considered preliminary until
further shore side analysis is undertaken.



10.5  Problems


One major problem occurred on the first station when the four water
baths running the lab van caused the temperature to rise rapidly to
90¬± F (and still rising), causing bubbles to form in the cell and
instruments to over-heat. Due to the location of the van on the ship,
the seawater air conditioning unit could not be connected. In order to
maintain the temperature at a reasonable level the door to the van was
left open whenever the instruments were run. Temperatures through out
the cruise were maintained between 50-75°F.

On station 46 the pipette was not fully draining into the stripper.
Tubing was replaced on valves 4 and 5. This could potentially change
the volume of the pipette and it will be recalibrated once the
instrument is returned to shore. After replacing the tubing CRMs
averaged higher than before, but still within the uncertainty.

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

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

[Johnson1987] Johnson, K.M., P.J. Williams, L.
              Brandstrom, and J. McN. Sieburth (1987): "Coulometric
              total carbon analysis for marine studies: Automation and
              calibration." Mar. Chem., 21, 117-133.

[Johnson1992] Johnson, K.M. (1992): Operator's manual:
              "Single operator multiparameter metabolic analyzer
              (SOMMA) for total carbon dioxide (CT) with coulometric
              detection." Brookhaven National Laboratory, Brookhaven,
              N.Y., 70 pp.

[Johnson1993] Johnson, K.M., K.D. Wills, D.B. Butler,
              W.K. Johnson, and C.S. Wong (1993): "Coulometric total
              carbon dioxide analysis for marine studies: Maximizing
              the performance of an automated continuous gas
              extraction system and coulometric detector." Mar. Chem.,
              44, 167-189.

[Wilke1993]   Wilke, R.J., D.W.R. Wallace, and K.M. Johnson
              (1993): "Water-based gravimetric method for the
              determination of gas loop volume." Anal. Chem. 65,
              2403-2406.




11  DENSITY


PI
   • Frank Millero
   • Ryan Woosley

Technicians
   • Ryan Woosley
   • Fen Huang
   • Andrew Margolin



11.1  Sampling


Over the course of ARC01, 5 stations were sampled for a total of 179
density samples. Each Niskin was sampled using a 125 mL HDPE bottle.
The bottles were rinsed 3 times, allowed to fill until overflowing,
capped, and sealed with Parafilm. This procedure leaves as little head
space as possible to minimize evaporation until analysis.



11.2  Analyzer Description


The sealed samples will be shipped to our lab in Miami where the
salinity will be re-measured on a salinometer (Guildline Portosal),
and the density will be measured using an Anton-Paar DMA 5000
densitometer and compared to the calculated density to determine
δρ and absolute salinity.




12  δ18O Sampling


PIs
   • Peter Schlosser (LDEO)
   • Angelica Pasqualini

During the U.S. Geotraces 2015/Hydro-ARC01 icebreaker expedition, a
total of  1100* water samples were collected for measurement of 18O
/16O ratios in the top 500m of the water column. (1100 is an
estimate; 895 bottles sampled after station 56). Water samples for the
measurement of oxygen isotope ratios were collected in 50 ml glass
bottles. The bottles were rinsed in water from the Niskin bottle to be
sampled, filled, and sealed using polypro-lined caps and electrical
tape. Oxygen isotope ratios will be measured at Lamont Doherty Earth
Observatory using a Picarro L2130-i Analyzer.

In combination with salinity and nutrients, oxygen isotope ratios are
useful to distinguish between freshwater components in the upper
Arctic Ocean. Oxygen isotope ratios provide a useful tracer to
separate the sea-ice melt-water from meteoric water (river runoff plus
local precipitation/ evaporation ([Newton2013]; [Newton2008];
[Schlosser2002]; [Schlosser1994]).

[Newton2013]    Newton, R., P. Schlosser, R. Mortlock, J.
                Swift, and R. MacDonald (2013), Canadian Basin freshwater
                sources and changes: Results from the 2005 Arctic Ocean
                Section, J. Geophys. Res. Oceans, 118, 2133‚Äì2154.

[Newton2008]    Newton, R., P. Schlosser, D. G. Martinson,
                and W. Maslowski (2008), Freshwater distribution in the
                Arctic Ocean: Simulation with a high-resolution model and
                model- data comparison, J. Geophys. Res., 113, C05024,
                doi:10.1029/2007JC004111.

