                                       TO VIEW PROPERLY YOU MAY NEED TO SET YOUR
                                       BROWSER'S CHARACTER ENCODING TO UNICODE 8
                                       OR 16 AND USE YOUR BACK BUTTON TO RE-LOAD




CRUISE REPORT: A22
(Updated JUN 2012)



HIGHLIGHTS

                           Cruise Summary Information

          WOCE Section Designation  A22
Expedition designation (ExpoCodes)  33AT20120324
                  Chief Scientists  Ruth Curry / WHOI
                             Dates  Sat Mar 24, 2012 - Tue Apr 17, 2012
                              Ship  R/V Atlantis
                     Ports of call  Woods Hole, Mass. - Bridgetown, Barbados

                                                 40° 0.68' N
             Geographic Boundaries  70° 0.38' W               64° 54.95' W
                                                  12° 36' N
 
                          Stations  81
      Floats and drifters deployed  0
    Moorings deployed or recovered  0

                          Recent Contact Information:

                Ruth Curry • Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
             266 Woods Hole Rd. • MS# 21 • Woods Hole, MA 02543-1050
     Phone: +1 508 289 2799 • Fax: +1 508 457 2181 • Email: rcurry@whoi.edu














 US Global Ocean Carbon and Repeat Hydrography Program Section CLIVAR A22
                             RV Atlantis AT20
                       24 March 2012 - 17 April 2012
             Woods Hole, Massachusetts - Bridgetown, Barbados
                     Chief Scientist:  Dr. Ruth Curry
                   Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
                   Co-Chief Scientist: Dr. Zoltan Szuts
                   Max-Planck-Institut fur Meteorologie



                               Cruise Report
                               17 April 2012






Narrative


Summary

Section designation:  CLIVAR A22
Expedition:  33AT20120324
Chief Scientist:  Ruth Curry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Ship:  R/V Atlantis 20-01A
Ports:  Woods Hole, MA - Bridgetown, Barbados
Dates:  24 March - 17 April 2012

 A hydrographic survey consisting of CTDO (conductivity, temperature,
pressure, oxygen), LADCP (lowered acoustic Doppler current profiler),
rosette water samples, underway shipboard ADCP and total carbon dioxide
(TCO2) measurements was conducted in the western North Atlantic Ocean and
Caribbean Sea aboard the UNOLS vessel R/V Atlantis from 24 March - 17 April
2012.   A total of 81 CTD/LADCP/rosette stations were occupied on a
transect running roughly along meridian 66 deg.W.  CTD casts extended to
within 10 meters of the seafloor and up to 36 water samples were collected
throughout the water column on each upcast.  Salinity and dissolved oxygen
samples, drawn from each bottle on every cast, were analyzed and used to
calibrate the CTD conductivity and oxygen sensors. Water samples were also
analyzed on board the ship for nutrients (silicate, phosphate, nitrate,
nitrite), total CO2 (TCO2), pH, total alkalinity, and transient tracers
(CFCs, SF6 and CCl4).  Additional water samples were collected and stored
for analysis onshore: dissolved organic carbon (DOC), 3Helium / tritium,
13C / 14C and black carbon.  Underway measurements included surface total
CO2, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, fluorescence, various
meteorological parameters, and bathymetry.

Cruise Narrative

R/V Atlantis cruise 20-01A - a meridional transect through the western
North Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea, nominally along 66 deg.W, between
40 deg. - 12 deg.N latitudes - was undertaken as one component of the
ongoing US CLIVAR Carbon & Repeat Hydrography Program.  This particular
section, designated A22, had been occupied twice previously:  in 1997 (R/V
Knorr 151-4) and 2003 (R/V Knorr 173-2).  A central objective of the
program is an assessment of the changing physical properties of ocean water
masses and circulation on the global scale, including heat, salt and carbon
inventories, employing a network of hydrographic sections, to obtain a
factual basis for evaluating the state of Earth's climate system. To this
end, 81 full-depth CTD/LADCP/rosette casts were conducted at the locations
shown in the Cruise Track map.  The cruise track deviated from previous A22
occupations along its southern segment by a western jog around the
Venezuelan exclusive economic zone (EEZ) ending at Aruba (near 12.6 deg.N,
70.0 deg.W) instead of Venezuela (11 deg.N, 66 deg.W).  The conclusion of
station work was followed by a 3-day transit to the port of Bridgetown,
Barbados, from which a second CLIVAR section, A20 along 52 deg.W, departed
two days later.

As expected, weather conditions and temperatures ranged considerably over
the meridional extent of the section (Figure 0).  Beginning on the
continental shelf south of New England (near 40 deg.N), the first 5-6 days
brought seasonally cold winds from the north.  On the fifth day, we crossed
the Gulf Stream north wall at Station 12, which was accompanied by a
welcome 10 deg.C rise in air/sea temperatures. Only once (29 March, Station
17) did winds and seas force a temporary halt (5-6 hours) to the otherwise
round-the-clock CTD operations. Unsettled subtropical conditions persisted
until we passed into the tropics on April 5, midway through the cruise.
Winds generally remained under 10 kts for the remainder of the station
work, then picked up again to a persistent 30+ kts for most of the transit
to Barbados.

As a whole, the scientific equipment performed extremely well.  Minor
problems (replacement of a temperature sensor and a pump on the CTD
package, and occasional repairs to Niskin bottles) were readily dealt with
as they were encountered.  The only significant issues - winch, wire-
winding and weather difficulties - occurred at the start of the leg.  The
original cruise plan was to use the port-side traction winch, hydro-boom
and drum equipped with .681 conducting wire, and the ROV hangar for shelter
(of the package and samplers during transits between stations).  On Station
2, the traction winch exhibited hydraulic problems which remained




                             -2-

unresolved for the remainder of that leg.  CTD operations were moved to the
starboard deck and the 0.322" wire/drum/winch system - but at the expense
of a secure shelter. The CTD package was tugged under an overhang area, aft
of the main lab, and a tarp was rigged to provide some protection from
wind. Until we reached the tropics, however, the ship had to remain hove-to
on most stations while water sampling was conducted on deck.  The only
other significant time sink arose from winding problems on the CTD
wire/drum.  As soon as possible (station 12), the CTD package was switched
over to the ship's second drum/winch, which had been outfitted with a new
spool of 0.322" wire before we left Woods Hole.   Following this change, no
further problems with the winch or wire ensued for the duration of the
cruise.
Figure 0 Time series of wind speed, direction and air temperature from the
                Atlantis shipboard meteorological sensors.

Data Quality Assessment (refers to preliminary shipboard data only)

The overall data quality from Level 1 parameters measured on board the ship
during A22 appears to be very good.  Although minor difficulties developed
with the equipment used to analyze bottle salinities and oxygen, these did
not seriously compromise their calibration capabilities. There is no
parameter whose overall quality of measurement does not appear to meet or
exceed the Program's requirements and expectations.  Details regarding
calibration and quality control procedures are reported throughout section
1.  Figures showing vertical sections of measured and derived properties
plus profiles of properties vs. potential temperature are provided.

One Seabird CTDO instrument package was used throughout the cruise.  The
instrument was remarkably stable, and its drifts were small and easily
corrected.  Preliminary CTD conductivity data fit to the water sample data
(expressed as salinity) shows overall agreement below 1500 db better than
+/-0.001 PSS-78.  Because of instabilities with the salinometer at the very
end of the cruise, water samples for stations 77-81 were not analyzed
immediately pending arrival of a replacement unit in port.  With the
possible exception of those few stations, it is highly unlikely that any
post-cruise adjustments greater than 0.001 will be made to the preliminary
CTD salinities.  A preliminary fit of the SBE-43 dissolved oxygen sensor
data to the water samples was performed for down-cast CTD oxygen values
matched to up-cast water samples on density surfaces.  The overall fit for
A22 is excellent with differences of order 0.5 uM/kg-1.

Shipboard analyses of bottle data also appear to be of very high quality.
For salinity, oxygen and nutrients, the high degree of internal precision
and consistency achieved over the cruise duration makes it unlikely that
significant post-cruise changes will be made to the bottle values.  It is
possible that some quality code changes will occur during final post-cruise
processing and evaluation.

Principal Findings and Features

The A22 section crossed multiple boundary current regimes and sampled a
variety of distinct water mass characteristics, some originating locally
while others are transported  meridionally over great distances.   Compared
to previous occupations, the northern end of the present section revealed a
notable reduction of dissolved oxygen  concentrations and increased
vertical stratification (e.g. potential vorticity) in the sub-thermocline
water masses of the DWBC and Gulf Stream recirculation regime.   These
changes reflect a decreased strength of buoyancy forcing over the last
decade upstream in the subpolar basins where these water masses -- Labrador
Sea Water (LSW) and Nordic Seas Overflow Waters (NSOW) -- are formed
through the processes of deep convection, overflow and entrainment.  The
reduced ventilation is marked by the disappearance of a local oxygen
maximum in the LSW layer (~1500-2500 meters depth) - a prominent feature of
earlier sections.

The timing of this occupation (March-April) provided a snapshot of winter-
mixed layer formation in the subtropical gyre. On the offshore side of the
Gulf Stream  and extending southward to Bermuda (Stations 17 - 26), mixed
layer depths approached 200 meters.  These had not yet penetrated to the
previous year's Eighteen Degree Water (EDW) -  the two water masses were
separated by a thinner layer of higher stratification (see potential
vorticity section).   Given the parade of storms that rolled off the
eastern U.S. and blew up over the Gulf Stream during the cruise and after
we had passed to the south, it is very likely that a healthy slug of EDW




                             -3-

was formed locally this year at the northern end of A22.

The 2012 trackline purposely tracked up to the 3000 meter contour on the
northwest flank of Bermuda Rise, and again from that contour, down the
southwest flank to reveal the deep baroclinic flows banked against
topography beneath 3000 meters (e.g. the potential density section). These
flows originate in the Gulf Stream west of the Grand Banks and over steep
topography along the Mid Atlantic Ridge where deep mixing sets the abyssal
layers in motion.  The resulting geostrophic flows become focused against
Bermuda Rise and represent a pathway by which North Atlantic Deep Water
density classes are transported through the interior western basin to
subsequently join the DWBC flows in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras.  The
full extent of the uplift of deep isopycnals had not been captured in
previous A22 sections.

At the southern end of the Atlantic part of the transect (Puerto Rico), the
equatorward flowing DWBC again passed through the section, here from west
to east.  While the structure of the water column was very similar to both
the 1997 and 2003 occupations, an eddy bearing very unusual water
properties was encountered at Station 42,  near 21.5 deg.N, just north of
the Puerto Rico Trench.  The property anomalies - high oxygen and CFCs, low
salinity and nutrients -- were particularly strong between 1000-1500 meters
depth and pegged its origin to the circulation east of Newfoundland.  The
eddy structure and water mass signatures were remarkably intact for having
journeyed so far.

The section passed to the east of Puerto Rico and into the Caribbean where
the water mass characteristics were very similar to previous years.  A
strong core of Antarctic Intermediate Waters (low oxygen, low salinity,
high nutrients) was southward intensified along the section.  A second,
weaker core also flowed poleward along the boundary to the north of Puerto
Rico.  Below the sill depth of ~2000 meters, the Caribbean water column was
very well mixed and weakly stratified, exhibiting characteristics of older
(high inorganic carbon concentrations), poorly ventilated (low CFCs)  water
masses intermediate between northern and southern sources.

Comparison Profiles A22 1997, 2003 and 2012

                      Profiles Theta vs. SiO3 and PO4
                  Profiles Theta vs. Salinity and Oxygen

Sections of A22 2012

                     Pressure vs. Potential Vorticity
                  Pressure vs. Potential Density, Sigma 4
                  Pressure vs. Potential Density, Sigma 0
                       Pressure vs. Neutral Density
                    Pressure vs. Potential Temperature
                           Pressure vs. Salinity
                          Pressure vs. CTD Oxygen
                       Pressure vs. Bottle Salinity
                        Pressure vs. Bottle Oxygen
                       Pressure vs. Bottle Phosphate
                        Pressure vs. Bottle Nitrate
                       Pressure vs. Bottle Silicate
                            Pressure vs. CFC-11
                            Pressure vs. CFC-12
                          Pressure vs. Total CO2
                              Pressure vs. pH



















                             -4-

Principal Programs of CLIVAR A22


+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Program                           Affiliation   Principal Investigator   email                     |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|CTDO/Rosette, Nutrients, O2,      UCSD/SIO      James H. Swift           jswift@ucsd.edu           |
|Salinity, Data Processing                                                                          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|ADCP/LADCP                        UH            Eric Firing              efiring@soest.hawaii.edu  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|CFCs                              LDEO          Bill Smethie             bsmeth@ldeo.columbia.edu  |
|SF6                               UM/RSMAS      Rana Fine                rfine@rsmas.miami.edu     |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|3He-3H                            WHOI          Bill Jenkins             wjenkins@whoi.edu         |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|CO2-DIC/Underway pCO2             NOAA/AOML     Rik Wannikhof            rik.wanninkhof@noaa.gov   |
|                                  NOAA/PMEL     Richard Feeley           richard.a.feeley@noaa.gov |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Total Alkalinity, pH              UM/RSMAS      Frank Millero            fmillero@rsmas.miami.edu  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)/   UM/RSMAS      Dennis Hansell           dhansell@rsmas.miami.edu  |
|Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN)                                                                     |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Underway pCO2 with underway T&S   NOAA/AOML     Rik Wanninkhof           Rik.Wanninkhof@noaa.gov   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Carbon Isotopes 13C/14C-DIC       WHOI          Ann McNichol             amcnichol@whoi.edu        |
|                                  PU            Robert Key               key@princeton.edu         |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Carbon Isotopes 14C-DOC/          UCI           Ellen Druffel            edruffel@uci.edu          |
|14C-Black C                                                                                        |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Transmissometer                   TAMU          Wilf Gardner             wgardner@tamu.edu         |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Surface Skin SST                  UM/RSMAS      Peter Minnett            pminnett@rsmas.miami.edu  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  * Affiliation abbreviations listed on page 24








































                             -5-

Shipboard Scientific Personnel on CLIVAR A22


+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Name                    Affiliation  Shipboard Duties       Shore Email                |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Ruth Curry              WHOI         Chief Scientist        rcurry@whoi.edu            |
|Zoltan Szuts            MPIM         Co-Chief Scientist     zoltan.szuts@zmaw.de       |
|Susan M. Becker         SIO/STS/ODF  Nutrients              sbecker@ucsd.edu           |
|Sam Billheimer          SIO          CTD Watch              sbillhei@ucsd.edu          |
|Hector Bustos-Serrano   UABC         pH                     hbustos@uabc.edu.mx        |
|Kevin Cahill            WHOI         3He/3H                 kcahill@whoi.edu           |
|Bob Castle              NOAA/AOML    DIC                    robert.castle@noaa.gov     |
|Alysha Coppola          UCI          14C-DOC/14C-BlackC     acoppola@uci.edu           |
|Tom Custer              UH Manoa     CFCs                   custert@hawaii.edu         |
|Ryan J. Dillon          SIO/STS/ODF  O2                     rjdillon@ucsd.edu          |
|Sarah Eggleston         UH           LADCP                  sse@hawaii.edu             |
|Eugene Gorman           LDEO         CFCs                   egorman@ldeo.columbia.edu  |
|Dana Greeley            NOAA/PMEL    DIC                    dana.greeley@noaa.gov      |
|Silvia Gremes Cordero   UM/RSMAS     13C & 14C-DIC, DOC/TDN sgremes@rsmas.miami.edu    |
|                                     Surface Skin SST                                  |
|Jim Happell             UM/RSMAS     CFCs                   jhappell@rsmas.miami.edu   |
|Mary Carol Johnson      SIO/STS/ODF  CTD Data/Website       mcj@ucsd.edu               |
|Tammy Laberge MacDonald UM/RSMAS     Total Alkalinity       tlaberge@rsmas.miami.edu   |
|Isabela Le Bras         MIT          CTD Watch              ilebras@mit.edu            |
|Robert Palomares        SIO/STS/RT-E Deck Leader/ET         rpalomares@ucsd.edu        |
|Sam Potter              PU           CTD Watch              spotter@princeton.edu      |
|Alejandro Quintero      SIO/STS/ODF  O2                     a1quintero@ucsd.edu        |
|Andrew C. Reed          UW           CFCs                   reedan@uw.edu              |
|Carmen Rodriguez        UM/RSMAS     Total Alkalinity       crodriguez@rsmas.miami.edu |
|Kristin Sanborn         SIO/STS/ODF  Data, Group Leader     ksanborn@ucsd.edu          |
|Kenichiro Sato          MWJ          Nutrients              satok@mwj.co.jp            |
|Courtney Schatzman      SIO/STS/ODF  Deck Leader/Salinity   cschatzman@ucsd.edu        |
|Leah Trafford           WHOI         CTD Watch              ltrafford@whoi.edu         |
|Jason Waters            UM/RSMAS     pH                     jwaters@rsmas.miami.edu    |
|Allison Heater          WHOI         SSSG Tech              sssg@atlantis.whoi.edu     |
|Dave Sims               WHOI         SSSG Tech              sssg@atlantis.whoi.edu     |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  * Affiliation abbreviations are listed on page 24

Ship's Crew Personnel on CLIVAR A22


+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Name             Shipboard Duties               Email                          |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allan Lunt       Captain                        master@atlantis.whoi.edu       |
|Peter Leonard    Chief Mate                     chmate@atlantis.whoi.edu       |
|Craig Dickson    Second Mate                    secondmate@atlantis.whoi.edu   |
|Rick Bean        Third Mate                     thirdmate@atlantis.whoi.edu    |
|Tim Logan        Communication Electronics Tech comet@atlantis.whoi.edu        |
|Patrick Hennessy Bosun                          bosun@atlantis.whoi.edu        |
|Raul Martinez    Able-Bodied Seaman                                            |
|Jerry Graham     Able-Bodied Seaman                                            |
|Jim McGill       Able-Bodied Seaman                                            |
|Richard Barnes   Ordinary Seaman                                               |
|Leo Byckovas     Ordinary Seaman                                               |
|Jeff Little      Chief Engineer                 cheng@atlantis.whoi.edu        |
|Monica Hill      First Assistant Engineer       firsteng@atlantis.whoi.edu     |
|Glenn Savage     Second Assistant Engineer      secondeng@atlantis.whoi.edu    |
|Mike Spruill     Third Assistant Engineer       thirdeng@atlantis.whoi.edu     |
|Richard Stairs   Oiler                                                         |
|Matthew Slater   Oiler                                                         |
|Nick Alexander   Oiler                                                         |
|Leroy Walcott    Wiper                                                         |
|Carl Wood        Steward                        steward@atlantis.whoi.edu      |
|Brendon Todd     Cook                                                          |
|Cecile Hall      Mess Attendant                                                |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+









                             -6-

   +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                 KEY to Institution Abbreviations                   |
   +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |AOML    Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (NOAA) |
   |LDEO    Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory                            |
   |MIT     Massachusetts Institute of Technology                       |
   |MPIM    Max-Planck-Institut fur Meteorologie                        |
   |MWJ     Marine Works Japan Ltd.                                     |
   |NOAA    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration             |
   |ODF     Oceanographic Data Facility (SIO/STS)                       |
   |PMEL    Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (NOAA)              |
   |PU      Princeton University                                        |
   |RSMAS   Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (UM)    |
   |RT-E    Research Technicians - Electronics (SIO/STS)                |
   |SIO     Scripps Institution of Oceanography (UCSD)                  |
   |SSSG    Shipboard Scientific Services Group (WHOI)                  |
   |STS     Shipboard Technical Support (SIO)                           |
   |TAMU    Texas A&M University                                        |
   |UABC    Universidad Autonoma de Baja California                     |
   |UCI     University of California, Irvine                            |
   |UCSD    University of California, San Diego                         |
   |UH      University of Hawaii                                        |
   |UM      University of Miami                                         |
   |UW      University of Washington                                    |
   |WHOI    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution                        |
   +--------------------------------------------------------------------+




















































                             -7-

Hydrographic/CTD Data, Salinity, Oxygen and Nutrients


 Oceanographic Data Facility and Research Technicians
 Shipboard Technical Support/Scripps Institution of Oceanography
 La Jolla, CA 92093-0214

The CLIVAR A22 repeat hydrographic line was reoccupied for the US Global
Ocean Carbon and Repeat Hydrography Program (sometimes referred to as
"CLIVAR/CO2") during March-April 2012 from RV Atlantis during a survey
consisting of CTD/rosette/LADCP stations and a variety of underway
measurements.  The ship departed Woods Hole, Massachusetts on 24 March 2012
and arrived Bridgetown, Barbados on 17 April 2012 (UTC dates).