[Schlosser2002] Schlosser, P., R. Newton, B. Ekwurzel,
                S. Khatiwala, R. Mortlock, and R. Fairbanks (2002),
                Decrease of river runoff in the upper waters of the
                Eurasian Basin, Arctic Ocean, between 1991 and 1996:
                evidence from Œ¥18O data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 9.

[Schlosser1994] Schlosser, P., D. Bauch, R. Fairbanks,
                and G. B√∂nisch (1994b), Arctic river-runoff: mean
                residence time on the shelves and in the halocline,
                Deep Sea Research I, 41, 7, 1053‚Äì68.




13  DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON


PI
   • Dennis Hansell

Technician
   • Andrew Margolin

DOC and total dissolved nitrogen (TDN) samples were collected from
nearly all stations (excluding stations 2-6 and 34), including four
ice stations (31, 33, 39 and 42). In total, 1350 samples (1692
including duplicates) were taken from 60 stations. Samples from depths
of 250 m and shallower were filtered through GF/F filters (0.7 ¬µm
nominal pore size) using in-line filter holders, while samples from
greater depths were not filtered. Filters were combusted at 450°C
prior to the cruise, and polycarbonate (PC) filter holders and
silicone tubing were cleaned with 10% HCl and rinsed with Milli-Q
water before sampling. All primary samples were collected in 60 mL PC
bottles, pre-cleaned with 10% HCl and rinsed with Milli-Q water.
Duplicate samples were collected in 40 mL glass vials, combusted at
450°C prior to the cruise. All sampled bottles and vials were rinsed
three times with the seawater before filling with 40-60 mL of
seawater. Nitrile gloves were worn while sampling. Samples collected
in PC bottles were frozen standing upright inside the ship's freezer,
while duplicates collected in glass vials were stored in the dark at
room temperature, stowed in the ship's science cargo hold. Frozen and
room temperature samples will be shipped from Seattle to Miami for
laboratory analysis.




14  WetLabs C-STAR Transmissometer


PI
   * Wilf Gardner

   * Mary Jo Richardson

The WetLabs C-STAR transmissometer on the ODF rosette (and the one on
the GEOTRACES rosette) measures the attenuation of light at 650 nm
(red). The amount of attenuation is a proxy for particle concentration
at each depth in the water column. Generally one sees high
concentrations in surface waters due to phytoplankton with a rapid
decrease in concentration in the upper 100 m. Much of the water column
will show very low values. If sediment is resuspended near the bottom
or advected laterally from shallower topography, attenuation
increases. These resuspended sediments could affect benthic
biogeochemical cycles and trace element scavenging. Our goal is to
quantify the distribution of particulate matter in both surface and
bottom Arctic waters to add to the 9000 plus profiles we have
collected in all other oceans of the world. In addition to our past
syntheses of particle regimes in surface waters, we are constructing
the first global map of nepheloid layers - resuspended sediment. We
will also compare the attenuation signal with the UVP data of Andrew
McDonnell, who is measuring the abundance and size distribution of
particles in the 64 ¬µm to 2.5 cm range throughout the water column.




15  HAARDT


PI
   • Dr. Rainer Amon

The Haardt fluorometer is a backscatter fluorescence sensor that
excites at 350-460nm and measures the emission at 550nm HW 40nm. It
was designed to measure the chromophoric dissolved organic matter
(CDOM) that originates in the terrigenous environment, but also
responds to CDOM produced in the ocean. The same sensor was used
during AOS 2005 and will allow us to see changes in the distribution
of the transpolar drift, riverine dissolved organic matter, as well as
the CDOM maximum associated with the halocline. Sensor data will be
complemented with measurements of optical properties and terrigenous
and marine biomarkers on discrete water samples. The Haardt sensor is
both an important water sampling guide as well as a water mass tracer
for the upper Arctic Ocean. During the 2015 Healy cruise the Haardt
sensor data and biomarker data will be paired with trace element (TE)
measurements to understand the role of riverine DOM for the transport
of TE in Arctic Ocean surface waters. We duplicated the same science
plan on the 2015 Polarstern cruise covering the Eurasian Arctic to
gain a pan-Arctic view comparable to 2005.