A total of 81 stations were occupied with one CTD/rosette/LADCP cast
completed at each.  There were two aborted casts, one at Station 1 the
other at Station 2.  CTDO data and water samples were collected on each
CTD/rosette/LADCP cast, usually to within 10 meters of the bottom.  Water
samples were measured on board as tabulated in the Bottle Sampling section.

A sea-going science team gathered from 12 oceanographic institutions
participated on the cruise.  The programs and PIs, and the shipboard
science team and their responsibilities, are listed in the Narrative
section.

Description of Measurement Techniques

1.  CTD/Hydrographic Measurements Program

A total of 83 CTD/rosette/LADCP casts were made at 81 stations.  Two of the
83 casts were aborted.  Most casts were lowered to within 10m of the
bottom.

Hydrographic measurements consisted of salinity, dissolved oxygen and
nutrient water samples taken from each rosette cast.  Pressure,
temperature, conductivity/salinity, dissolved oxygen, and transmissometer
data were recorded from CTD profiles.  Current velocities were measured by
the RDI workhorse ADCP.  The distribution of samples are shown in the
following figures.

            Figure 1.0 A22 Sample distribution, stations 1-81.



1.1.  Water Sampling Package

Rosette/CTD/LADCP casts were performed with a package consisting of a
36-bottle rosette frame (SIO/STS), a 36-place carousel (SBE32) and 36 10.0L
Bullister bottles (SIO/STS) with an absolute volume of 10.4L.  Underwater
electronic components consisted of a Sea-Bird Electronics SBE9plus CTD with
dual pumps (SBE5), dual temperature (SBE3plus), reference temperature
(SBE35RT) dual conductivity (SBE4C), dissolved oxygen (SBE43),
transmissometer (WET Labs), altimeter (Simrad) and LADCP (RDI).

The CTD was mounted vertically in an SBE CTD cage attached to the bottom of
the rosette frame and located to one side of the carousel.  The SBE4C
conductivity, SBE3plus temperature and SBE43 Dissolved oxygen sensors and
their respective pumps and tubing were mounted vertically in the CTD cage,
as recommended by SBE.  Pump exhausts were attached to the CTD cage on the
side opposite from the sensors and directed downward. The transmissometer
was mounted horizontally near the bottom of the rosette frame. The
altimeter was mounted on the inside of the bottom frame ring.  The 150 KHz
downward-looking Broadband LADCP (RDI) was mounted vertically on one side
of the frame between the bottles and the CTD. Its battery pack was located
on the opposite side of the frame, mounted on the bottom of the frame.
Table 1.1.0 shows height of the sensors referenced to the bottom of the
frame.











                             -8-

         +--------------------------------------------------------+
         |Instrument                                 Height in cm |
         +--------------------------------------------------------+
         |Temperature/Conductivity Inlet                        9 |
         |SBE35                                                 9 |
         |Altimeter                                             2 |
         |Transmissometer                                       5 |
         |Pressure Sensor, inlet to capillary tube             17 |
         |Inner bottle midline                                109 |
         |Outer bottle midline                                113 |
         |LADCP face midline (bottom)                           7 |
         |Zero tape on wire                                   280 |
         +--------------------------------------------------------+
         Table 1.1.0 Heights referenced to bottom of rosette frame

The deck watch prepared the rosette 10-30 minutes prior to each cast.  The
bottles were cocked and all valves, vents and lanyards were checked for
proper orientation.  Once stopped on station, the rosette was moved out
from portside ROV hangar for stations 1 and 2 cast 1, under the portside
squirt boom using cart and tracks.  The rosette was moved out from the
starboard quarterdeck to the deployment location under the starboard
squirt-boom using cart and tracks for all other station casts.  The CTD was
powered-up and the data acquisition system started from the computer lab.
The rosette was unstrapped from the cart.  Tag lines were threaded through
the rosette frame and syringes were removed from CTD intake ports.  The
winch operator was directed by the deck watch leader to raise the package.
The squirt-boom and rosette were extended outboard and the package was
quickly lowered into the water. Tag lines were removed and the package was
lowered to 10 meters, until the console operator determined that the sensor
pumps had turned on and the sensors were stable. The winch operator was
then directed to bring the package back to the surface, at which time the
wireout reading was re-zeroed before descent.

Most rosette casts were lowered to within 10 meters of the bottom, using
the altimeter, winch wireout, CTD depth and echosounder depth to determine
the distance.

For each up cast, the winch operator was directed to stop the winch at up
to 36 pre-determined sampling depths. These standard depths were staggered
every station using 3 sampling schemes. To insure package shed wake had
dissipated, the CTD console operator waited 30 seconds prior to tripping
sample bottles.  An additional 10 seconds elapsed before moving to the next
consecutive trip depth, to allow the SBE35RT time to take its readings.
The deck watch leader directed the package to the surface for the last
bottle trip.

Recovering the package at the end of the deployment was essentially the
reverse of launching, with the additional use of poles and snap-hooks
attached to tag lines and air-tuggers for controlled recovery.  The rosette
was secured on the cart and moved forward on the starboard quarter deck
cover for sampling.  The bottles and rosette were examined before samples
were taken, and anything unusual was noted on the sample log.

Each bottle on the rosette had a unique serial number, independent of the
bottle position on the rosette.  Sampling for specific programs was
outlined on sample log sheets prior to cast recovery or at the time of
collection.

Routine CTD maintenance included soaking the conductivity and oxygen
sensors with 1% Triton-X solution between casts to maintain sensor
stability and eliminate accumulated bio-films.  Rosette maintenance was
performed on a regular basis. Valves and o-rings were inspected for leaks.
The carousel was rinsed with fresh water as part of the routine
maintenance.

1.2.  Underwater Electronics

The SBE9plus CTD supplied a standard SBE-format data stream at a data rate
of 24 frames/second.  The sensors and instruments used during CLIVAR A22,
along with pre-cruise laboratory calibration information, are listed below
in Table 1.2.0.  Copies of the pre-cruise calibration sheets for various
sensors are included in Appendix D.






                             -9-

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                              Serial        CTD     Stations Pre-Cruise Calibration |
|Instrument/Sensor*       Mfr.**/Model         Number        Channel   Used      Date     Facility** |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Carousel Water Sampler   SBE32 (36-place)     3216715-0187  n/a       1-81       n/a        n/a     |
|Reference Temperature    SBE35                3528706-0035  n/a       1-81   16-Feb-2012  SIO/STS   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|CTD                      SBE9plus SIO         09P39801-0796           1-81                          |
|Pressure                 Paroscientific       796-98627     Freq.2    1-81   25 Oct 2011  SIO/STS   |
|                         Digiquartz 401K-105                                                        |
|                                                                                                    |
|Primary Pump Circuit                                                                                |
|    Temperature (T1a)    SBE3plus             03P-4138      Freq.0    1-39   28 Oct 2011  SIO/STS   |
|    Temperature (T1b)    SBE3plus             03P-4924      Freq.0   40-81   24 Oct 2011  SIO/STS   |
|    Conductivity (C1)    SBE4C                04-3369       Freq.1    1-81   21 Feb 2012    SBE     |
|    Dissolved Oxygen+    SBE43                43-0614       Aux2/V2   1-56   18 Feb 2012    SBE     |
|    Pump                 SBE5T                05-3334                 1-5                           |
|    Pump                 SBE5T                05-4374                 6-81                          |
|                                                                                                    |
|Secondary Pump Circuit                                                                              |
|    Temperature (T2)     SBE3plus             03P-4907      Freq.3    1-81   08 Feb 2012  SIO/STS   |
|    Conductivity (C2)    SBE4C                04-3399       Freq.4    1-81   21 Feb 2012    SBE     |
|    Pump                 SBE5T                05-4160                 1-81                          |
|    Dissolved Oxygen+    SBE43                43-0614       Aux2/V2  57-81   18 Feb 2012    SBE     |
|                                                                                                    |
|    Diss.Oxygen Optode++ RinkoIII ARO-CAV     084           Aux4/V6   1-47   21-Oct-2011    JFE     |
|    Optode Temperature++                                    Aux4/V7                      Advantech  |
|                                                                                                    |
|Transmissometer (TAMU)   WET Labs C-STAR      CST-327DR     Aux3/V4   1-16   30 Nov 2010  WET Labs  |
|                                                            Aux2/V3  17-81                          |
|                                                                                                    |
|Altimeter (500m range)   Simrad 807           9711091       Aux1/V0   1-81                          |
|                                                                                                    |
|                                                            Aux2/V3  12-14                          |
|Load Cell/Tension (WHOI) 3PSInc LP-5K-2000    A0512124      Aux3/V5  15-16                          |
|                                                            Aux3/V4  17-81                          |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|LADCP Down (UH)          RDI Workhorse 150kHz 16283                   1-81                          |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Deck Unit (in lab)       SBE11plus V2         11P21561-0518           1-81                          |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   * All sensors belong to SIO/STS/ODF, unless otherwise noted.
   ** SBE = Sea-Bird Electronics
   + same SBE43 Oxygen sensor, shifted to secondary pump circuit after station 56
   ++ Experimental oxygen sensor, never gave any usable data.  Removed after station 47

          Table 1.2.0 CLIVAR A22 Rosette Underwater Electronics.


An SBE35RT reference temperature sensor was connected to the SBE32 carousel
and recorded a temperature for each bottle closure.  These temperatures
were used as additional CTD calibration checks.  The SBE35RT was utilized
per the manufacturer's specifications and instructions, as described on the
Sea-Bird Electronics website
( http://www.seabird.com ).

The SBE9plus CTD was connected to the SBE32 36-place carousel, providing
for sea cable operation.  A 0.681" fiber optic cable on the RV Atlantis's
Markey DUTW-9-11 port-side winch was used during station 1 and station 2
cast 1.  After a failure of the pump hydraulics during station 2, the
starboard/forward Markey DESH-5 winch with an older wire was used for
station 2 cast 2 through station 12.  The Markey DESH-5 starboard/aft winch
was used for all remaining casts.  Both DESH-5 winches were outfitted with
an 0.322" EM sea cable.

A new termination was done before the first use of each sea cable.  Two
inner conductors from the 0.681" fiber optic cable were used, one for power
and signal, the other for ground (return).  Only one conductor in the
DESH-5 three-conductor wires was used for power and signal; the sea cable
armor was used for ground.  Power to the SBE9plus CTD and sensors, SBE32
carousel and Simrad altimeter was provided through the sea cable from the
SIO/STS SBE11plus deck unit in the computer lab.






                            -10-

1.3.  Navigation and Bathymetry Data Acquisition

Navigation data were acquired at 1-second intervals from the ship's SeaNav
2050 GPS receiver by a Linux system beginning 24 March 2012 at 1600z, as
the RV Atlantis left the dock in Woods Hole.

Centerbeam bathymetric data from the Kongsberg EM-122 multibeam echosounder
system were available before arriving at the first station.  Bottom depths
associated with rosette casts were recorded on the Console Logs during
deployments.  A minor change in STS/ODF software was required to read in
the serial data feed, but the program could not be re-compiled for several
days.  Starting 28 March 2012 at 0300z (during station 12), depth data were
fed realtime into the STS acquisition system and merged with navigation
data.

Depth data displayed by the ship were 6m deeper than the data from the
feed.  The 6m hull depth offset was added later to STS stored depth data
for all events in the hydrographic database.

Corrected multibeam center depths are reported for each cast event in the
WOCE and Exchange format files.

1.4.  CTD Data Acquisition and Rosette Operation

The CTD data acquisition system consisted of an SBE-11plus (V2) deck unit
and four networked generic PC workstations running CentOS-5.6 Linux.  Each
PC workstation was configured with a color graphics display, keyboard,
trackball and DVD+RW drive. One system had a Comtrol Rocketport PCI
multiple port serial controller providing 8 additional RS-232 ports.  The
systems were interconnected through the ship's network. These systems were
available for real-time operational and CTD data displays, and provided for
CTD and hydrographic data management.

One of the workstations was designated the CTD console and was connected to
the CTD deck unit via RS-232. The CTD console provided an interface and
operational displays for controlling and monitoring a CTD deployment and
closing bottles on the rosette. Another of the workstations was designated
the website and database server and maintained the hydrographic database
for A22. Redundant backups were managed automatically.

CTD deployments were initiated by the console watch after the ship stopped
on station.  The acquisition program was started and the deck unit turned
on at least 3 minutes prior to package deployment. The watch maintained a
console operations log containing a description of each deployment, a
record of every attempt to close a bottle and any relevant comments. The
deployment and acquisition software presented a short dialog instructing
the operator to turn on the deck unit, to examine the on-screen CTD data
displays and to notify the deck watch that this was accomplished.

Once the deck watch had deployed the rosette, the winch operator lowered it
to 10 meters, or deeper in heavier seas.  The CTD sensor pumps were
configured with a 5-second start-up delay after detecting seawater
conductivities. The console operator checked the CTD data for proper sensor
operation and waited for sensors to stabilize, then instructed the winch
operator to bring the package to the surface and descend to a specified
target depth, based on CTD pressure available on the winch display.

The winch was controlled from the deck for the top 100m of each downcast,
then handed over to the lab during a typically 10-15 second stop at ~100mwo
(meters wire out).  The CTD profiling rate was at most 30m/min to 200m and
up to 60m/min deeper than 200m, depending on sea cable tension and sea
state.  As the package descended toward the target depth, the rate was
reduced to 30m/min at 100m off the bottom, 20m/min at 50m off, and 10m/min
at 20m off.

The progress of the deployment and CTD data quality were monitored through
interactive graphics and operational displays. Bottle trip locations were
transcribed onto the console and sample logs. The sample log was used later
as an inventory of samples drawn from the bottles.  The altimeter channel,
CTD depth, winch wire-out and bathymetric depth were all monitored to
determine the distance of the package from the bottom, allowing a safe
approach to 8-10 meters.






                            -11-

Bottles were closed on the up-cast by operating an on-screen control.  The
expected CTD pressure was reported to the winch operator for every bottle
trip.  Bottles were tripped 30-40 seconds after the package stopped to
allow the rosette wake to dissipate and the bottles to flush.  The winch
operator was instructed to proceed to the next bottle stop at least 10
seconds after closing bottles to ensure that stable CTD data were
associated with the trip and to allow the SBE35RT temperature sensor to
measure bottle trip temperature.

Winch controls were handed back from lab to deck after a bottle trip near
100mwo.  The package was directed to the surface by the deck for the last
bottle closure, then the package was brought on deck.  The console operator
terminated the data acquisition, turned off the deck unit and assisted with
rosette sampling.

1.5.  CTD Data Processing

Shipboard CTD data processing was performed automatically during and after
each deployment using SIO/STS CTD processing software v.5.1.6-1.

During acquisition, the raw CTD data were converted to engineering units,
filtered, response-corrected, calibrated and decimated to a more manageable
0.5-second time series. Pre-cruise laboratory calibrations for pressure,
temperature and conductivity were also applied at this time. The 0.5-second
time series data were used for real-time graphics during deployments, and
were the source for CTD pressure and temperature data associated with each
rosette bottle.  Both the raw 24 Hz data and the 0.5-second time series
were stored for subsequent processing. During the deployment, the raw data
were backed up to another Linux workstation.

At the completion of a deployment a sequence of processing steps were
performed automatically. The 0.5-second time series data were checked for
consistency, clean sensor response and calibration shifts. A 2-decibar
pressure series was generated from the down cast data.  The pressure-series
data were used by the web service for interactive plots, sections and CTD
data distribution.  Time-series data were also available for distribution
through the website.

CTD data were routinely examined for sensor problems, calibration shifts
and deployment or operational problems.  The primary and secondary
temperature sensors (SBE3plus) were compared to each other and to the SBE35
temperature sensor.  CTD conductivity sensors (SBE4C) were compared to each
other, then calibrated by examining differences between CTD and check
sample conductivity values.  CTD dissolved oxygen sensor data were
calibrated to check sample data.

As bottle salinity and oxygen results became available, they were used to
refine shipboard conductivity and oxygen sensor calibrations.  Theta-
Salinity and theta-O2 comparisons were made between down and up casts as
well as between groups of adjacent deployments.

A total of 83 casts were made using the 36-place CTD/LADCP rosette.
Further elaboration of CTD procedures specific to this cruise are found in
the next section.

1.6.  CTD Acquisition and Data Processing Details

Secondary T/C sensors were used for all reported CTD data because:


     o   the same sensor pair was used through-out the cruise,
     o   there were no questions about flow obstruction in the secondary pump circuit,
     o   down/up data agreed better than primaries,
     o   there was less low-level noise in the data,
     o   T2C2 corrections were lower order and more consistent overall.



The following table identifies problems noted during specific casts (NOTE:
mwo = meters of wire out on winch):








                            -12-

station             Comment

1/1                 Start cruise with trawl winch (0.681-inch wire),
                    aborted at 15m during sensor equilibration due to deck
                    unit alarm: Dummy plug for bottom contact switch not
                    installed.

1/2                 Installed dummy plug for bottom contact switch on deck,
                    then restarted as cast 2.

2/1                 Aborted at 271mwo: winch problems, pay out/in speed has
                    been limited to < 30 m/min so far.

2/2                 Switch to starboard (aft) Markey winch with old
                    0.322-inch wire prior to cast 2.

2/2, 3-7, 10        Apparent obstruction in primary pump circuit near
                    surface (approx. top 30 dbar), bad primary data.
                    Secondary data used for TC, but CTDOXY was on primary
                    circuit.  Codes 3/4 added to near-surface problem
                    CTDOXY data, typically deeper than when obstruction
                    cleared due to slow CTDOXY sensor response.  Primary
                    pump 05-4374 changed to 05-4890 prior to sta 6 - no
                    change in surface signal quality.

7                   Upcast stopped at 2101mwo/2107 dbar pressure due to
                    wire on winch looking suspicious. Lowered back to
                    2122mwo/2128.5 pressure to check: wire ok, resumed
                    cast.

8                   Upcast, after tripping bottle 20: 600mwo back down to
                    662m due to wire-wrapping issue. At 500m, back out to
                    530m for same issue. Source of wire-wrap problems is
                    much further down the wire.

9                   Winch readout reset itself at 3230mwo downcast (bottom
                    bottle 37m deeper). Multiple wire wrap problems during
                    upcast, winch back down 5-7m on most, some after
                    bottles already tripped.  10m back out at 2635 dbar,
                    30m back down at 2614 dbar.

10                  Stopped 4.5 minutes at winch change-over at 105 dbar
                    downcast.  Stopped at bottom to fix wire wrap problem.
                    Stop at 822mwo, back down to 843m to fix spool; can't
                    fix resume hoist. Spool wrapping wrong way at 114mwo
                    upcast, winch op fixed. Winch display not showing in
                    lab, okay at outside winch controls.

11                  Change the primary TC duct (connector between T1 and C1
                    sensors) prior to sta 11.  Winch reset itself on upcast
                    between 807mwo and next bottle trip (~700m).

12                  Shift to forward Markey winch with new 0.322 wire, add
                    WHOI load cell to a/d 3 (same AUX as CTDOXY) prior to
                    cast.  Stopped 4.5 minutes at winch change-over at 105
                    dbar downcast to check O2 signal.  Strange oxygen
                    offsets/drops: approx. 500-1600 dbar down on sta.12,
                    jumps back and forth.  Substantial despiking (mostly
                    raw CTDOXY offsets) required to salvage the CTDOXY
                    signal: large sections of despiked CTDOXY were coded
                    3/questionable.

13                  Strange oxygen offsets/drops: approx. 550?-1750 dbar
                    down on sta.13, more "long" sections of drop. then more
                    sections at 4300+ dbar down to bottom, and 3700-3430
                    dbar up.  Substantial despiking (mostly raw CTDOXY
                    offsets) required to salvage the CTDOXY signal: large
                    sections of despiked CTDOXY were coded 3/questionable.










                            -13-

station             Comment

14                  Strange oxygen offsets/drops: approx. 600-1300 dbar
                    down, long offsets and/or noise; then not much after
                    that.  Substantial despiking (mostly raw CTDOXY
                    offsets) required to salvage the CTDOXY signal: large
                    sections of despiked CTDOXY were coded 3/questionable.

15                  Shift load cell to a/d 5 prior to sta 15 (same AUX as
                    trans); transm. noise and a few transm. dropouts during
                    sta 15.

16                  Extreme transm. problems: most of sta 16 transm. signal
                    offset low.  suspect load cell power cabling problem is
                    affecting sensors on same AUX port.  SSSG checked
                    cable: resistance on pins 4/5 (ground) was low/not used
                    on cable provided with sensor by WHOI, but these pins
                    are used for other sensors on Y cable.

17                  Tagline problem: CTD down 5m and then back on-board
                    before full-depth cast.  Transm. shifted from a/d 4 to
                    a/d 3 (same AUX as CTDOXY); load cell moved to a/d 4
                    before sta 17, on AUX by itself prior to sta 17.
                    Transm. signal is ok now.  Stopped at 3452 dbar on
                    upcast to check cable wrap: looks good.  Odd raw CTDOXY
                    signal at surface (top 106 dbar coded 3/questionable),
                    then drops dramatically after short ~100m winch-control
                    handoff and looks ok.

23                  6-minute delay while package still on deck: the winch
                    needed to be reset.

29                  New load cell cable made/installed prior to sta 29.
                    Winch tension graphical display stopped working, but
                    tension readout still updates: re-programming problem.
                    Slowed package at 4214, bottle trip, waited until SSSG
                    tech diagnosed the problem. Transm. signal noisier than
                    previous casts, and slight drop at the bottom. Transm.
                    windows cleaned after sampling finished.

30                  Winch required a reset.

33                  Rope knot on deployment, had to bring rosette back on
                    deck. Surface bottle tripped 10 seconds early: large
                    swells at surface.

35                  High tension/slower winch: ~20m/min from bottom trip,
                    ~30m/min from 4200m trip, ~40m/min from 3900m trip,
                    ~30-45m/min from 3600m trip, 60m/min from 3300m trip to
                    surface.  Unusually large effect of shiproll on
                    downcast data, much despiking required in areas where
                    winch was slower.

38-39               T1/S/Sigma Theta have suspicious difference between
                    down/up on stas 38-39, starting about 1200m.

40                  Remove orig. T1a/03P-4138; install T1b/03P-4924 prior
                    to sta 40.

41                  winch payout reset itself to 0 at ~3900m on up cast.

48                  remove RinkoIII O2/T sensors for testing prior to sta
                    48: not working yet during this cruise.  Shift loadcell
                    to AUX4/ad6 to test AUX4 in case this is part of Rinko
                    problem.

57                  SBE43 sensor shifted to secondary pump circuit
                    (plumbing) prior to sta 57; no change in end cap
                    connection.









                            -14-

station             Comment

62                  10-minute delay in cast start: strap holding rosette
                    stuck. Ship drifted while cast going down, slightly
                    shallower than start. 8-minute stop at 2675mwo on
                    upcast, between bottles 3 and 4: 6 modulo errors
                    preceded ship switching to emergency generator, then 20
                    more with audible/visible deck unit alarm. Wait for
                    ship power problem to be diagnosed before continuing
                    cast.  No additional missed frames the rest of the
                    cast.

73                  Return to surface (but not out of water) from 74 dbar
                    downcast due to winch re-zeroing itself, plus large
                    wire angle/current.  Started from top of second yoyo
                    for pressure-series data.  Unable to hoist the winch
                    from lab controls after the bottom trip.  5-minute
                    delay to diagnose/fix problem.  Problems after bottle 2
                    tripped (3853 dbar), quickly resolved; ship's engineers
                    worked on electronics under winch controls in computer
                    lab.

74                  Winch monitor program failed at cast start, and wireout
                    stopped streaming to the acquisition PC.  Wireouts
                    written from the winch box display, which still worked.
                    SSSG traced the problem to the serial feed, fixed after
                    cast.

79                  Winch payout rezeroed itself at 160mwo on downcast.  At
                    ~115m on upcast, winch operator re-zeroed.  Winch
                    rezeroed on its own twice more before cast finished.


1.7.  CTD Sensor Laboratory Calibrations

Laboratory calibrations of the CTD pressure, temperature, conductivity and
dissolved oxygen sensors were performed prior to CLIVAR A22.  The sensors
and calibration dates are listed in Table 1.2.0.  Copies of the calibration
sheets for Pressure, Temperature, Conductivity, and Dissolved Oxygen
sensors, as well as factory and deck calibrations for the TAMU
Transmissometer, are in Appendix D.

1.8.  CTD Shipboard Calibration Procedures

CTD #796 was used for all CTD/rosette/LADCP casts during A22.  The CTD was
deployed with all sensors and pumps aligned vertically, as recommended by
SBE.

The SBE35RT Digital Reversing Thermometer (S/N 3528706-0035) served as an
independent calibration check for T1 and T2 sensors.  In situ salinity and
dissolved O2 check samples collected during each cast were used to
calibrate the conductivity and dissolved O2 sensors.

1.8.1.  CTD Pressure

The Paroscientific Digiquartz pressure transducer (S/N 796-98627) was
calibrated in October 2011 at the SIO/STS Calibration Facility.  The
calibration coefficients provided on the report were used to convert
frequencies to pressure.  The SIO/STS pressure calibration coefficients
already incorporate the slope and offset term usually provided by
Paroscientific.

The initial deck readings for pressure indicated a pressure offset was
needed, typically because CTDs are calibrated horizontally but deployed
vertically.  An additional -1.0 dbar offset was applied during data
acquisition/block-averaging starting for stations 1-17.  A review during
station 17 showed that -0.7 dbar was a better choice.  Stations 1-17 were
re-averaged with the lower offset, and the new offset was used for the
remaining stations.

Residual pressure offsets (the difference between the first and last
submerged pressures) varied from -0.34 to +0.23 dbar.  Pre- and post-cast
on-deck/out-of-water pressure offsets varied from +0.04 to +0.28 dbar
before the casts, and -0.06 to +0.32 dbar after the casts.




                            -15-

1.8.2.  CTD Temperature

Two SBE3plus primary temperature sensors (T1a: 03P-4138/stas 1-39 and T1b:
03P-4924/stas 40-81) and one secondary temperature sensor (T2:
03P-4907/stas 1-81) were used during A22.  03P-4138 was changed out after
station 39 because of suspicious down/up cast differences in the higher-
gradient region above 1000 dbar.  Although these differences were also
apparent in secondary sensors, the deep theta-salinity down/up plots for
the primary sensors did not overlay as well as the secondaries.

Calibration coefficients derived from the pre-cruise calibrations, plus
shipboard temperature corrections determined during the cruise, were
applied to raw primary and secondary sensor data during each cast.

A single SBE35RT (3528706-0035) was used as a tertiary temperature check.
It was located equidistant between T1 and T2 with the sensing element
aligned in a plane with the T1 and T2 sensing elements.  The SBE35RT
Digital Reversing Thermometer is an internally-recording temperature sensor
that operates independently of the CTD. It is triggered by the SBE32
carousel in response to a bottle closure. According to the manufacturer's
specifications, the typical stability is 0.001 deg.C/year.  The SBE35RT on
CLIVAR A22 was set to internally average over 5 sampling cycles (a total of
5.5 seconds).

Two independent metrics of calibration accuracy were examined. At each
bottle closure, the primary and secondary temperature were compared with
each other and with the SBE35RT temperatures.

All 3 temperature sensors were first examined for drift with time, using
the more stable SBE35RT at a smaller range of deeper trip levels (2000-3000
dbar).  T1a and T2 required a time-based offset to account for drift.  T1a
drifted -0.0005 over 39 stations; T2 drifted -0.0013 over the first 40
stations, then only -0.0007 more until station 68, after which a drift was
no longer apparent.  T1b was stable enough to apply a single offset for all
stations where it was used.

None of the sensors exhibited a temperature-dependent slope.  However, T1a
and T2 both had a small residual pressure dependence that required a first-
order correction to pull deeper bottles in line with shallower bottles
(about -0.001  deg.C correction for T1a and just +0.0002 deg.C for T2 at
6100 dbar).

The final corrections for T2 temperature data reported on CLIVAR A22 are
summarized in Appendix A.  All corrections made to T2 temperatures had the
form:

                            T2ITS90=T2+tp1P+t0


Residual temperature differences after correction are shown in figures
1.8.2.0 through 1.8.2.8.

  Figure 1.8.2.0 SBE35RT-T1 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

     Figure 1.8.2.1 Deep SBE35RT-T1 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

  Figure 1.8.2.2 SBE35RT-T2 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

     Figure 1.8.2.3 Deep SBE35RT-T2 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

     Figure 1.8.2.4 T1-T2 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

       Figure 1.8.2.5 Deep T1-T2 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

  Figure 1.8.2.6 SBE35RT-T1 by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

  Figure 1.8.2.7 SBE35RT-T2 by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

    Figure 1.8.2.8 T1-T2 by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).


The 95% confidence limits for the mean low-gradient differences are
+/-0.00845 deg.C for SBE35RT-T2 and +/-0.00441 deg.C for T1-T2.  The 95%
confidence limit for deep temperature residuals (where pressure > 2000db)




                            -16-

is +/-0.00102 deg.C for SBE35RT-T2 and +/-0.00072 deg.C for T1-T2.

1.8.3.  CTD Conductivity

The same SBE4C primary (C1/04-3369) and secondary (C2/04-3399) conductivity
sensors were used during all CLIVAR A22 casts.  Secondary sensor data were
used to report final CTD data because of apparent flow-obstruction issues
in the primary pump system in the top 30 dbar of most of the first 10
stations, and because a single secondary temperature sensor was used
through-out the cruise.

Calibration coefficients derived from the pre-cruise calibrations were
applied to convert raw frequencies to conductivity. Shipboard conductivity
corrections, determined during the cruise, were applied to primary and
secondary conductivity data for each cast.

Corrections for both CTD temperature sensors were finalized before
analyzing conductivity differences.  Two independent metrics of calibration
accuracy were examined. At each bottle closure, the primary and secondary
conductivity were compared with each other. Each sensor was also compared
to conductivity calculated from check sample salinities using CTD pressure
and temperature.

Stations 10, 24-27, 36, 39, 54, 57-58, and 73-81 were omitted from final
conductivity fits due to various anomalies in bottle salinities, mostly
attributable to standard dial changes and/or Autosal issues during this
leg.

The differences between primary and secondary temperature sensors were used
as filtering criteria for all conductivity fits to reduce the contamination
of conductivity comparisons by package wake.  The coherence of this
relationship is shown in figure 1.8.3.0.

Figure 1.8.3.0 Coherence of conductivity differences as a function of
                         temperature differences.


Uncorrected conductivity comparisons are shown in figures 1.8.3.1 through
1.8.3.3.

Figure 1.8.3.1 Uncorrected CBottle-C1 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.8.3.2 Uncorrected CBottle-C2 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.8.3.3 Uncorrected C1-C2 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).


Offsets for each C sensor were evaluated for drift with time using
CBottle-CCTD differences from a deeper, limited pressure range (2000-3000
dbars).  C1 offsets had a steady, slow shift with time; the total C1 drift
from stations 1-81 was -0.0008 mS/cm.  C2 displayed no significant drift
with time; the offset calculated using stations 1-38 held through the rest
of the leg.

After conductivity offsets were applied to all casts, response to pressure
was examined for each conductivity sensor.  The pressure response was
essentially linear for C1, requiring a -0.0005 mS/cm correction at the
deepest pressures during the cruise.  No pressure dependence was evident
for C2 differences.

CBottle-CCTD differences were then evaluated for response to temperature
and/or conductivity, which typically shifts between pre- and post-cruise
SBE laboratory calibrations.  A comparison of the residual C1 differences
showed an additional small conductivity-dependent slope was required.  This
correction lowered near-surface values by about -0.00056 mS/cm compared to
the deepest data.  C2 showed a strong first-order dependence on
conductivity.  Shallow C2 data were +0.00625 mS/cm compared to deep C2
data, so a conductivity-dependent slope was applied to correct the
difference.

Deep Theta-S overlays showed that deep CTD data overlaid well for the data
reported.  The residual conductivity differences after correction are shown
in figures 1.8.3.4 through 1.8.3.15.





                            -17-

Figure 1.8.3.4 Corrected CBottle-C1 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.8.3.5 Deep Corrected CBottle-C1 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

Figure 1.8.3.6 Corrected CBottle-C2 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.8.3.7 Deep Corrected CBottle-C2 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

Figure 1.8.3.8 Corrected C1-C2 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

  Figure 1.8.3.9 Deep Corrected C1-C2 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

Figure 1.8.3.10 Corrected CBottle-C1 by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.8.3.11 Corrected CBottle-C2 by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.8.3.12 Corrected C1-C2 by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.8.3.13 Corrected CBottle-C1 by conductivity (-0.01
                        deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.8.3.14 Corrected CBottle-C2 by conductivity (-0.01
                        deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.8.3.15 Corrected C1-C2 by conductivity (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

The final corrections for the secondary sensors used on CLIVAR A22 are
summarized in Appendix A.  Corrections made to C2 conductivity sensor had
the form:

                             C2cor=C2+c1C2+c0

Salinity residuals after applying shipboard P/T/C corrections are
summarized in figures 1.8.3.16 through 1.8.3.18.  Only CTD and bottle
salinity data with "acceptable" quality codes are included in the
differences.
Figure 1.8.3.16 Salinity residuals by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.8.3.17 Salinity residuals by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.8.3.18 Deep Salinity residuals by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

Figures 1.8.3.17 and 1.8.3.18 represent estimates of the salinity accuracy
of CLIVAR A22.  The 95% confidence limits are +/-0.01309 PSU relative to
bottle salinities for all salinities, and +/-0.00184 PSU relative to bottle
salinities for deep salinities, where T1-T2 is within +/-0.01 deg.C.

1.8.4.  CTD Dissolved Oxygen

A single SBE43 dissolved O2 sensor (DO/43-0614) was used during CLIVAR A22.
The sensor was plumbed into the primary T1/C1 pump circuit after C1.  The
O2 sensor was shifted to the secondary pump circuit before station 57,
during the long run around Puerto Rico, after it was decided to use the
secondary TC sensors for all reported data.

The DO sensor was calibrated to dissolved O2 bottle samples taken at bottle
stops by matching the down cast CTD data to the up cast trip locations on
isopycnal surfaces, then calculating CTD dissolved O2 using a DO sensor
response model and minimizing the residual differences from the bottle
samples. A non-linear least-squares fitting procedure was used to minimize
the residuals and to determine sensor model coefficients, and was
accomplished in three stages.

The time constants for the lagged terms in the model were first determined
for the sensor.  These time constants are sensor-specific but applicable to
an entire cruise.  Next, casts were fit individually to bottle sample data.
Consecutive casts were compared on plots of Theta vs O2 to verify
consistency.

At the end of the cruise, standard and blank values for bottle oxygen data
were smoothed, and the bottle oxygen values were recalculated.  The changes
to bottle oxygen values were less than 0.01 ml/l for most stations before
station 45, then as much as 0.017 ml/l for stations 62-68.  CTD O2 data
were re-calibrated to the smoothed bottle values after the leg.




                            -18-

Final CTD dissolved O2 residuals are shown in figures 1.8.4.0-1.8.4.2.

 Figure 1.8.4.0 O2 residuals by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

 Figure 1.8.4.1 O2 residuals by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

    Figure 1.8.4.2 Deep O2 residuals by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

The standard deviations of 2.155 umol/kg for all oxygens and 0.439 umol/kg
for deep oxygens are only presented as general indicators of goodness of
fit.  SIO/STS makes no claims regarding the precision or accuracy of CTD
dissolved O2 data.

The general form of the SIO/STS DO sensor response model equation for Clark
cells follows Brown and Morrison [Brow78], Millard [Mill82] and Owens &
Millard  [Owen85].  SIO/STS models DO sensor responses with lagged CTD
data.  In situ pressure and temperature are filtered to match the sensor
responses. Time constants for the pressure response (Taup), a slow (TauTf)
and fast (TauTs) thermal response, package velocity (TaudP), thermal
diffusion (TaudT) and pressure hysteresis (Tauh) are fitting parameters.
Once determined for a given sensor, these time constants typically remain
constant for a cruise.  The thermal diffusion term is derived by low-pass
filtering the difference between the fast response (Ts) and slow response
(Tl) temperatures. This term is intended to correct non-linearities in
sensor response introduced by inappropriate analog thermal compensation.
Package velocity is approximated by low-pass filtering 1st-order pressure
differences, and is intended to correct flow-dependent response.  Dissolved
O2 concentration is then calculated:

     O2ml/l=[C1*VDO*e**(C2*Ph/5000)+C3]*fsat(T,P)*e**(C4*Tl+C5*Ts+C7*Pl+C6*dOc/dt+C8*dP/dt+C9*dT)(1.8.4.0)

where:

O2ml/l      Dissolved O2 concentration in ml/l;
VDO         Raw sensor output;
C1          Sensor slope
C2          Hysteresis response coefficient
C3          Sensor offset
fsat(T,P)   O2 saturation at T,P (ml/l);
T           in situ temperature (deg.C);
P           in situ pressure (decibars);
Ph          Low-pass filtered hysteresis pressure (decibars);
Tl          Long-response low-pass filtered temperature (deg.C);
Ts          Short-response low-pass filtered temperature (deg.C);
Pl          Low-pass filtered pressure (decibars);
dOc/dt      Sensor current gradient (uamps/sec);
dP/dt       Filtered package velocity (db/sec);
dT          low-pass filtered thermal diffusion estimate (Ts - Tl).
C4-C9       Response coefficients.