16  CHI-POD MICROSCALE TEMPERATURE GRADIENT MEASUREMENTS


PI
   • Jonathan Nash

Systematic Direct Mixing Measurements within the Global Repeat
Hydrography Program (SYSDMM) is an NSF-funded project (Nash, Moum, and
MacKinnon) to obtain repeated sequences of turbulent mixing,
distributed broadly throughout the global oceans and over full-ocean
depths. To this end, we have developed chi-pods, self-contained
instruments that measure microscale temperature gradients using fast-
response FP07 thermistors, along the sensor motion/trajectory using
precision accelerometers. From these measurements, we are able to
compute the dissipation rate of temperature variance (chi) and the
eddy diffusivity of heat and other tracers. Unlike traditional
microstructure/turbulence measurements based on shear probes, chi is
not highly sensitive to vibration of the sensor itself, so it is
possible to make these measurements from a standard CTD rosette,
provided that the sensor tips can be placed in a part of the flow that
is uncontaminated by the wake of the CTD rosette itself. For sensor
calibration, we require the raw 24 Hz CTD data; computations also
require knowledge of the background stratification and vertical
temperature gradient. Chi-pods have now been used on several repeat
hydrography cruises, including A16S, P16N and P16S, with an ultimate
goal of obtaining a global dataset of microstructure observations.




17  UNDERWATER VISION PROFILER


PI
   • Andrew M. P. McDonnell

The Underwater Vision Profiler 5 (UVP5), serial number 009, was
mounted onto the ODF CTD-Rosette in order to obtain in situ images of
marine particles and plankton throughout the water column. It was
positioned in the center of the rosette with the camera looking
downward and the lighting units illuminating a volume of water several
inches above the bottom of the rosette. The instrument was powered
with an internal rechargeable battery and stores image and pressure
data internally on hard drive, and data will be offloaded and analyzed
after the cruise ends. The UVP5 was programmed in depth acquisition
mode, taking advantage of the CTD's initial descent (@20 m/min) and
pre-cast soak at 20 m below the surface as the signal to initiate
image acquisition. Image acquisition was stopped (to conserve battery
power and data storage space) after the UVP5 detected a 50 dbar upturn
from the bottom of the cast. While the rosette was on deck, the UVP5
was connected to deck leads coming from the UVP deck box, providing
battery charging. The image volume of UVP5 serial number 009 was
calibrated in a tank and determined to be 0.930 L. Particle
concentration was determined by counting the number of detected
particles and normalizing with respect to the image volume. Particles
detected by the UVP5 range in size between 0.064 mm and several cm
(equivalent spherical diameter). The UVP5 was operated in mixed
processing mode, meaning that particle characteristics were quantified
in real time onboard the UVP5 and the images of the largest particles
(greater than about 2 mm in ESD. were segmented out of the image files
and saved as individual images with their corresponding metadata. The
instrument and data processing are described in Picheral et al., 2010.
Due to berthing restrictions, the UVP had no dedicated technician
onboard to actively monitor the performance of the instrument and
data. Deployments and basic maintenance were kindly carried out by
Johna Winters, Croy Carlin, and Brett Hembrough.




18  STARC SUPPORT


Manager
   • Dan Schuller

Techinicians
   • Johna Winters
   • Croy Carlin
   • Brett Hembrough

STARC technicians in cooperation with ODF personnel assisted with
installation and adjustment of CTD sensors and niskin bottles
throughout the cruise. We had three instances of damage to the .322
wire, one caused by a snag on an ice floe, the other resulting from
the wire getting pinched on deck (under the CTD cart rail) while
moving the rosette in and out of the staging bay. The third occurred
on cast 059 when the rosette was near bottom, the winch operator paid
out rather than hauling in (~12-14 extra meters). When the rosette
contacted the bottom, tension on the wire dropped causing it to hockle
about 2m above the mechanical connection. The winch operator was
quickly corrected and the wire hauled in. However, due to the
hockling, when the wire again came under tension it developed a series
of mild kinks/unlays as the wire straightened out. All three incidents
required re-termination.

Initially the cruise plan called for using the 12 place 30L rosette
for GeoTraces casts and the 36 place 10L rosette for the Repeat
Hydrography casts. Throughout the first few stations the 30L rosette
experienced frequent leaking from multiple niskin bottom caps. To stop
the leaks required tapping the top/bottom caps closed with a rubber
mallet as soon as the CTD was brought on deck. These issues were
recorded on the cast data sheet and details for individual casts can
be accessed there. Eventually (after station 26) it was decided that
the 36 place rosette would replace the 12 place for both sampling
programs and could provide the same water quantity from the more
reliable 10L niskins. The altimeter and PAR sensor were switched from
the 12 place to the 36 place. Once we switched over to the 36 place
10L rosette we experienced relatively few bottle closure problems.
Bottle 35 failed to close at station 30 (cast 12). Between stations
47 and 52 bottle position #29 began having intermittent closure
problems. The carousel would trigger, but the latch did not release
immediately. This was addressed by changing the vertical position of
the bottle and by replacing the latch with a spare. Other small
adjustments were made when necessary, such as o-ring
seating/replacement (bottles #3 #14, #23, #31), spigot repairs, and
clearing obstructions from the lanyard path (#29). These instances are
also detailed on the cast log data sheets.