CTD O2ml/l data are converted to umol/kg units on demand.


























                            -19-

1.9.  Bottle Sampling

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


     o   CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, SF6 and CCl4
     o   3He
     o   Dissolved O2
     o   Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC)
     o   pH
     o   Total Alkalinity
     o   13C- and 14C-DIC
     o   Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN)
     o   Tritium
     o   Nutrients
     o   14C-DOC
     o   14C-Black Carbon
     o   Salinity
     o   Millero Density



The correspondence between individual sample containers and the rosette
bottle position (1-36) from which the sample was drawn was recorded on the
sample log for the cast.  This log also included any comments or anomalous
conditions noted about the rosette and bottles.  One member of the sampling
team was designated the sample cop, whose sole responsibility was to
maintain this log and insure that sampling progressed in the proper drawing
order.

Normal sampling practice included opening the drain valve and then the air
vent on the bottle, indicating an air leak if water escaped.  This
observation together with other diagnostic comments (e.g., "lanyard caught
in lid", "valve left open") that might later prove useful in determining
sample integrity were routinely noted on the sample log.  Drawing oxygen
samples also involved taking the sample draw temperature from the bottle.
The temperature was noted on the sample log and was sometimes useful in
determining leaking or mis-tripped bottles.

Once individual samples had been drawn and properly prepared, they were
distributed for analysis.  Oxygen, nutrient and salinity analyses were
performed on computer-assisted (PC) analytical equipment networked to the
data processing computer for centralized data management.

1.10.  Bottle Data Processing

Water samples collected and properties analyzed shipboard were centrally
managed in a relational database (PostgreSQL 8.1.23) running on a Linux
system. A web service (OpenACS 5.5.0 and AOLServer 4.5.1) front-end
provided ship-wide access to CTD and water sample data.  Web-based
facilities included on-demand arbitrary property-property plots and
vertical sections as well as data uploads and downloads.

The sample log (and any diagnostic comments) was entered into the database
once sampling was completed.  Quality flags associated with sampled
properties were set to indicate that the property had been sampled, and
sample container identifications were noted where applicable (e.g., oxygen
flask number).

Analytical results were provided on a regular basis by the various
analytical groups and incorporated into the database. These results
included a quality code associated with each measured value and followed
the coding scheme developed for the World Ocean Circulation Experiment
Hydrographic Programme (WHP) [Joyc94].













                            -20-

Table 1.10.0 shows the number of samples drawn and the number of times each
WHP sample quality flag was assigned for each basic hydrographic property:


+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                 Rosette Samples Stations      1-    81                  |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|              Reported                  WHP Quality Codes                |
|              levels       1        2     3      4      5     7       9  |
+------------++----------+------------------------------------------------+
| Bottle     ||  2651    |  0     2641     5      0      0     0       5  |
| CTD Salt   ||  2651    |  0     2651     0      0      0     0       0  |
| CTD Oxy    ||  2607    |  0     2543    16     48     19     0      25  |
| Salinity   ||  2607    |  0     2543    16     48     19     0      25  |
| Oxygen     ||  2640    |  0     2582    44     14      0     0      11  |
| Silicate   ||  2636    |  0     2586    18     32      9     0       6  |
| Nitrate    ||  2644    |  0     2638     2      4      0     0       7  |
| Nitrite    ||  2644    |  0     2639     1      4      0     0       7  |
| Phosphate  ||  2644    |  0     2639     1      4      0     0       7  |
+------------++----------+------------------------------------------------+
          Table 1.10.0 Frequency of WHP quality flag assignments.


Additionally, data investigation comments are presented in Appendix C.

Various consistency checks and detailed examination of the data continued
throughout the cruise.  Chief Scientist, Ruth Curry, reviewed the data and
compared it with historical data sets.

1.11.  Salinity Analysis

Equipment and Techniques

Two salinometers were used at different intervals for this cruise.  One
Guildline Autosal 8400B salinometer (S/N 65-740) and one 8400A (S/N 57-525)
located in RV Atlantis's Hydro Lab were used for all salinity measurements.
Both salinometers utilize National Instruments interface to decode Autosal
data and communicate with windows based acquisition PC.

Samples were analyzed after they had equilibrated to laboratory
temperature, usually within 4-18 hours after collection.  The salinometers
were standardized for each group of analysis (usually 1-2 casts, up to ~36
samples) using at least two fresh vials of standard seawater per group.

Salinometer measurements were aided by a computer using LabVIEW software
developed by SIO/STS.  A minor change to assist data processing was made
during the expedition and LVASAL V1.33a was installed on the backup
acquisition computer and brought online.  The software maintained an
Autosal log of each salinometer run which included salinometer settings and
air and bath temperatures.  The air temperature was displayed and monitored
via digital thermometer.  The program guided the operator through the
standardization procedure and making sample measurements.  The analyst was
prompted to change samples and flush the cells between readings.

Standardization procedures included flushing the cell at least 2 times with
a fresh vial of Standard Seawater (SSW), setting the flow rate to a low
value during the last fill, and monitoring the STD dial setting.  If the
STD dial changed by 10 units or more since the last salinometer run (or
during standardization), another vial of SSW was opened and the
standardization procedure repeated to verify the setting.

Samples were run using 2 flushes before the final fill. The computer
determined the stability of a measurement and prompted for additional
readings if there appeared to be drift. The operator could annotate the
salinometer log, and would routinely add comments about cracked sample
bottles, loose thimbles, salt crystals or anything unusual in the amount of
sample in the bottle.

A system of fans were used to expedite equilibrating salinity samples.
Cases of samples were placed on a frame with a fan attached to help bring
them to room temperature.  They were then removed and set on a shelf near
the Autosal for storage for further equilibration.  The next or current
case to be run sat to the left of the Autosal, next to the standard
seawater.  The amount of time each case spent at each location varied




                            -21-

depending on sample temperature and rate of analysis by the operator.


Sampling and Data Processing

A total of 2366 salinity samples were measurements were made.  Autosal
65-740 was used for 463 samples and 1903 were analyzed on Autosal 57-525.
140 vials of standard seawater (IAPSO SSW) were used.

Salinity samples were drawn into 200 ml Kimax high-alumina borosilicate
bottles, which were rinsed three times with the sample prior to filling.
The bottles were sealed with custom-made plastic insert thimbles and kept
closed with Nalgene screw caps.  This assembly provides very low container
dissolution and sample evaporation.  Prior to sample collection, inserts
were inspected for proper fit and loose inserts replaced to insure an
airtight seal.  The equilibration times were logged for all casts.  The
samples were measured with an external thermometer by placing the probe
against the salinity bottle for 2-3 minutes. When the temperature was close
to the bath temperature, 1-2 degrees the samples for the cast were
analyzed.  Laboratory temperatures were logged at the beginning and end of
each run.

PSS-78 salinity [UNES81] was calculated for each sample from the measured
conductivity ratios.  The difference between the initial vial of standard
water and the next one run as an unknown was applied as a linear function
of elapsed run time to the measured ratios.  The corrected salinity data
were then incorporated into the cruise database.

Data processing included double checking that the station, sample and box
number had been correctly assigned, and reviewing the data and log files
for operator comments. Discrete salinity data was compared to CTD
salinities and were used for shipboard sensor calibration.


Laboratory Temperature

The salinometer water bath temperature was maintained slightly higher than
ambient laboratory air temperature at 24 deg.C.  The ambient air
temperature varied from 21 to 24 deg.C during the cruise.


Standards

IAPSO Standard Seawater Batches P-153 was used to standardize all stations.


Analytical Problems

Lack of stability of the Autosals required switching units while repairs
were made.  Table 1.11.0 tabulates the Stations which the units were
employed.

                      +-----------------------------+
                      |Stations   Guildline Autosal |
                      +-----------------------------+
                      |1-10a                 65-740 |
                      |10b-26                57-525 |
                      |27                    65-740 |
                      |28-41                 57-525 |
                      |42-48a                65-740 |
                      |48b-76                57-525 |
                      |77-81                 65-740 |
                      +-----------------------------+
                  Table 1.11.0 Autosal station reference

During analysis for station 6 cast 1, the check-heater light appeared solid
for salinometer 65-740.  Observation showed the forward heater lamp had
burned out.  Analysis was completed by running all samples slowly. Heat
lamp was replaced after analysis was completed.

During analysis for station 9 cast 1 sample 1, 65-740 showed a decreasing
trend. This was true for the following 5 samples.  It appeared bath water
was weeping into the cell at the upper arm end. Sample 6 also had a
decreasing trend of the same magnitude.  The run was aborted run without an




                            -22-

ending SSW sample after six samples.  The Autosal was removed from service
until closer diagnosis of the problem and repairs could be made.

The WHOI spare Autosal number 10 (57-525) was set up.  This is an
unmodified Guildline 8400A with separate pumps.  Autosal 57-525 pumps did
not work upon start-up.  On inspection it was found one pump turned very
slowly, the second pump did not turning at all.  Belts were loose to the
point of falling off, bushings were frozen with congealed oil, leather
washers were dry, and the flapper check valves were stuck shut.  Suction
filters were in good condition. As one pump had failed, the "flush" air
line had been removed and the sample fill air line attached with only the
marginally working pump.  Both leather washers were cleaned and oiled, both
flapper valves were blown out both flapper valves, cleaned pump bodies,
removed and cleaned brass bushings, cleaned and descaled drive wheel axles,
reassembled pumps, oiled bushings, installed pumps in housings and adjusted
belt tension to normal fit. Pumps were back to near original
specifications. Prior to analysis salinometer was checked with a stable
temperature of 23.97.

Prior to analysis of station 27, unit 57-525 was replaced with 65-740.
During analysis of sample 4 a decreasing trend was noticed with each
measurement, this continued to sample 9.  It appeared bath water was
weeping into the cell at the upper arm end.  The analysis was discontinued
and 57-525 was once again employed.

Station 42 unit 65-740 was put back into service.  After sample 2 on
station 48 large step decreasing trends noted, 57-525 was put back into
service.

Prior to station 74 cell coils looked dull and coated. IAPSO Standard
readings were 40 units high. The cell was cleaned after the run was
completed. Analysis of station 75 appeared to return standard normalized
readings. After station 76 IAPSO standard readings had dropped by 10 units
once again. Further analysis revealed a definite unstable data trend for
stations 74-76.


Results

The estimated accuracy of bottle salinities run at sea is usually better
than +/-0.002 PSU relative to the particular standard seawater batch used.

1.12.  Oxygen Analysis

Equipment and Techniques

Dissolved oxygen analyses were performed with an SIO/ODF-designed automated
oxygen titrator using photometric end-point detection based on the
absorption of 365nm wavelength ultra-violet light.  The titration of the
samples and the data logging were controlled by ODF PC software compiled in
LabView.  Thiosulfate was dispensed by a Titronic 110 Plus buret driver
fitted with a 1.0 mL buret which was eventually changed to the Brickman
Dosimat 765.  The ODF method used a whole-bottle modified-Winkler titration
following the technique of Carpenter [Carp65] with modifications by
Culberson et al. [Culb91], but with higher concentrations of potassium
iodate standard (~0.012N) and thiosulfate solution (~55 gm/l).  Standard
KIO3 solutions prepared ashore were run daily (approximately every 2-4
stations), unless changes were made to the system or reagents.
Reagent/distilled water blanks were also determined daily, or more often if
a change in reagents required it to account for presence of oxidizing or
reducing agents.

Sampling and Data Processing

2645 samples were analyzed on A22. Samples were collected for dissolved
oxygen analyses soon after the rosette was brought on board.  Six different
cases of 24 flasks each were rotated by station to minimize any potential
flask calibration issues.  Using a silicone drawing tube, nominal 125ml
volume-calibrated iodine flasks were rinsed 3 times with minimal agitation,
then filled and allowed to overflow for at least 3 flask volumes.  The
sample drawing temperatures were measured with an electronic resistance
temperature detector (OmegaTM HH370 RTD) embedded in the drawing tube.
These temperatures were used to calculate umol/kg concentrations, and as a
diagnostic check of bottle integrity.  Reagents (MnCl2 then NaI/NaOH) were




                            -23-

added to fix the oxygen before stoppering.  The flasks were shaken to
assure thorough dispersion of the precipitate, once immediately after
drawing, and then again after about 20 minutes. A water seal was applied to
the rim of each bottle in between shakes.

The samples were analyzed within 1-2 hours of collection, and the data
incorporated into the cruise database.

Thiosulfate normalities were calculated from each standardization and
corrected to 20 deg.C.  The thiosulfate normalities and blanks were
monitored for possible drifting or possible problems when new reagents were
used.  An average blank and thiosulfate normality were used to recalculate
oxygen concentrations.  The thiosulfate was changed between stations 31 and
32.  The first set of averages were performed on Stations 1 through and
including Station 32.  The second set was done on Stations 32 through 71.
The third set was from Stations 72 to 81 since the burette was changed.
The difference between the original and "smoothed" data averaged 0.0%-0.1%
over the course of the cruise.

Bottle oxygen data was reviewed ensuring proper station, cast, bottle
number, flask, and draw temperature were entered properly.  Comments made
during analysis were reviewed. All anomalous actions were investigated and
resolved.  If an incorrect end point was encountered, the analyst re-
examined raw data and the program recalculated a correct end point.

After the data was uploaded to the database, bottle oxygen was graphically
compared with CTD oxygen and adjoining stations.  Any points that appeared
erroneous were reviewed and comments made regarding the final outcome of
the investigation.  These investigations and final data coding are reported
in Appendix C.

Volumetric Calibration

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

Standards

Liquid potassium iodate standards were prepared and tested in 6 liter
batches and bottled in sterile glass bottles at ODF's chemistry laboratory
prior to the expedition.  The normality of the liquid standard was
determined by calculation from weight of powder temperature of solution and
flask volume at 70 deg.C.  The standard was supplied by Alfa Aesar (lot
B05N35) and has a reported purity of 99.4-100.4%.  All other reagents were
"reagent grade" and were tested for levels of oxidizing and reducing
impurities prior to use.

Analytical Problems

A Schott Titronic 110 autoburet was used for the first 71 stations of A22.
Towards the beginning of the expedition, the autotitration software would
occasionally stall, causing the loss of a sample. The frequency of these
stalls increased with time, until the third week when it was decided to
return to the traditional Dosimat 765 unit.  After the switch, no further
errors of this kind occurred.

1.13.  Nutrient Analysis

Summary of Analysis

2644 samples from 81 CTD stations.

The cruise started with new pump tubes; they were changed once after
station 39. Three sets of Primary/Secondary standards were made up over the
course of the cruise. The cadmium column efficiency was checked
periodically and ranged between 98%-100%.








                            -24-

Equipment and Techniques

Nutrient analyses (phosphate, silicate, nitrate plus nitrite, and nitrite)
were performed on a Seal Analytical continuous-flow AutoAnalyzer 3 (AA3).
After each run, the charts were reviewed for any problems and final
concentrations (in uM or micromoles per liter) were calculated using SEAL
Analytical AACE 6.07 software.

The analytical methods used are described by Gordon et al. [Gord92], Hager
et al. [Hage68] and Atlas et al. [Atla71].  The details of modification of
analytical methods used for this cruise are also compatible with the
methods described in the nutrient section of the GO-SHIP repeat hydrography
manual  [Hyde10].


Nitrate/Nitrite Analysis

A modification of the Armstrong et al. [Arms67] procedure was used for the
analysis of nitrate and nitrite. For nitrate analysis, a seawater sample
was passed through a cadmium column where the nitrate was reduced to
nitrite.  This nitrite was then diazotized with sulfanilamide and coupled
with N-(1-naphthyl)-ethylenediamine to form a red dye.  The sample was then
passed through a 10mm flowcell and absorbance measured at 540nm. The
procedure was the same for the nitrite analysis but without the cadmium
column.

REAGENTS

Sulfanilamide

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

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

N-(1-Naphthyl)-ethylenediamine dihydrochloride (N-1-N)

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

Imidazole Buffer

Dissolve 13.6g imidazole in ~3.8 liters DIW.  Stir for at least 30 minutes
to completely dissolve. Add 60 ml of CuSO4 + NH4Cl mix (see below). Add 4
drops 40% Surfynol 465/485 surfactant. Let sit overnight before proceeding.
Using a calibrated pH meter, adjust to pH of 7.83-7.85 with 10% (1.2N) HCl
(about 20-30 ml of acid, depending on exact strength).  Bring final
solution to 4L with DIW.  Store at room temperature.

NH4Cl + CuSO4 mix

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


Phosphate Analysis

Ortho-Phosphate was analysed using a modification of the Bernhardt and
Wilhelms [Bern67] method. Acidified ammonium molybdate was added to a
seawater sample to produce phosphomolybdic acid, which was then reduced to
phosphomolybdous acid (a blue compound) following the addition of
dihydrazine sulfate.  The sample was passed through a 10mm flowcell and
absorbance measured at 820nm.












                            -25-

REAGENTS

Ammonium Molybdate

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

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

Dihydrazine Sulfate

Dissolve 6.4g dihydrazine sulfate in DIW, bring to 1 liter volume and
refrigerate.

Silicate Analysis

Silicate was analyzed using the technique of Armstrong et al. [Arms67].
Acidified ammonium molybdate was added to a seawater sample to produce
silicomolybdic acid which was then reduced to silicomolybdous acid (a blue
compound) following the addition of stannous chloride.  The sample was
passed through a 10mm flowcell and measured at 660nm.

REAGENTS

Tartaric Acid

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

Ammonium Molybdate

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

Stannous Chloride stock (as needed)

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

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

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


Sampling

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


Data collection and processing

Data collection and processing was done with the software (ACCE ver 6.07)
provided with the instrument from Seal Analytical.  After each run, the
charts were reviewed for any problems during the run, any blank was
subtracted, and final concentrations (uM) were calculated, based on a
linear curve fit.  Once the run was reviewed and concentrations calculated
a text file was created.  That text file was reviewed for possible problems
and then converted to another text file with only sample identifiers and
nutrient concentrations that was merged with other bottle data.





                            -26-

Standards and Glassware calibration

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

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

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

Standards used for the analysis were a combination of reference materials
for nutrients in seawater (RMNS) and a dilution of the secondary standard.
The RMNS preparation, verification, and suggested protocol for use of the
material are described by Aoyama et al. [Aoya06] [Aoya07] [Aoya08] and Sato
et al. [Sato10].

RMNS batches BS, BU, BT, and BD were used on this cruise.  The high working
standard was made up using the in house secondary standard and low nutrient
seawater (LNSW).  Surface water having low nutrient concentration was taken
and filtered using 0.45 micrometer pore size membrane filter. This water
was stored in 20 liter cubitainer within a cardboard box. The
concentrations of nutrient of this water were measured carefully in Jul
2008.  Standardizations were performed at the beginning of each group of
samples.  Two different batches of LNSW were used on the cruise.  The first
was used for stations 1-56 and a different batch of LNSW was used for
stations 58-81.  The concentration of the high working standard changed
slightly with the new batch of LNSW.


              Std.    N+N     PO4    SiO3    NO2
              ------------------------------------------------
               BS    0.10    0.065   1.69    0.03
               BU    4.13    0.387   21.21   0.07
               BT    19.10   1.35    42.83   0.48
               BD    30.59   2.244   67.27   0.05
              Std5   46.54   3.650   91.64   1.51   sta 1-56
              Std5   46.54   3.645   91.66   1.51   sta 57-81

   Table 1.13.0 CLIVAR A22 Concentration of RMNS and high standard (uM)

Quality Control

All data were reported in uM (micromoles/liter). NO3, PO4, and NO2 were
reported to two decimal places and SiO3 to one. Accuracy is based on the
quality of the standards; the levels were:


                         Parameter   Accuracy (uM)
                         --------------------------
                            NO3          0.05
                            PO4          0.02
                           SiO3           2-4
                            NO2          0.05

                 Table 1.13.1 CLIVAR A22 Nutrient Accuracy

Precision numbers for the instrument were the same for NO3 and PO4 and a
little better for SiO3 and NO2 (1 and 0.01 respectively).









                            -27-

The detection limits for the methods/instrumentation were:


                     Parameter   Detection Limits (uM)
                     ----------------------------------
                      NO3+NO2            0.02
                        PO4              0.02
                       SiO3               0.5
                        NO2              0.02

             Table 1.13.2 CLIVAR A22 Nutrient Detection Limits

As is standard ODF practice, a deep calibration check sample was run with
each set of samples and the data are tabulated below.


                      Parameter   Concentration (uM)
                      -------------------------------
                         NO3        17.20 +/- 0.04
                         PO4        1.17 +/- 0.009
                        SiO3        18.57 +/- 0.15

             Table 1.13.3 CLIVAR A22 RMNS cruise-averaged data

Analytical Problems

There were no major analytical problems.  The calibration fits for all the
nutrients were adjusted after noticing an offset in phosphate data between
the 2003 and 2012 A22 occupations.

















































                            -28-

References

Aoya06.
     Aoyama, M., "Intercomparison Exercise for Reference Material for
     Nutrients in Seawater in a Seawater Matrix," Technical Reports of the
     Meteorological Research Institute No.50, p. 91, Tsukuba, Japan.
     (2006a).

Aoya08.
     Aoyama, M., Barwell-Clark, J., Becker, S., Blum, M., Braga, E.S.,
     Coverly, S.C., Czobik, E., Dahllof, I., Dai, M.H., Donnell, G.O.,
     Engelke, C., Gong, G.C., Hong, Gi-Hoon, Hydes, D. J., Jin, M. M.,
     Kasai, H., Kerouel, R., Kiyomono, Y., Knockaert, M., Kress, N.,
     Krogslund, K. A., Kumagai, M., Leterme, S., Li, Yarong, Masuda, S.,
     Miyao, T., Moutin, T., Murata, A., Nagai, N., Nausch, G., Ngirchechol,
     M. K., Nybakk, A., Ogawa, H., Ooijen, J. van, Ota, H., Pan, J. M.,
     Payne, C., Pierre-Duplessix, O., Pujo-Pay, M., Raabe, T., Saito, K.,
     Sato, K., Schmidt, C., Schuett, M., Shammon, T. M., Sun, J., Tanhua,
     T., White, L., Woodward, E.M.S., Worsfold, P., Yeats, P., Yoshimura,
     T., A.Youenou, and Zhang, J. Z., "2006 Intercomparison Exercise for
     Reference Material for Nutrients in Seawater in a Seawater Matrix,"
     Technical Reports of the Meteorological Research Institute No. 58, p.
     104pp (2008).

Aoya07.
     Aoyama, M., Susan, B., Minhan, D., Hideshi, D., Louis, I. G., Kasai,
     H., Roger, K., Nurit, K., Doug, M., Murata, A., Nagai, N., Ogawa, H.,
     Ota, H., Saito, H., Saito, K., Shimizu, T., Takano, H., Tsuda, A.,
     Yokouchi, K., and Agnes, Y., "Recent Comparability of Oceanographic
     Nutrients Data: Results of a 2003 Intercomparison Exercise Using
     Reference Materials.," Analytical Sciences, 23: 115, pp. 1-1154
     (2007).

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

Atla71.
     Atlas, E. L., Hager, S. W., Gordon, L. I., and Park, P. K., "A
     Practical Manual for Use of the Technicon AutoAnalyzer(R) in Seawater
     Nutrient Analyses Revised," Technical Report 215, Reference 71-22, p.
     49, Oregon State University, Department of Oceanography (1971).

Bern67.
     Bernhardt, H. and Wilhelms, A., "The continuous determination of low
     level iron, soluble phosphate and total phosphate with the
     AutoAnalyzer," Technicon Symposia, I, pp. 385-389 (1967).

Brow78.
     Brown, N. L. and Morrison, G. K., "WHOI/Brown conductivity,
     temperature and depth microprofiler," Technical Report No. 78-23,
     Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (1978).

Carp65.
     Carpenter, J. H., "The Chesapeake Bay Institute technique for the
     Winkler dissolved oxygen method," Limnology and Oceanography, 10, pp.
     141-143 (1965).

Culb91.
     Culberson, C. H., Knapp, G., Stalcup, M., Williams, R. T., and
     Zemlyak, F., "A comparison of methods for the determination of
     dissolved oxygen in seawater," Report WHPO 91-2, WOCE Hydrographic
     Programme Office (Aug 1991).

Gord92.
     Gordon, L. I., Jennings, J. C., Jr., Ross, A. A., and Krest, J. M., "A
     suggested Protocol for Continuous Flow Automated Analysis of Seawater
     Nutrients in the WOCE Hydrographic Program and the Joint Global Ocean
     Fluxes Study," Grp. Tech Rpt 92-1, OSU College of Oceanography Descr.
     Chem Oc. (1992).






                            -29-

Hage68.
     Hager, S. W., Gordon, L. I., and Park, P. K., "A Practical Manual for
     Use of the Technicon AutoAnalyzer(R) in Seawater Nutrient Analyses.,"
     Final report to Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Contract
     14-17-0001-1759., p. 31pp, Oregon State University, Department of
     Oceanography, Reference No. 68-33. (1968).

Hyde10.
     Hydes, D. J., Aoyama, M., Aminot, A., Bakker, K., Becker, S., Coverly,
     S., Daniel, A., Dickson, A. G., Grosso, O., Kerouel, R., Ooijen, J.
     van, Sato, K., Tanhua, T., Woodward, E. M. S., and Zhang, J. Z.,
     "Determination of Dissolved Nutrients (N, P, Si) in Seawater with High
     Precision and Inter-Comparability Using Gas-Segmented Continuous Flow
     Analysers" in GO-SHIP Repeat Hydrography Manual: A Collection of
     Expert Reports and Guidelines. IOCCP Report No. 14, ICPO Publication
     Series No 134 (2010a).

Joyc94.
     Joyce, T., ed. and Corry, C., ed., "Requirements for WOCE Hydrographic
     Programme Data Reporting," Report WHPO 90-1, WOCE Report No. 67/91,
     pp. 52-55, WOCE Hydrographic Programme Office, Woods Hole, MA, USA
     (May 1994, Rev. 2). UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT.

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

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

Sato10.
     Sato, K., Aoyama, M., and Becker, S., "RMNS as Calibration Standard
     Solution to Keep Comparability for Several Cruises in the World Ocean
     in 2000s.," Aoyama, M., Dickson, A.G., Hydes, D.J., Murata, A., Oh,
     J.R., Roose, P., Woodward, E.M.S., (Eds.) Comparability of nutrients
     in the world's ocean., pp. 43-56, Tsukuba, JAPAN: MOTHER TANK (2010b).

UNES81.
     UNESCO, "Background papers and supporting data on the Practical
     Salinity Scale, 1978," UNESCO Technical Papers in Marine Science, No.
     37, p. 144 (1981).



































                            -30-

                                Appendix A

     CLIVAR A22:  CTD Temperature and Conductivity Corrections Summary

            ITS-90 Temperature Coefficients  Conductivity Coefficients
     Sta/        corT = tp1*corP + t0            corC = c1*C + c0
     Cast         tp1              t0             c1            c0

    001/02     3.1700e-08       -0.001096    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    002/02     3.1700e-08       -0.001013    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    003/01     3.1700e-08       -0.001000    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    004/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000988    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    005/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000971    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    006/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000951    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    007/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000932    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    008/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000909    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    009/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000884    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    010/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000848    -2.08476e-04    0.008115

    011/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000817    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    012/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000786    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    013/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000755    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    014/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000724    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    015/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000698    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    016/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000670    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    017/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000601    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    018/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000565    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    019/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000534    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    020/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000504    -2.08476e-04    0.008115

    021/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000474    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    022/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000443    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    023/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000412    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    024/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000381    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    025/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000353    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    026/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000327    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    027/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000290    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    028/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000259    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    029/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000224    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    030/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000189    -2.08476e-04    0.008115

    031/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000155    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    032/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000120    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    033/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000084    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    034/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000047    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    035/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000012    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    036/01     3.1700e-08        0.000030    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    037/01     3.1700e-08        0.000064    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    038/01     3.1700e-08        0.000100    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    039/01     3.1700e-08        0.000136    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    040/01     3.1700e-08        0.000172    -2.08476e-04    0.008115

    041/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000186    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    042/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000147    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    043/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000110    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    044/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000078    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    045/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000046    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    046/01     3.1700e-08       -0.000017    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    047/01     3.1700e-08        0.000013    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    048/01     3.1700e-08        0.000044    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    049/01     3.1700e-08        0.000069    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    050/01     3.1700e-08        0.000090    -2.08476e-04    0.008115

    051/01     3.1700e-08        0.000112    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    052/01     3.1700e-08        0.000129    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    053/01     3.1700e-08        0.000144    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    054/01     3.1700e-08        0.000157    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    055/01     3.1700e-08        0.000167    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    056/01     3.1700e-08        0.000203    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    057/01     3.1700e-08        0.000241    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    058/01     3.1700e-08        0.000250    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    059/01     3.1700e-08        0.000260    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    060/01     3.1700e-08        0.000273    -2.08476e-04    0.008115





                            -31-

            ITS-90 Temperature Coefficients  Conductivity Coefficients
     Sta/        corT = tp1*corP + t0            corC = c1*C + c0
     Cast         tp1              t0             c1            c0

    061/01     3.1700e-08        0.000288    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    062/01     3.1700e-08        0.000306    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    063/01     3.1700e-08        0.000326    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    064/01     3.1700e-08        0.000357    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    065/01     3.1700e-08        0.000392    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    066/01     3.1700e-08        0.000429    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    067/01     3.1700e-08        0.000464    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    068/01     3.1700e-08        0.000499    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    069/01     3.1700e-08        0.000499    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    070/01     3.1700e-08        0.000499    -2.08476e-04    0.008115

    071/01     3.1700e-08        0.000499    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    072/01     3.1700e-08        0.000499    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    073/01     3.1700e-08        0.000499    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    074/01     3.1700e-08        0.000499    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    075/01     3.1700e-08        0.000499    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    076/01     3.1700e-08        0.000499    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    077/01     3.1700e-08        0.000499    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    078/01     3.1700e-08        0.000499    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    079/01     3.1700e-08        0.000499    -2.08476e-04    0.008115
    080/01     3.1700e-08        0.000499    -2.08476e-04    0.008115

    081/01     3.1700e-08        0.000499    -2.08476e-04    0.008115



















































                            -32-

                                Appendix B

              Summary of CLIVAR A22 CTD Oxygen Time Constants
                        (time constants in seconds)

+------------------+----------------------------+-----------------+-------------+----------+-------------------+
|    Pressure      |        Temperature         |    Pressure     | O2 Gradient | Velocity |     Thermal       |
|Hysteresis (Tauh) | Long(TauTl) | Short(TauTs) | Gradient (Taup) |   (Tauog)   | (TaudP)  | Diffusion (TaudT) |
+------------------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-------------+----------+-------------------+
|      50.0        |    300.0    |     4.0      |      0.50       |    8.00     |  200.00  |       300.0       |
+------------------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-------------+----------+-------------------+


        CLIVAR A22: Conversion Equation Coefficients for CTD Oxygen
                        (refer to Equation 1.8.4.0)

 Sta/    OcSlope    Offset   Phcoeff   Tlcoeff     Tscoeff     Plcoeff    dOc/dtcoeff  dP/dtcoeff   TdTcoeff
 Cast      (c1)      (c3)     (c2)       (c4)        (c5)        (c6)        (c7)         (c8)        (c9)

001/02   6.642e-04  -0.2448  -1.8400   5.212e-03  -1.762e-02  -1.158e-01   2.820e-03   -1.158e-01   1.047e-02
002/02   8.034e-04  -0.2422   3.4168  -2.263e-02  -8.080e-03   5.536e-02   1.441e-03    5.536e-02   1.397e-03
003/01   3.949e-04  -0.1604  -1.8875   2.991e-02   2.541e-03  -6.785e-02   2.586e-03   -6.785e-02  -2.328e-02
004/01   5.376e-04  -0.2191  -1.5090   1.622e-02  -1.032e-02  -4.067e-02   2.237e-03   -4.067e-02   3.515e-03
005/01   5.393e-04  -0.1994  -0.4073   1.593e-04   6.479e-03  -4.905e-03   2.795e-03   -4.905e-03  -1.132e-02
006/01   6.519e-04  -0.3291   1.6563   1.327e-02  -1.407e-02   1.844e-02  -4.520e-03    1.844e-02   1.340e-02
007/01   5.248e-04  -0.2377   3.8916   6.541e-03   5.073e-03   4.057e-02   1.320e-03    4.057e-02  -3.110e-03
008/01   6.446e-04  -0.2931   1.0297   1.327e-02  -1.743e-02   1.098e-02   6.621e-03    1.098e-02   8.420e-03
009/01   5.588e-04  -0.1983  -0.3408  -1.518e-02   1.798e-02  -1.283e-02  -6.638e-03   -1.283e-02  -1.676e-02
010/01   5.845e-04  -0.2076   0.5549  -6.587e-03   4.644e-03   2.543e-02   3.553e-03    2.543e-02   9.715e-04

011/01   5.734e-04  -0.1791  -0.1288  -2.393e-03  -2.075e-03   1.520e-04  -1.386e-03    1.520e-04  -4.564e-04
012/01   5.984e-04  -0.2469  -0.0528   1.525e-03  -6.083e-04  -6.380e-03  -4.691e-04   -6.380e-03   8.138e-04
013/01   5.865e-04  -0.2248  -0.0457  -7.871e-03   8.581e-03  -2.517e-03  -3.120e-04   -2.517e-03  -2.960e-03
014/01   5.631e-04  -0.2037  -0.2142  -7.642e-03   9.523e-03  -1.584e-02  -2.872e-03   -1.584e-02  -8.374e-03
015/01   5.676e-04  -0.2153  -0.1645  -3.316e-03   5.425e-03  -9.933e-03   4.065e-03   -9.933e-03  -4.889e-03
016/01   5.753e-04  -0.2345  -0.1532  -1.186e-03   3.113e-03  -1.103e-02   2.152e-03   -1.103e-02  -6.391e-03
017/01   5.815e-04  -0.2281  -0.0968  -4.255e-03   5.356e-03  -4.662e-03  -2.187e-03   -4.662e-03  -6.545e-03
018/01   5.843e-04  -0.2205  -0.1057   1.405e-03  -7.194e-04  -1.412e-02  -3.364e-03   -1.412e-02   5.856e-04
019/01   5.457e-04  -0.1785  -0.2546  -6.330e-03   8.641e-03  -1.583e-02   4.282e-04   -1.583e-02  -8.594e-03
020/01   5.841e-04  -0.2195  -0.1071   4.616e-04   5.877e-04  -7.168e-03   6.206e-03   -7.168e-03  -1.066e-04

021/01   5.604e-04  -0.1856  -0.2060  -2.592e-03   4.290e-03  -1.985e-02   1.776e-03   -1.985e-02  -4.818e-03
022/01   6.073e-04  -0.2593  -0.0210   3.002e-03  -3.049e-03  -1.270e-03   4.588e-04   -1.270e-03   1.229e-03
023/01   6.215e-04  -0.2836  -0.0326   7.060e-03  -6.814e-03  -1.541e-02  -4.079e-03   -1.541e-02   2.437e-03
024/01   5.770e-04  -0.2176  -0.1686  -1.668e-03   2.988e-03  -2.267e-02   5.513e-03   -2.267e-02  -5.717e-03
025/01   5.995e-04  -0.2387  -0.1036   4.072e-03  -4.162e-03  -1.395e-02   1.192e-03   -1.395e-02   2.164e-03
026/01   6.046e-04  -0.2528  -0.0754   5.358e-03  -5.103e-03  -7.404e-03   2.883e-03   -7.404e-03   3.209e-03
027/01   7.448e-04  -0.4388   0.6982   1.890e-02  -2.361e-02   5.354e-03  -3.894e-04    5.354e-03   1.539e-02
028/01   5.677e-04  -0.2120  -0.1722  -1.503e-03   3.311e-03  -1.179e-02   1.426e-03   -1.179e-02  -3.391e-03
029/01   5.803e-04  -0.2425  -0.1292   2.050e-03  -4.132e-04  -1.491e-02  -8.356e-04   -1.491e-02  -5.977e-03
030/01   5.790e-04  -0.2253  -0.1518  -1.671e-03   2.996e-03  -1.481e-02   8.281e-04   -1.481e-02  -3.489e-03

031/01   5.161e-04  -0.1043  -0.4482  -2.108e-02   2.385e-02  -1.855e-02   6.077e-04   -1.855e-02  -1.242e-02
032/01   6.241e-04  -0.2818  -0.0215   6.568e-03  -6.971e-03  -1.197e-02  -1.732e-03   -1.197e-02   1.837e-03
033/01   5.700e-04  -0.2094  -0.1466  -7.423e-03   9.500e-03  -7.522e-03   7.109e-03   -7.522e-03  -9.432e-03
034/01   6.097e-04  -0.2565  -0.0709   1.158e-03  -9.006e-04  -1.927e-02  -9.041e-04   -1.927e-02  -2.041e-03
035/01   5.940e-04  -0.2351  -0.0751   4.665e-04  -1.972e-04  -5.268e-03  -1.624e-05   -5.268e-03  -2.183e-04
036/01   6.050e-04  -0.2455  -0.0591  -2.220e-03   2.438e-03  -7.737e-03   2.220e-03   -7.737e-03  -1.476e-03
037/01   5.960e-04  -0.2318  -0.0711  -3.046e-03   3.290e-03  -9.082e-03  -1.217e-03   -9.082e-03  -2.500e-03
038/01   5.894e-04  -0.2241  -0.0754  -1.777e-03   2.270e-03  -6.374e-03   6.591e-03   -6.374e-03  -1.441e-03
039/01   5.799e-04  -0.2081  -0.1270  -1.023e-02   1.121e-02  -1.349e-02   7.165e-04   -1.349e-02  -1.155e-02
040/01   5.972e-04  -0.2230  -0.0880  -4.873e-03   4.842e-03  -1.164e-02   9.243e-04   -1.164e-02  -1.216e-03