The installed 02 sensors were susceptible to damage when exposed to
sub-freezing temperatures, to counter this, a large, rolling heater
fan was positioned near the rosette while it was staged on deck, pre
deployment and upon recovery. The warm air from the fan helped to
prevent freezing of the sensitive membrane inside the 02 sensor by
keeping the surrounding air temps 1-2 degrees C above zero. Despite
these efforts two oxygen sensors appear to have been damaged or at the
least the data was suspect, resulting in a swap out for a spare
sensor.

The UVP unit was recharged in between casts according to instructions
provided by the technician (Andrew McDonald) who installed it. We did
encounter rare instances when the unit would not accept a charge from
the deck box. This required rigging up a small electric fan that would
drain the battery to a lower threshold, then reconnecting the deck box
to begin charging. On Station 43 Cast 2 the power shunt was
accidentally not installed, this resulted in an electrical current
arcing between 2 exposed pins and caused one pin to corrode away. The
damaged cable was replaced with a spare. Throughout the cruise we had
no indication that the unit was not working as intended. We kept in
close contact with Andrew and provided him data on battery voltages
and casts depths.

The 36 place rosette had two upward looking mini-chipods and two
downward facing thermistors installed. These were installed in Seattle
prior to sailing, plugged in at the first science station (only
unplugged once to save battery during a multi-day break from using the
36 place rosette) and left powered and installed the remainder of the
cruise. One of the the thermistors was damaged when the CTD was
recovered at station 30. A piece of ice had fallen onto the pallet,
(either brought aboard stuck inside the rosette or fell from the
a-frame) and the thermistor happened to come down on top of this piece
of ice when the rosette was placed on the pallet. This damaged
thermistor was removed and a spare sensor tip swapped in.

At the request of a science party member, close inspection and
cleaning of the transmissometer was initiated at each station and
between casts. This included a thorough cleaning of the lenses with
Kim wipes and Milli-Q water, after cleaning the lenses were kept
capped until immediately prior to a cast. After cleaning the CTD was
powered up and deck tested to observe the voltage readings for the
transmissometer were at or above 4.6 volts.

 
 
 
 























DATA PROCESSING NOTES



CCHDO Data Processing Notes


•  File Online Carolina Berys
33HQ20150809.exc.csv (download) #6add3
Date: 2016-06-15
Current Status: unprocessed




File Submission Robert Key
33HQ20150809.exc.csv (download) #6add3
Date: 2016-06-06
Current Status: unprocessed
Notes
Minor flag revisions relative to file submitted on 5/5/16. All carbon flags vetted by PI.




•  File Merge Carolina Berys
arc01-odf_hy1.csv (download) #213e9
Date: 2016-04-05
Current Status: merged




•  Bottle file processed Carolina Berys 
Date: 2016-04-05
Data Type: Bottle
Action: Update
Note: 
ARC01 GEOTRACES 33HQ20150809 processing - BTL

2016-04-05

C Berys

Submission

filename             submitted by       date       id  
--------------------------------------------------------
arc01-odf_hy1.csv    Courtney Schatzman 2016-01-20 12064
                                                          
                                                                
Changes

- removed non-US-GOSHIP parameters
- BOTTOM changed to DEPTH and units from “M” to “METERS”
- CTDPRS units changed from “DBARS” to “DBAR”
- CTDDEPTH units changed from “M” to “METERS”
- Note: unresolved flags for CTDSAL, REFTMP, PH_SWS

Conversion
----------

file                    converted from       software               
--------------------------------------------------------------------
33HQ20150809_nc_hyd.zip 33HQ20150809_hy1.zip hydro 0.8.2-47-g3c55cd3
33HQ20150809hy.txt      33HQ20150809_hy1.csv hydro 0.8.2-47-g3c55cd3

Updated Files Manifest
----------------------

file                    stamp            
-----------------------------------------
33HQ20150809_hy1.csv    20160405CCHSIOCBG
33HQ20150809_nc_hyd.zip 20160405CCHSIOCBG
33HQ20150809hy.txt 
					



•  File Merge SEE
32H120150809_ct1.zip (download) #f3176
Date: 2016-03-10
Current Status: merged