041/01   6.030e-04  -0.2379  -0.0669  -4.746e-04   4.783e-04  -1.339e-02   1.707e-03   -1.339e-02  -8.161e-04
042/01   5.988e-04  -0.2409  -0.1065   8.253e-04  -4.436e-04  -1.524e-02   7.536e-04   -1.524e-02  -1.602e-03
043/01   6.131e-04  -0.2506  -0.0471   4.173e-03  -4.365e-03  -1.225e-02  -2.409e-03   -1.225e-02   5.186e-03
044/01   5.962e-04  -0.2377  -0.0611  -6.919e-03   7.333e-03  -9.207e-03  -4.140e-03   -9.207e-03  -6.448e-03
045/01   6.123e-04  -0.2453  -0.0607  -4.663e-04  -1.141e-04  -1.575e-02   4.695e-03   -1.575e-02  -2.767e-04
046/01   6.053e-04  -0.2309  -0.0370  -4.987e-03   4.674e-03  -8.153e-03  -1.251e-03   -8.153e-03  -9.248e-04
047/01   5.988e-04  -0.2351  -0.0640  -3.572e-04   2.408e-04  -6.832e-03   7.362e-05   -6.832e-03   3.573e-04
048/01   6.091e-04  -0.2391  -0.0242   5.777e-04  -1.264e-03   2.028e-03   2.624e-03    2.028e-03   4.997e-03
049/01   5.424e-04  -0.2024  -0.4397  -3.916e-03   7.303e-03  -2.151e-02  -2.002e-03   -2.151e-02  -1.090e-02
050/01   5.874e-04  -0.2264  -0.1444  -1.848e-03   2.539e-03  -4.929e-03  -1.007e-04   -4.929e-03  -2.246e-03





                            -33-

 Sta/    OcSlope    Offset   Phcoeff   Tlcoeff     Tscoeff     Plcoeff    dOc/dtcoeff  dP/dtcoeff   TdTcoeff
 Cast      (c1)      (c3)     (c2)       (c4)        (c5)        (c6)        (c7)         (c8)        (c9)

051/01   6.462e-04  -0.2894   0.4984  -1.469e-03   9.369e-05   7.334e-03   1.600e-05    7.334e-03  -4.420e-04
052/01   6.800e-04  -0.3162   1.0582   1.457e-03  -4.476e-03   1.028e-02   1.667e-03    1.028e-02   6.645e-03
053/01   6.172e-04  -0.3436   1.8013   4.988e-03  -2.265e-03   1.749e-02  -1.912e-04    1.749e-02  -4.357e-03
054/01   1.305e-03  -0.4242   0.6181  -1.905e-02  -1.131e-02   6.616e-02  -2.247e-03    6.616e-02   3.074e-02
055/01   4.768e-04  -0.1485  -1.2900   1.536e-03   5.287e-03  -4.643e-03  -1.450e-03   -4.643e-03  -2.402e-02
056/01   5.799e-04  -0.2016  -0.1106  -6.575e-03   7.012e-03  -5.650e-03   1.007e-03   -5.650e-03  -1.974e-03
057/01   4.446e-04  -0.0131  -2.7392  -4.282e-04   4.742e-03  -1.629e-02   1.302e-03   -1.629e-02  -2.815e-02
058/01   7.042e-04  -0.3953   1.9412   7.506e-03  -8.839e-03  -2.302e-02   1.392e-03   -2.302e-02  -8.596e-03
059/01   5.512e-04  -0.2265  -0.9362  -3.414e-03   7.440e-03  -6.389e-02   2.321e-03   -6.389e-02  -2.136e-02
060/01   7.470e-04  -0.3079   0.8010  -2.767e-04  -6.971e-03   2.378e-02   3.557e-03    2.378e-02   1.862e-02

061/01   6.403e-04  -0.2491   0.4444  -3.321e-03   1.166e-03   2.814e-03   1.601e-03    2.814e-03   5.290e-03
062/01   6.235e-04  -0.2744   1.1414  -1.780e-03   1.723e-03   1.897e-02   9.954e-04    1.897e-02  -1.302e-03
063/01   5.853e-04  -0.2416  -0.1827  -1.843e-03   3.831e-03  -1.386e-02   4.120e-03   -1.386e-02  -7.807e-03
064/01   5.737e-04  -0.1959  -0.0676  -6.374e-03   7.405e-03   6.091e-04   2.042e-03    6.091e-04  -1.524e-03
065/01   5.653e-04  -0.1960  -0.2058  -1.113e-02   1.308e-02  -1.371e-02  -6.072e-03   -1.371e-02  -1.001e-02
066/01   6.058e-04  -0.2414  -0.0153  -1.531e-04   3.664e-04   8.264e-04  -3.663e-04    8.264e-04   1.631e-03
067/01   6.003e-04  -0.2258  -0.0573  -1.284e-03   1.872e-03  -5.803e-03  -2.041e-03   -5.803e-03   2.618e-03
068/01   5.872e-04  -0.2298  -0.1921  -3.329e-03   4.343e-03  -1.128e-02  -2.297e-03   -1.128e-02  -3.229e-03
069/01   5.762e-04  -0.2080  -0.1232  -4.788e-03   6.109e-03  -2.954e-03   3.963e-03   -2.954e-03  -2.886e-03
070/01   5.980e-04  -0.2392  -0.0428  -2.163e-03   2.697e-03   4.681e-03   2.904e-03    4.681e-03  -2.398e-03

071/01   5.920e-04  -0.2296  -0.1134  -1.788e-03   2.429e-03  -7.441e-03   1.078e-03   -7.441e-03  -7.572e-04
072/01   5.858e-04  -0.2115  -0.0055  -4.615e-03   4.854e-03  -1.945e-03  -5.246e-03   -1.945e-03   8.465e-04
073/01   5.749e-04  -0.2188  -0.2200  -9.460e-03   1.123e-02  -1.228e-02  -4.721e-03   -1.228e-02  -1.143e-02
074/01   6.480e-04  -0.3024   1.2051   6.478e-03  -7.307e-03   1.817e-02   4.208e-03    1.817e-02   7.035e-03
075/01   6.422e-04  -0.3034   1.3200   4.102e-03  -4.214e-03   2.150e-02   3.701e-03    2.150e-02   2.501e-03
076/01   6.552e-04  -0.2975   0.4556  -4.107e-04  -8.647e-04   4.916e-03   3.520e-03    4.916e-03  -8.091e-04
077/01   6.471e-04  -0.2848   1.0507   2.420e-03  -3.838e-03   2.505e-02   3.758e-03    2.505e-02   7.071e-03
078/01   5.871e-04  -0.2207  -1.0264  -8.897e-03   1.001e-02  -4.135e-02  -3.298e-03   -4.135e-02  -1.079e-02
079/01   5.925e-04  -0.2134  -1.0264  -1.328e-02   1.369e-02   9.146e-03  -1.661e-03    9.146e-03  -9.215e-03
080/01   5.455e-04  -0.2131   0.8037   1.695e-03   2.624e-03  -1.996e-02   3.612e-04   -1.996e-02  -7.834e-03

081/01   2.886e-04  -0.1221   3.3148   2.545e-02   3.888e-03  -1.845e-01   2.998e-03   -1.845e-01  -4.318e-03









































                            -34-

                                Appendix C


                   CLIVAR A22:  Bottle Quality Comments



Comments from the Sample Logs and the results of STS/ODF's data
investigations are included in this report.  Units stated in these comments
are degrees Celsius for temperature, Unless otherwise noted, milliliters
per liter for oxygen and micromoles per liter for Silicate, Nitrate,
Nitrite, and Phosphate.  The sample number is the cast number times 100
plus the bottle number.  Investigation of data may include comparison of
bottle salinity and oxygen data with CTD data, review of data plots of the
station profile and adjoining stations, and re-reading of charts (i.e.
nutrients).



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|1/2    201   bottle    2  Cast 1 was aborted during equilibration         |
|                          process. Dummy plug was left off the bottom     |
|                          contact switch port resulting in an deck unit   |
|                          alarm.                                          |
|1/2    202   o2        2  Saw bubble in flask before re-shaking. Oxygen   |
|                          as well as salinity and nutrients are           |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|1/2    204   o2        2  Left thio tip out, acid left in sample longer   |
|                          than normal while restarting run. Oxygen is a   |
|                          little low. Oxygen as well as salinity and      |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|1/2    208   o2        2  Oxygen sample was run before any chemicals were |
|                          added. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients |
|                          are acceptable.                                 |
|2/2    201   bottle    2  Cast 1 was aborted at ~270m, winch problem.     |
|2/2    204   salt      2  Decreasing trend in salinity measurement,       |
|                          probable contamination. Salinity is slightly    |
|                          low, within accuracy of the measurement.        |
|                          Salinity as will as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|2/2    212   o2        5  Oxygen sample was lost during analysis.         |
|2/2    213   reft      3  SBE35RT, CTDT1, CTDT2 all disagree; very        |
|                          unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient. Code    |
|                          questionable.                                   |
|2/2    217   po4       2  Appears the nutrients were mis-drawn from 16.   |
|                          Data are acceptable, leave as is. Subsequent    |
|                          stations show a feature. Analyst: Could be mis- |
|                          drawn, no problem with the run or peaks.        |
|2/2    219   reft      3  SBE35RT +0.07/+0.10 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very        |
|                          unstable SBE35RT reading. Code questionable.    |
|3/1    101   o2        2  Oxygen run stopped and then restarted, did not  |
|                          affect the sample.                              |
|3/1    114   reft      3  SBE35RT, CTDT1, CTDT2 all disagree; very        |
|                          unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient. Code    |
|                          questionable.                                   |
|3/1    116   o2        2  Oxygen run stopped and then restarted, did not  |
|                          affect the sample.                              |
|3/1    116   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|3/1    120   bottle    9  Bottle was knocked open on recovery, drained    |
|                          before sampling, no water for sampling.         |
|3/1    120   reft      3  SBE35RT -0.02/-0.06 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very        |
|                          unstable SBE35RT reading. Code questionable.    |
|3/1    122   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations at the surface.  |
|                          3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Bottle  |
|                          salinity as well as the oxygen and nutrients    |
|                          are acceptable.                                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+





                            -35-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|4/1    104   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|4/1    107   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First   |
|                          reading was more appropriate, corrected data    |
|                          file. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients  |
|                          are acceptable.                                 |
|4/1    113   reft      3  SBE35RT -0.02/-0.025 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; unstable   |
|                          SBE35RT reading. Code questionable.             |
|4/1    119   reft      3  SBE35RT, CTDT1, CTDT2 all disagree; very        |
|                          unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient. Code    |
|                          questionable.                                   |
|4/1    120   salt      2  Extra salinity sample in position 36, it        |
|                          appears to have been drawn from bottle 20,      |
|                          corrected the raw data file. Data are           |
|                          acceptable.  4 attempts for a good salinity     |
|                          reading. Salinity as well as oxygen and         |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|4/1    125   po4       2  Appears the nutrients were mis-drawn from 26,   |
|                          PO4 0.1 high and SiO3 1.0 high, do not see this |
|                          in NO3 or salinity and oxygen. This feature is  |
|                          seen in subsequent stations. Data are           |
|                          acceptable. Analyst: Peaks look good.           |
|5/1    102   salt      2  4 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Thimble partially came out with cap. Possible   |
|                          contamination. Salinity is within specification |
|                          and is acceptable as well as oxygen and         |
|                          nutrients.                                      |
|5/1    108   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations.  4 attempts for a good      |
|                          salinity reading.  Thimble partially came out   |
|                          with cap. Possible contamination. Additional    |
|                          reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity |
|                          as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. |
|5/1    109   bottle    2  CFC sampler reported that vent not closed,      |
|                          small leak when spigot opened. CFC did not      |
|                          sample. Oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.    |
|5/1    116   salt      2  4 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|5/1    118   bottle    9  O-ring cap leak, bottom end cap askew. No       |
|                          samples were taken.                             |
|5/1    121   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional readings resolved salinity           |
|                          discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and     |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|5/1    123   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|5/1    128   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD agrees |
|                          as surface sample with adjoining stations.      |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|5/1    130   po4       2  PO4 appears high, feature also seen in NO3 and  |
|                          O2, SiO3 does not show this. Trend seen in      |
|                          subsequent stations heading toward the Gulf     |
|                          Stream. Analyst: Data are acceptable.           |
|5/1    131   o2        3  Noisy oxygen endpoint fixed.  Measurement still |
|                          appears questionable.                           |
|5/1    131   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD agrees |
|                          as surface sample with adjoining stations.      |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|6/1    115   o2        5  Oxygen appears to have been mis-drawn sample    |
|                          15-18. 15 appears to have been drawn from 16,   |
|                          16 from 17, 17 from 18 and 18 a duplicate with  |
|                          19. Switched these levels. Code oxygen as lost. |
|6/1    116   no2       9                                                  |
|6/1    116   no3       9                                                  |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+




                            -36-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|6/1    116   o2        2  Oxygen appears to have been mis-drawn sample    |
|                          15-18. 15 appears to have been drawn from 16,   |
|                          16 from 17, 17 from 18 and 18 a duplicate with  |
|                          19. Switched these levels.                      |
|6/1    116   po4       9  Nutrient tube was found empty, must have been a |
|                          sampling error.                                 |
|6/1    116   sio3      9                                                  |
|6/1    117   o2        2  Oxygen appears to have been mis-drawn sample    |
|                          15-18. 15 appears to have been drawn from 16,   |
|                          16 from 17, 17 from 18 and 18 a duplicate with  |
|                          19. Switched these levels.                      |
|6/1    118   bottle    3  Leaking from bottom end cap when top vent is    |
|                          opened, same as last station. O-ring changed    |
|                          out.                                            |
|6/1    118   no2       9                                                  |
|6/1    118   no3       9                                                  |
|6/1    118   o2        4  Oxygen appears to have been drawn from bottle   |
|                          19. Sampler indicates there may have been a     |
|                          sampling error, appears bottle 15 was drawn     |
|                          from 16, 16 from 17, 17 from 18 and 18 was      |
|                          drawn from 19. Will leave the recorded value    |
|                          for 19 as is. Code Oxygen bad, salinity and     |
|                          nutrients not drawn.                            |
|6/1    118   po4       9  Nutrients were not drawn, bottle ran out of     |
|                          water.                                          |
|6/1    118   salt      9  Salinity was not drawn, bottle ran out of       |
|                          water.                                          |
|6/1    118   sio3      9                                                  |
|6/1    121   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|6/1    124   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Check   |
|                          heater light signal came on; forward bulb       |
|                          burned out. Heater continues to cycle, on duty  |
|                          is approximately 90%. Salinity as well as       |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|6/1    126   reft      3  SBE35RT -0.03/-0.065 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very       |
|                          unstable SBE35RT reading. Code questionable.    |
|6/1    127   reft      3  SBE35RT -0.02/-0.06 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very        |
|                          unstable SBE35RT reading. Code questionable.    |
|7/1    102   bottle    2  Salinity and nutrient samples taken, water used |
|                          for nutrient checks.                            |
|7/1    115   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|7/1    132   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD agrees |
|                          with adjoining stations for a shallow profile.  |
|                          There is fluctuation in the CTD profile at the  |
|                          bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and     |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|7/1    134   o2        5  Error during analysis, O2 sample lost.          |
|7/1    134   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD agrees |
|                          with adjoining stations for a shallow profile.  |
|                          There is fluctuation in the CTD profile at the  |
|                          bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and     |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|7/1    135   bottle    2  Leaking at bottom, reported by DIC sampler.     |
|                          Oxygen as a surface sample is acceptable as     |
|                          well as salinity and nutrients.                 |
|8/1    101   bottle    2  Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20,   |
|                          winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for  |
|                          19.                                             |
|8/1    102   bottle    2  Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20,   |
|                          winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for  |
|                          19.                                             |
|8/1    103   bottle    2  Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20,   |
|                          winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for  |
|                          19.                                             |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+





                            -37-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|8/1    104   bottle    2  Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20,   |
|                          winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for  |
|                          19.                                             |
|8/1    105   bottle    2  Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20,   |
|                          winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for  |
|                          19.                                             |
|8/1    106   bottle    2  Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20,   |
|                          winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for  |
|                          19.                                             |
|8/1    107   bottle    2  Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20,   |
|                          winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for  |
|                          19.                                             |
|8/1    108   bottle    2  Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20,   |
|                          winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for  |
|                          19.                                             |
|8/1    109   bottle    2  Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20,   |
|                          winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for  |
|                          19.                                             |
|8/1    110   bottle    2  Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20,   |
|                          winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for  |
|                          19.                                             |
|8/1    111   bottle    2  Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20,   |
|                          winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for  |
|                          19.                                             |
|8/1    112   bottle    2  Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20,   |
|                          winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for  |
|                          19.                                             |
|8/1    113   bottle    2  Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20,   |
|                          winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for  |
|                          19.                                             |
|8/1    114   bottle    2  Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20,   |
|                          winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for  |
|                          19.                                             |
|8/1    115   bottle    2  Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20,   |
|                          winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for  |
|                          19.                                             |
|8/1    116   bottle    2  Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20,   |
|                          winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for  |
|                          19.                                             |
|8/1    117   bottle    2  Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20,   |
|                          winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for  |
|                          19.                                             |
|8/1    118   bottle    2  Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20,   |
|                          winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for  |
|                          19.                                             |
|8/1    119   bottle    3  Bottle appears to have leaked, caused by        |
|                          lowering of the package. PO4 low, NO2 low, SiO3 |
|                          does agree with adjoining stations, O2 is high. |
|8/1    119   no2       4                                                  |
|8/1    119   no3       4                                                  |
|8/1    119   o2        4  O2 high, ~0.2 ml/l. No analytical problems      |
|                          noted, the bottle leaked. Code oxygen bad.      |
|8/1    119   po4       4                                                  |
|8/1    119   salt      4  Salinity low compared with adjoining stations.  |
|8/1    119   sio3      4                                                  |
|8/1    120   bottle    2  Package lowered 60m after tripping bottle 20,   |
|                          winch problems. Bottles appear okay except for  |
|                          19.                                             |
|8/1    124   reft      3  SBE35RT +0.04/+0.025 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very       |
|                          unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient.  Code   |
|                          questionable.                                   |
|8/1    128   reft      3  SBE35RT -0.045 vs CTDT; in a gradient. Code     |
|                          questionable.                                   |
|8/1    131   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. No analytical problems      |
|                          noted, sample was run very quickly. Could have  |
|                          been mis-drawn from 33. Code salinity bad,      |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+