•  CTD exchange and netcdf formats online SEE 
Date: 2016-03-10
Data Type: CTD
Action: Website Update
Note: 
ARC01 2015 33HQ20150809 processing - CTD/merge - CTDPRS,CTDTMP,CTDSAL,CTDOXY,XMISS,PAR,FLUOR,CDOMF,CTDNOBS,CTDETIME

2016-03-10

SEE


Submission

filename             submitted by   date       id  
-------------------- -------------- ---------- -----
32H120150809_ct1.zip Carolina Berys 2016-01-26 12075

Changes
-------
32H120150809_ct1.zip Carolina Berys 2016-01-26 12075

        - As per J. Swift, changed station 32 cast 8 CTDOXY flags to '4' for 
          pressures in the range of 385 to 397 dbar. Put comment in CTD file.

        - Hand edited 00102_ct1.csv and 00105_ct1.csv to remove extra commas.

        - To make all exchange files uniform, added parameters with values of -
          999 and flags of 9 to stations/casts that did not contain the 
          exchange parameter. STNNBR 1 CASTNO 5 has no XMISS ( CCHDO added 
          field with values of -999, flags 9) STNNBR 1 CASTNO 2 has no CDOMF or 
          XMISS ( CCHDO added fields with values of -999, flags 9)STNNBR/CASTNO 
          11/1,12/3,13/1,14/2,14/4,14/9,15/1,16/1,17/1,18/1,19/2,19/4,19/9, 
          20/1,21/1,22/1,23/1,24/1,25/1,27/1  have no CDOMF or PAR ( CCHDO 
          added fields with values of -999, flags 9) 

        - Renamed files to preferred Exchange format.

        - Made GEOTRC_EVENTNO a comment instead of a Header.

        - KEPT expocode as what is in the ctd files, 33HQ20150809. The Healy's 
          ship code has changed from 32H1 to 33HQ. The ship code in the 
          submission filename is incorrect.

        - renamed parameter from FLUORM to FLUOR.
        - renamed parameter from TRANSM to XMISS.
        - renamed parameter from CDOMFL to CDOMF.
        - changed header name from BTMDEPTH to DEPTH.

NOTES
-----
From J. Swift:
"station 032 cast 08  change CTDOXY quality code to 04 (bad) for all pressures 
in the range 385 to 397 decibars, inclusive.  For unknown reasons some of these 
are seriously out of normal range (as high as 4193.8 umol/kg), and all within 
this pressure range on this cast are suspect or bad.

station 034 cast 01  for 132, 133, and 134 decibars, the calculated values of 
SIGTHETA (not a CCHDO parameter, I know) are inexplicably high. I see no 
problems with the temperatures or salinities for these, so there was may have 
been some sort of calculation or database glitch. Since there are no quality 
codes for this parameter, I am not certain what to do other than have a note in 
the data history.  ??"

Conversion
----------

file                    converted from       software               
----------------------- -------------------- -----------------------
33HQ20150809_nc_ctd.zip 33HQ20150809_ct1.zip hydro 0.8.2-47-g3c55cd3


Updated Files Manifest
----------------------

file                    stamp            
----------------------- -----------------
33HQ20150809_ct1.zip    20160310CCHSIOSEE
33HQ20150809_nc_ctd.zip 20160310CCHSIOSEE

:Updated parameters: 
CTDPRS,CTDTMP,CTDSAL,CTDOXY,XMISS,PAR,FLUOR,CDOMF,CTDETIME,CTDNOBS

opened in JOA with no apparent problems:
     33HQ20150809_ct1.zip
     33HQ20150809_nc_ctd.zip

opened in ODV with no apparent problems:
     33HQ20150809_ct1.zip


					

•  File Submission courtney schatzman
arc01-odf_hy1.csv (download) #213e9
Date: 2016-01-29
Current Status: merged
Notes
HLY1502 update




•  File Online Carolina Berys
32H120150809_ct1.zip (download) #f3176
Date: 2016-01-26
Current Status: merged




•  File Submission Carolina Berys
32H120150809_ct1.zip (download) #f3176
Date: 2016-01-26
Current Status: merged





•  File Online Carolina Berys
arc01-odf_hy1.csv (download) #213e9
Date: 2016-01-20
Current Status: merged




•  File Submission Courtney Schatzman
arc01-odf_hy1.csv (download) #213e9
Date: 2016-01-20
Current Status: merged
Notes
Correction made to station 014/09 salinity flags. 