                            -38-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|8/1    135   bottle    2  Leak from bottom, bottom o-ring missing,        |
|                          replaced after sampling. Salinity, oxygen and   |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|9/1    127   salt      5  Salinity sample bottle was empty. Code salinity |
|                          lost, sampler error.                            |
|9/1    134   reft      3  SBE35RT -0.05 vs CTDT; very unstable SBE35RT    |
|                          reading. Code questionable.                     |
|9/1    134   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity thimble came off with cap. Salinity is |
|                          a little high compared with CTD changing area,  |
|                          acceptable as shallow sample with adjoining     |
|                          station. Salinity as well as oxygen and         |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|10/1   104   salt      2  4 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|10/1   105   salt      2  4 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|10/1   106   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  4 attempts for a good      |
|                          salinity reading. Additional readings did not   |
|                          resolve salinity discrepancy. Code salinity     |
|                          bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.       |
|                          Backup salinometer was employed after this      |
|                          sample.                                         |
|10/1   108   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|10/1   109   bottle    2  Could only rinse salinity bottle once, low on   |
|                          water. Minimal sampling on this bottle.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|10/1   110   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|10/1   120   salt      2  Salinity bottle has a broken lip, bottle        |
|                          retired after analysis performed. Salinity as   |
|                          well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.    |
|10/1   129   reft      3  SBE35RT -0.035/-0.04 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; unstable   |
|                          SBE35RT reading. Code questionable.             |
|10/1   130   reft      3  SBE35RT -0.03/-0.05 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; unstable    |
|                          SBE35RT reading. Code questionable.             |
|10/1   131   reft      3  SBE35RT -0.08/-0.07 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; unstable    |
|                          SBE35RT reading. Code questionable.             |
|10/1   132   salt      2  4 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|10/1   134   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations. Variation at trip in CTD,   |
|                          salinity agrees with shallow region adjoining   |
|                          stations.  Salinity as well as oxygen and       |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|10/1   135   o2        2  Oxygen endpoint not believable.  Measurement    |
|                          likely bad. Compared with adjoining stations    |
|                          and CTD, oxygen is acceptable.                  |
|11/1   105   salt      5  Salinity bottles are full after station 15.     |
|                          Salinometer had a problem and the spare was not |
|                          equilibrated to complete the analysis and free  |
|                          bottles. Bottles 5, 9 and 15 were requested to  |
|                          be pulled for subsequent station, 16, 11 was    |
|                          pulled instead of 15. Code salinity lost.       |
|11/1   109   salt      5  Code salinity lost, see bottle 5 explanation.   |
|11/1   110   salt      4  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations. Additional readings did not |
|                          resolve salinity discrepancy. If this were a    |
|                          mis-draw it would have to come from bottle 13.  |
|                          Code salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients are     |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+




                            -39-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|11/1   111   salt      5  Code salinity lost, see bottle 5 explanation.   |
|11/1   135   reft      3  SBE35RT -0.07 vs CTDT; unstable SBE35RT         |
|                          reading. Code questionable.                     |
|11/1   135   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|12/1   103   salt      5  Salinity bottles are full after station 15.     |
|                          Salinometer had a problem and the spare was not |
|                          equilibrated to complete the analysis and free  |
|                          bottles until Station 17. Bottles 5, 9 and 15   |
|                          were requested to be pulled for subsequent      |
|                          station, 16, 11 was pulled instead of 15. Code  |
|                          salinity lost.                                  |
|12/1   106   salt      4  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations.  3 attempts for a good      |
|                          salinity reading. Additional readings do not    |
|                          resolve salinity discrepancy, could be a mis-   |
|                          draw with 7. Code salinity bad, oxygen and      |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|12/1   107   salt      5  Code salinity lost, see bottle 3 explanation.   |
|12/1   110   salt      5  Code salinity lost, see bottle 3 explanation.   |
|12/1   132   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          acceptable for a shallow maximum sample with    |
|                          variation in the water column. Salinity as well |
|                          as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.         |
|12/1   134   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          acceptable for a shallow sample with variation  |
|                          in the water column. Salinity as well as oxygen |
|                          and nutrients are acceptable.                   |
|13/1   101   salt      2  Larger than normal drift, suspect and adjust    |
|                          the beginning bad SSW vial. Salinity agreement  |
|                          much better with adjoining stations and CTD,    |
|                          although there was a lot of noise in the run.   |
|13/1   104   salt      5  Salinity bottles are full after station 15.     |
|                          Salinometer had a problem and the spare was not |
|                          equilibrated to complete the analysis and free  |
|                          bottles. Bottles 5, 9 and 15 were requested to  |
|                          be pulled for subsequent station, 16, 11 was    |
|                          pulled instead of 15. Code salinity lost.       |
|13/1   106   salt      3  Salinity low compared with adjoining stations   |
|                          and CTD. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|13/1   108   salt      5  Code salinity lost, see bottle 4 explanation.   |
|13/1   110   salt      3  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Suspect Black Carbon        |
|                          sampling only left dregs. Code salinity         |
|                          questionable, oxygen and nutrients are          |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|13/1   111   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional readings resolved salinity           |
|                          discrepancy. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|13/1   112   salt      2  03 attempts for a good salinity reading.        |
|                          Additional readings did not resolved salinity   |
|                          discrepancy. Throughout the run there were      |
|                          noisy values, this is within measurement specs. |
|                          Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.  |
|13/1   113   salt      5  Code salinity lost, see bottle 4 explanation.   |
|13/1   119   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinity appears to have    |
|                          been mis-drawn from 18. Code salinity bad.      |
|13/1   121   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  3 attempts for a good      |
|                          salinity reading. Additional readings did not   |
|                          resolve salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well  |
|                          as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+







                            -40-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|13/1   125   salt      2  5 attempts for a good salinity reading. Erratic |
|                          readings, possible contamination. Additional    |
|                          readings did not resolve salinity discrepancy.  |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|13/1   128   reft      3  SBE35RT +0.035/+0.04 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; unstable   |
|                          SBE35RT reading in a gradient.  Code            |
|                          questionable.                                   |
|13/1   130   salt      2  5 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Erratic readings, possible contamination.       |
|                          Additional readings did not resolve salinity    |
|                          discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and     |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|13/1   131   reft      3  SBE35RT +0.06 vs CTDT; somewhat unstable        |
|                          SBE35RT reading. Code questionable.             |
|13/1   132   reft      3  SBE35RT -0.025/-0.03 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; unstable   |
|                          SBE35RT reading in a high gradient.  Code       |
|                          questionable.                                   |
|14/1   103   salt      5  Salinity bottles are full after station 15.     |
|                          Salinometer had a problem and the spare was not |
|                          equilibrated to complete the analysis and free  |
|                          bottles. Bottles 5, 9 and 15 were requested to  |
|                          be pulled for subsequent station, 16, 11 was    |
|                          pulled instead of 15. Code salinity lost.       |
|14/1   104   o2        3  Noisy endpoint for O2. May be slightly high,    |
|                          0.03, compared with CTD and adjoining stations. |
|                          Code O2 questionable, salinity and nutrients    |
|                          are acceptable.                                 |
|14/1   105   bottle    2  Feature seen in oxygen, higher, and the         |
|                          nutrients, lower, which is not seen in          |
|                          salinity. Data are acceptable.                  |
|14/1   109   salt      5  Code salinity lost, see bottle 3 explanation.   |
|14/1   110   ctds      2  CTDS feature is real, seen in TS and O2, for    |
|                          both primary and secondary sensors.  Code       |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|14/1   110   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD       |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations. Feature seen in |
|                          CTD that must not have been captured by the     |
|                          bottle. Salinity as well as oxygen and          |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|14/1   112   salt      5  Code salinity lost, see bottle 3 explanation.   |
|14/1   115   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  Sample very fresh, could   |
|                          have been sampled from another station, 1-11.   |
|                          Code salinity bad.                              |
|14/1   121   o2        4  Bad endpoint for O2 (None).  O2 is slightly     |
|                          high compared with CTD and adjoining station.   |
|                          Code O2 bad.                                    |
|14/1   128   o2        2  O2 program froze.  Restarted, no problem with   |
|                          the sample.                                     |
|14/1   132   reft      3  Somewhat unstable SBE35RT reading in gradient.  |
|                          Code questionable.                              |
|15/1   118   salt      4  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations. Thimble came with cap. Code |
|                          salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients are          |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|15/1   128   salt      5  Marked as sampled, salt bottle was empty. Code  |
|                          salinity lost.                                  |
|15/1   134   reft      3  SBE35RT +0.03/+0.025 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; somewhat   |
|                          unstable SBE35RT reading in a high gradient.    |
|                          Code questionable.                              |
|16/1   101   salt      2  Not all salinities were drawn on this station.  |
|                          Backup salinometer was brought into service and |
|                          needed to equilibrate before using, all         |
|                          salinity bottles were employed. Salinity bottle |
|                          were pulled from Stations 11, 12, 13 and 14 to  |
|                          provide salinity for levels sampled for carbon  |
|                          and some deep checks for CTD calibrations.      |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+





                            -41-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|16/1   110   o2        2  Accidentally added 2 stir bars during O2        |
|                          analysis, had to extract and rinse. Oxygen as   |
|                          well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable.  |
|16/1   134   bottle    2  Vent was open when started to sample. Oxygen as |
|                          well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable.  |
|16/1   135   bottle    2  Vent was open when started to sample. Oxygen as |
|                          well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable.  |
|16/1   136   bottle    2  Vent was open when started to sample. Oxygen as |
|                          well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable.  |
|17/1   105   salt      4  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations.  3 attempts for a good      |
|                          salinity reading. Additional readings did not   |
|                          resolve salinity discrepancy. Code salinity     |
|                          bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.       |
|18/1   111   reft      3  deep SBE35RT +0.003 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; unstable    |
|                          SBE35RT reading.  Code questionable.            |
|18/1   117   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good       |
|                          salinity reading. Thimble came out with cap,    |
|                          possible contamination. First reading resolved  |
|                          salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as       |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|18/1   134   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Thimble came out with cap, possible             |
|                          contamination. Salinity, gradient and within    |
|                          data specification, as well as oxygen and       |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|19/1   108   o2        2  Sample was over-titrated and back-titrated.     |
|                          This is the over-titrated run due to a very     |
|                          poor curve. Oxygen as well as salinity and      |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|19/1   116   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|19/1   121   reft      3  SBE35RT +0.065/+0.035 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; somewhat  |
|                          unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient.  Code   |
|                          questionable.                                   |
|20/1   114   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity is slightly high, additional readings  |
|                          do not resolve salinity discrepancy. Salinity   |
|                          as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. |
|20/1   116   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity is acceptable with two reading         |
|                          agreement. Salinity as well as oxygen and       |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|20/1   119   o2        2  O2 titration error. Oxygen agrees with          |
|                          adjoining station and reasonable in gradient.   |
|                          Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|20/1   131   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity is acceptable with two reading         |
|                          agreement. Salinity as well as oxygen and       |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|21/1   124   o2        2  Sample was over-titrated and back-titrated.     |
|                          Missed O2 Endpoint. Oxygen is acceptable.       |
|21/1   124   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          gradient area, acceptable agreement. Salinity   |
|                          as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable  |
|22/1   113   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble |
|                          came out with cap, possible contamination.      |
|                          Additional reading resolved salinity            |
|                          discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and     |
|                          nutrients.                                      |
|22/1   115   o2        2  Sample was over-titrated and back-titrated,     |
|                          original curve bad. This didn't look much       |
|                          better. Original titration fits the station     |
|                          profile, corrected the file. Oxygen as well as  |
|                          salinity and nutrients are acceptable.          |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+





                            -42-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|22/1   121   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinometer had a momentary freeze of           |
|                          temperature control circuit bath temperature    |
|                          went low on first reading. Salinity as well as  |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|22/1   122   reft      3  SBE35RT +0.05/+0.06 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; unstable    |
|                          SBE35RT reading.  Code questionable.            |
|22/1   122   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          gradient area. Salinity as well as oxygen and   |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|22/1   135   o2        2  Sample was over-titrated and back-titrated.     |
|                          Looks much better. Oxygen as well as salinity   |
|                          and nutrients are acceptable.                   |
|23/1   101   salt      2  Bubbles in rinse discharge. Autosal cell        |
|                          cleaned prior to use. Salinity for cast are     |
|                          slightly low, well within measurement           |
|                          specifications.                                 |
|23/1   110   o2        2  Dissolved sample sat for a while due to a       |
|                          needed computer reboot. Feature in O2 both      |
|                          bottle and CTD, same feature seen in salinity   |
|                          and nutrients.                                  |
|23/1   123   o2        2  Oxygen endpoint a bit high, agrees with         |
|                          adjoining stations.  Oxygen as well as salinity |
|                          and nutrients are acceptable.                   |
|24/1   107   o2        2  Program froze.  Restarted before titrating      |
|                          sample. Oxygen agrees with CTD and adjoining    |
|                          stations and is acceptable as are salinity and  |
|                          nutrients.                                      |
|24/1   121   reft      3  SBE35RT +0.025/+0.035 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very      |
|                          unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient.  Code   |
|                          questionable.                                   |
|24/1   127   o2        2  Noisy, bad O2 endpoint. Oxygen agrees with CTD  |
|                          and adjoining stations and is acceptable as are |
|                          salinity and nutrients.                         |
|25/1   122   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees as well in gradient area. Salinity,      |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|25/1   123   reft      3  SBE35RT -0.02/-0.035 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; somewhat   |
|                          unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient.  Code   |
|                          questionable.                                   |
|25/1   123   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          agrees as well in gradient area. Salinity,      |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|25/1   130   salt      2  Salinity computer shut off inexplicably. No     |
|                          other programs were running. No data transfer   |
|                          in progress. Unknown failure. Salinity as well  |
|                          as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.         |
|26/1   107   o2        5  Forgot to add acid. Oxygen sample lost.         |
|26/1   108   o2        2  Sample was over-titrated and back-titrated, did |
|                          over-titration after 0.139ml thio added to      |
|                          sample. system went into low o2 mode and was    |
|                          running too slowing. Oxygen is slightly low,    |
|                          will attempt to recalculate. O2 vs. SiO3        |
|                          relationship low. Code oxygen questionable,     |
|                          salinity and nutrients are acceptable.          |
|26/1   113   salt      5  Salinity error found empty before analysis,     |
|                          sampling error. Code salinity lost.             |
|26/1   124   o2        2  Ran as niskin flask 1328 & temp 6.5, actually   |
|                          flask 1687 & temp 16.4. O2 data files           |
|                          corrected, oxygen is acceptable. Oxygen as well |
|                          as salinity and nutrients are acceptable.       |
|27/1   101   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional readings resolved salinity           |
|                          discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and     |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|27/1   105   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity is within measurement specification    |
|                          and is acceptable as well as oxygen and         |
|                          nutrients.                                      |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+




                            -43-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|27/1   107   salt      2  4 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well |
|                          as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.         |
|27/1   108   salt      2  5 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity is acceptable with chosen readings.    |
|                          Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.  |
|27/1   112   salt      2  4 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional readings did not resolve salinity    |
|                          discrepancy. Salinity is within measurement     |
|                          specification and is acceptable as well as      |
|                          oxygen and nutrients.                           |
|27/1   125   o2        5  Software froze mid-titration.  O2 sample lost.  |
|27/1   135   o2        2  Oxygen flask 1544 broke, replaced with 1089.    |
|28/1   108   o2        2  Stopper from 1311.  O2 endpoint good but volume |
|                          questionable. Oxygen is acceptable.             |
|28/1   122   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD agrees |
|                          with adjoining gradient area stations with a    |
|                          strong difference between the down and up cast. |
|                          No analytical problems noted. Salinity as well  |
|                          as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.         |
|29/1   109   salt      2  Salinity bottle had no water in it when first   |
|                          sampled indicating it may have been a new       |
|                          bottle. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are      |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|29/1   113   reft      3  deep SBE35RT -0.007 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very        |
|                          unstable SBE35RT reading.  Code questionable.   |
|29/1   122   o2        2  Sample was over-titrated and back-titrated,     |
|                          similar curve as before. Oxygen is acceptable.  |
|                          Oxygen, salinity and nutrients are acceptable.  |
|29/1   122   reft      3  SBE35RT -0.75/-0.06 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very        |
|                          unstable SBE35RT reading. Code questionable.    |
|30/1   119   po4       2  PO4, NO3 and SiO3 appears high compared with    |
|                          adjoining stations. This is not seen in O2,     |
|                          salinity is slightly low. All within accuracy,  |
|                          nutrients as well as salinity and oxygen are    |
|                          acceptable.  Analyst: Run looks good.  Value    |
|                          seems ok on overlay plot with Stations 28-32.   |
|30/1   130   reft      2  Winch restarted a few seconds before SBE35RT    |
|                          reading done, value looks ok.                   |
|31/1   101   o2        3  Oxygen high compared with CTD and adjoining     |
|                          stations, samples 1-7. Analysts not certain     |
|                          what caused this, suspect sampling exposure to  |
|                          high winds with no protection. Code oxygen      |
|                          questionable, salinity and nutrients are        |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|31/1   102   o2        3  Oxygen high compared with CTD and adjoining     |
|                          stations, samples 1-7. Analysts not certain     |
|                          what caused this, suspect sampling exposure to  |
|                          high winds with no protection. Code oxygen      |
|                          questionable, salinity and nutrients are        |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|31/1   102   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble |
|                          came off with cap. Additional readings resolved |
|                          salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as       |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|31/1   103   o2        3  Oxygen high compared with CTD and adjoining     |
|                          stations, samples 1-7. Analysts not certain     |
|                          what caused this, suspect sampling exposure to  |
|                          high winds with no protection. Code oxygen      |
|                          questionable, salinity and nutrients are        |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|31/1   104   o2        5  System froze. O2 sample lost. Salinity and      |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|31/1   105   o2        3  Oxygen high compared with CTD and adjoining     |
|                          stations. Not certain what caused this however  |
|                          sampling was exposed to wind, suspect that is   |
|                          the cause of the high oxygen. Code oxygen       |
|                          questionable, salinity and nutrients are        |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+




                            -44-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|31/1   106   o2        3  Oxygen high compared with CTD and adjoining     |
|                          stations. Not certain what caused this however  |
|                          sampling was exposed to wind, suspect that is   |
|                          the cause of the high oxygen. Code oxygen       |
|                          questionable, salinity and nutrients are        |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|31/1   106   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble |
|                          came off with cap. Additional readings resolved |
|                          salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as       |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|31/1   107   o2        4  O2 value too high. Likely system/operator       |
|                          error. Salinity and nutrients are acceptable.   |
|31/1   112   o2        4  Overshot O2 endpoint. Code O2 bad. Salinity and |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|31/1   113   sio3      3  SiO3 appears low compared with adjoining        |
|                          stations, did not show in other properties.     |
|                          Analyst: SiO3 peak is low in the run, real but  |
|                          questionable data. Code SiO3 questionable,      |
|                          other nutrients, salinity and oxygen are        |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|31/1   118   o2        3  Oxygen high compared with CTD and adjoining     |
|                          stations. Not certain what caused this however  |
|                          sampling was exposed to wind, suspect that is   |
|                          the cause of the high oxygen. Code oxygen       |
|                          questionable, salinity and nutrients are        |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|31/1   127   o2        3  Oxygen high compared with CTD and adjoining     |
|                          stations. Not certain what caused this however  |
|                          sampling was exposed to wind, suspect that is   |
|                          the cause of the high oxygen. Code oxygen       |
|                          questionable, salinity and nutrients are        |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|31/1   135   o2        3  Oxygen high compared with CTD and adjoining     |
|                          stations. Not certain what caused the O2        |
|                          problems on this station, however, sampling was |
|                          exposed to wind, suspect that is the cause of   |
|                          the high oxygen. Code oxygen questionable. This |
|                          bottle was found to have a leaking/tripping     |
|                          problem on Station 33. The O2 draw temperature  |
|                          does not reflect that problem. Reviewed         |
|                          previous stations specifically for bottle 35    |
|                          and did not see a mis-tripping problem.         |
|32/1   124   reft      3  SBE35RT +0.035/+0.045 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; somewhat  |
|                          unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient.  Code   |
|                          questionable.                                   |
|32/1   125   o2        2  Oxygen may have lost thio, possibly bad. Oxygen |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations and is           |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|33/1   105   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Two     |
|                          good readings averaged properly. Salinity as    |
|                          well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.    |
|33/1   120   o2        2  Noisy endpoint. Oxygen as well as salinity and  |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|33/1   126   o2        2  Lost part of sample after adding reagent.       |
|                          Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|33/1   135   bottle    3  Oxygen draw temperature colder than adjoining   |
|                          bottles, could be a mis-trip. Nutrients are     |
|                          high, oxygen is low, bottle in fact tripped     |
|                          early. On Station 34, spring changed out. Code  |
|                          bottle 3, samples bad.  This bottle was found   |
|                          to have a leaking/tripping problem on Station   |
|                          33. The O2 draw temperature indicates the       |
|                          bottle tripped shallower.                       |
|33/1   135   no2       4                                                  |
|33/1   135   no3       4                                                  |
|33/1   135   o2        4                                                  |
|33/1   135   po4       4                                                  |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+





                            -45-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|33/1   135   salt      4  Salt bottle value low, niskin problem, code     |
|                          bad.                                            |
|33/1   135   sio3      4                                                  |
|34/1   126   bottle    9  Lanyard hooked on recovery-no water.            |
|34/1   135   bottle    3  O2 draw temperature indicates a problem with    |
|                          the bottle tripping. Interconnect lanyard not   |
|                          repaired properly from Station 6 and repaired   |
|                          after Station 7. Bottom cap started shutting    |
|                          prematurely, repaired after this cast.          |
|34/1   135   no2       4                                                  |
|34/1   135   no3       4                                                  |
|34/1   135   o2        4  Oxygen low, bottle problem. Code oxygen bad.    |
|34/1   135   po4       4  Nutrients high, bottle problem. Code PO4, NO3,  |
|                          NO2, SiO3 bad.                                  |
|34/1   135   salt      4  Salt bottle value low, niskin problem, code     |
|                          bad.                                            |
|34/1   135   sio3      4                                                  |
|35/1   101   bottle    2  Ship speed reduced to ~2kn for sampling.        |
|35/1   124   reft      3  SBE35RT +0.08/+0.10 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very        |
|                          unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient.  Code   |
|                          questionable.                                   |
|35/1   125   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          gradient area. Salinity as well as oxygen and   |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|35/1   134   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First   |
|                          reading resolved slight salinity discrepancy.   |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|36/1   118   o2        3  Same random slow titration problem, has not as  |
|                          yet affected the O2 sample. O2 low. Code O2     |
|                          questionable, salinity and nutrients are        |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|37/1   113   salt      5  Salinity sample lost, operator error, forgot to |
|                          take the reading after flushing.                |
|37/1   122   o2        4  Oxygen is high, suspect sampling error. Code O2 |
|                          bad.                                            |
|37/1   125   o2        2  Oxygen flask switched, Sample Log was followed  |
|                          during analysis and O2 is acceptable.           |
|38/1   103   bottle    2  Difficult to open spigot/nozzle, 3, 12, 16,     |
|                          23,26. Bottle maintenance prior to the next     |
|                          station, cleaning the pins.                     |
|39/1   105   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Readings resolved salinity discrepancy.         |
|                          Salinity is acceptable as well as oxygen and    |
|                          nutrients.                                      |
|39/1   106   salt      3  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations. No analytical problems      |
|                          noted. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and   |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|39/1   111   salt      3  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Thimble came off with cap. Salinity high        |
|                          compared with CTD and adjoining stations. There |
|                          is a feature in the nutrients, higher vs.       |
|                          adjoining stations, oxygen agrees with CTDO.    |
|40/1   106   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Readings produced a good salinity value.        |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|40/1   113   salt      5  Salinity sample lost, operator error, forgot to |
|                          take the reading after flushing.                |
|40/1   124   reft      3  SBE35RT +0.035/+0.045 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; somewhat  |
|                          unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient.  Code   |
|                          questionable.                                   |
|40/1   127   bottle    2  Spigot is difficult to open. After the cast,    |
|                          the pin was found bent, so it was replaced.     |
|40/1   134   reft      3  SBE35RT -0.03/-0.045 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; somewhat   |
|                          unstable SBE35RT reading.  Code questionable.   |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+






                            -46-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|40/1   135   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          gradient area. Salinity as well as oxygen and   |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|41/1   105   o2        4  Endpoint was overshot on first run,and          |
|                          accidentally hit "Finish Sample". Added         |
|                          standard & re-ran sample in "low o2" mode.      |
|                          Obtained good endpoint. O2 high, needs to be    |
|                          recalculated for back-titration. O2 slightly    |
|                          high could not save the sample. Code O2 bad.    |
|41/1   118   o2        2  Sample was over-titrated and back-titrated.     |
|                          Endpoint was overshot. Good endpoint achieved.  |
|                          Oxygen agrees with adjoining stations.          |
|41/1   124   bottle    9  Spigots/nozzle were hit during recovery, no     |
|                          water.                                          |
|41/1   126   bottle    9  Spigots/nozzle were hit during recovery, no     |
|                          water.                                          |
|41/1   136   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Readings chosen by the program are acceptable.  |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|42/1   104   salt      2  Salinity bottle thimble came off with cap.      |
|                          Salinity slightly low compared with CTD and     |
|                          adjoining stations. Within measurement          |
|                          specifications, salinity as well as oxygen and  |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|42/1   109   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional reading resolves low salinity        |
|                          discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and     |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|42/1   117   o2        2  O2 17-21 O2 draw temperature probe was reading  |
|                          13.x, sampler went back after sampling bottle   |
|                          22 to get the temperature from the spigot.      |
|42/1   119   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional reading resolves low salinity        |
|                          discrepancy.                                    |
|42/1   125   reft      3  SBE35RT +0.035/+0.045 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very      |
|                          unstable SBE35RT reading in a gradient.  Code   |
|                          questionable.                                   |
|43/1   101   salt      2  4 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|43/1   104   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Agrees  |
|                          with Station 44, within the measurement         |
|                          specifications, although not within accuracy of |
|                          other stations. Salinity as well as oxygen and  |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|43/1   105   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional reading resolved salinity            |
|                          difference. Salinity as well as oxygen and      |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|43/1   119   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          gradient, agrees with adjoining station, CTD is |
|                          showing more features than the bottle. Salinity |
|                          as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. |
|43/1   123   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          gradient, agrees with adjoining station for the |
|                          gradient. Salinity as well as oxygen and        |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|44/1   102   salt      3  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer problem, code   |
|                          salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|44/1   103   salt      3  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer problem, code   |
|                          salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+







                            -47-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|44/1   104   salt      3  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer problem, code   |
|                          salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|44/1   105   salt      3  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer problem, code   |
|                          salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|44/1   106   o2        2  Oxygen sample was over-titrated and back-       |
|                          titrated. No endpoint, original curve was bad,  |
|                          and was advised to overtitrate.                 |
|44/1   106   salt      3  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer problem, code   |
|                          salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|44/1   107   salt      3  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer problem, code   |
|                          salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|44/1   108   salt      3  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer problem, code   |
|                          salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|44/1   109   salt      3  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.   4 attempts for a good     |
|                          salinity reading. Additional readings did not   |
|                          resolve salinity discrepancy. Salinometer       |
|                          problem, code salinity questionable, oxygen and |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|44/1   110   salt      3  4 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional readings did not resolve salinity    |
|                          discrepancy, possibility is that cell was not   |
|                          flushed well enough after the last sample.      |
|                          Salinometer problem, code salinity              |
|                          questionable, oxygen and nutrients are          |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|44/1   111   o2        4  Oxygen sample was over-titrated and back-       |
|                          titrated, endpoint looks better. Oxygen is      |
|                          high. Code O2 bad.                              |
|44/1   111   salt      3  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer problem, code   |
|                          salinity questionable, oxygen coded bad,        |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|44/1   112   salt      3  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer problem, code   |
|                          salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|44/1   119   salt      2  04 attempts for a good salinity reading.        |
|                          Additional readings did not resolve slight      |
|                          salinity discrepancy. Salinity within           |
|                          measurement specifications and acceptable as    |
|                          are oxygen and nutrients.                       |
|44/1   131   o2        4  Oxygen high compared with adjoining stations.   |
|                          Suspect sampling error. Code O2 bad.            |
|45/1   101   salt      2  5 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional readings did not resolve slight low  |
|                          salinity discrepancy. Agrees with Station 46.   |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|45/1   106   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional reading resolved salinity            |
|                          difference.  Agrees with Station 46. Salinity   |
|                          as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. |
|45/1   108   salt      2  4 attempts for a good salinity reading. Agrees  |
|                          with Stations 43 and 46. Within accuracy of     |
|                          measurement, salinity as well as oxygen and     |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+






                            -48-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|45/1   109   salt      2  4 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional readings did not resolve slight low  |
|                          salinity discrepancy.  Salinity is a little low |
|                          compared with Stations 43 and 46 agrees with    |
|                          44. Within accuracy of the measurement,         |
|                          salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|45/1   112   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations. 4 attempts for  |
|                          a good salinity reading. Additional readings    |
|                          did not resolve salinity discrepancy. Salinity  |
|                          as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. |
|45/1   118   salt      2  System crashed after 18, manually recorded      |
|                          conductivity reading. Salinity as well as       |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|46/1   105   o2        3  System didn't refill and number didn't reset    |
|                          though ready light was on.  Subtracted value    |
|                          from previous value.  Questionable measurement. |
|                          Oxygen is slightly high, 0.02, compared to CTDO |
|                          and adjoining station.                          |
|46/1   132   reft      3  SBE35RT -0.03 vs CTDT; in a gradient.  Code     |
|                          questionable.                                   |
|47/1   106   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional reading resolved salinity            |
|                          discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and     |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|47/1   108   salt      2  5 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|47/1   111   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations. Appeared that 11 and 12     |
|                          were swapped. Corrected the sample number and   |
|                          the agreement is good for both 12 and 11.       |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|47/1   112   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Appeared that 11 and 12     |
|                          were swapped. Corrected the sample number and   |
|                          the agreement is good for both 12 and 11.       |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|47/1   113   salt      2  5 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|47/1   118   o2        2  Endpoint mostly overshot.  Possibly still       |
|                          acceptable. O2/SiO3 relationship is reasonable. |
|                          Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|47/1   118   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional reading resolved salinity            |
|                          discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and     |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|48/1   102   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. First reading resolved      |
|                          salinity discrepancy, still a little low but    |
|                          within the measurement specification. Salinity  |
|                          as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. |
|48/1   103   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good       |
|                          salinity reading. First reading resolved        |
|                          salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as       |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|48/1   108   salt      2  Nutrients tube was empty, analyst took sample   |
|                          from salinity bottle. Nutrients as well as      |
|                          salinity and oxygen are acceptable.             |
|48/1   114   o2        2  One drop lost from O2 sample after acid added.  |
|                          O2/SiO3 relationship is reasonable. Oxygen is   |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+





                            -49-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|48/1   130   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Mis-draw or operator error, |
|                          appears it was drawn from bottle 29. Code       |
|                          salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients are          |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|48/1   133   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD is    |
|                          acceptable for gradient. Salinity as well as    |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|49/1   102   salt      4  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations.  3 attempts for a good      |
|                          salinity reading. Appears as a mis-draw or it   |
|                          could be operator error. Code salinity bad.     |
|49/1   106   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Thimble came out with cap. Additional readings  |
|                          resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well |
|                          as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.         |
|49/1   108   salt      4  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations.  4 attempts for a good      |
|                          salinity reading.  Thimble came out with cap.   |
|                          Probable contamination. Additional readings did |
|                          not resolve the high salinity. Appears as a     |
|                          mis-draw or it could be operator error. Code    |
|                          salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients are          |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|49/1   113   salt      4  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations.  4 attempts for a good      |
|                          salinity reading.  Salinity bottle thimble came |
|                          out with cap, readings erratic. Additional      |
|                          readings did not resolve salinity discrepancy.  |
|                          Appears as a mis-draw or it could be operator   |
|                          error. Code salinity bad.                       |
|49/1   118   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD       |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations. Salinity as     |
|                          well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.    |
|49/1   132   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          gradient area agrees with adjoining stations.   |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable                                      |
|50/1   101   bottle    2  Pins on cart bent-did sampling at rosette       |
|                          recovery/launching site.                        |
|50/1   122   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Thimble came out with cap, possible             |
|                          contamination. Salinity as well as oxygen and   |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|50/1   135   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble |
|                          came out with cap, possible contamination.      |
|                          Additional reading did not resolve salinity     |
|                          difference. Agrees with adjoining stations,     |
|                          slightly low compared with Station 47. Salinity |
|                          as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. |
|51/1   101   bottle    2  Vent was not closed. See oxygen comment.        |
|                          Salinity and nutrients are acceptable.          |
|51/1   101   o2        4  Overshot endpoint. Stopper mismatched as well.  |
|                          Code oxygen bad.                                |
|51/1   101   salt      2  Salinity samples 1 and 2 were switched, mis-    |
|                          drawn. Corrected file. Salinity as well as      |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|51/1   102   bottle    2  Vent was not closed. Salinity oxygen and        |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|51/1   103   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional reading resolved salinity            |
|                          discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and     |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|51/1   111   o2        4  Overshot endpoint. Code oxygen bad. Salinity    |
|                          and nutrients are acceptable.                   |
|51/1   118   o2        2  Sample was over-titrated and back-titrated.     |
|                          Oxygen is acceptable.                           |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+






                            -50-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|51/1   118   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD       |
|                          gradient agrees with adjoining stations.        |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|51/1   119   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          gradient agrees with adjoining stations.        |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|51/1   121   salt      2  5 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional reading resolved salinity            |
|                          discrepancy. Bung and sample tube not cleaned   |
|                          before this sample. Erratic readings. Gradient, |
|                          salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|51/1   122   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Program |
|                          chosen readings are acceptable. Gradient,       |
|                          salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|51/1   129   o2        2  Sample was over-titrated and back-titrated.     |
|                          Oxygen slightly low compared with adjoining     |
|                          stations, although it does look okay with       |
|                          SiO3/O2 relationship and CTDO.                  |
|51/1   130   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          gradient agrees with adjoining stations.        |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|52/1   101   o2        2  O2 "wake-up" sample not run, deep oxygen is     |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|52/1   110   salt      3  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional readings do not resolve the salinity |
|                          discrepancy. Code salinity questionable.        |
|52/1   111   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional readings do not resolve the slight   |
|                          salinity discrepancy. Salinity is within the    |
|                          measurement specification and acceptable.       |
|52/1   113   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Program chose the two good readings, salinity   |
|                          is acceptable.                                  |
|52/1   114   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional readings do not resolve the slight   |
|                          salinity discrepancy. Salinity is within the    |
|                          measurement specification and acceptable.       |
|52/1   116   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional readings do not resolve the slight   |
|                          salinity discrepancy. Salinity is within the    |
|                          measurement specification and acceptable.       |
|52/1   118   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional readings do not resolve the slight   |
|                          salinity discrepancy. Salinity is within the    |
|                          measurement specification and acceptable.       |
|52/1   122   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional readings do not resolve the slight   |
|                          salinity discrepancy. Salinity is within the    |
|                          measurement specification and acceptable.       |
|52/1   129   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations, gradient.       |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|53/1   117   salt      4  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinity appears to have    |
|                          been mis-drawn from bottle 19 or operator error |
|                          on analysis. Code salinity bad, oxygen and      |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|54/1   102   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional reading resulted in a higher,        |
|                          acceptable salinity. Salinity as well as oxygen |
|                          and nutrients are acceptable.                   |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+






                            -51-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|54/1   103   o2        3  Sample was over-titrated and back-titrated.     |
|                          Over-titration value came out slightly low,     |
|                          original value was high with CTDO and on        |
|                          SiO3/O2 relationship. Code O2 questionable.     |
|54/1   105   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Program |
|                          chose the correct two readings. Salinity as     |
|                          well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.    |
|54/1   108   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional reading resulted in a higher,        |
|                          acceptable salinity. Salinity as well as oxygen |
|                          and nutrients are acceptable.                   |
|54/1   110   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good       |
|                          salinity reading. Analyst originally ran sample |
|                          9 as 10, sample 10 was analyzed, computer did   |
|                          not update with the correct value. Corrected    |
|                          raw data file. Salinity as well as oxygen and   |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|54/1   111   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional reading resulted in a higher,        |
|                          acceptable salinity. Salinity as well as oxygen |
|                          and nutrients are acceptable.                   |
|54/1   113   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional reading resulted in a higher,        |
|                          acceptable salinity. Salinity as well as oxygen |
|                          and nutrients are acceptable.                   |
|55/1   106   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional reading would make the salinity      |
|                          higher. Salinity, gradient, as well as oxygen   |
|                          and nutrients are acceptable.                   |
|56/1   125   o2        5  System froze. O2 sample lost.                   |
|56/1   130   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Program |
|                          chose the appropriate readings. Salinity as     |
|                          well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.    |
|57/1   101   reft      3  SBE35RT 0.70/0.15 vs CTDT1/CTDT2; very unstable |
|                          SBE35RT reading. Code questionable.             |
|57/1   105   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional reading resolved salinity            |
|                          discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and     |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|57/1   106   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional reading resolved salinity            |
|                          discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and     |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|58/1   102   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good       |
|                          salinity reading. Additional reading resolved   |
|                          the salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as   |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|58/1   105   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional reading would have made the value    |
|                          higher. Salinity as well as oxygen and          |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|58/1   106   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Program |
|                          chose the appropriate reading. Salinity as well |
|                          as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.         |
|58/1   108   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional reading resolved the salinity        |
|                          discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and     |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|58/1   109   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Program |
|                          chose the appropriate reading. Salinity as well |
|                          as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.         |
|58/1   118   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations in gradient.     |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+






                            -52-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|58/1   122   salt      2  4 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional reading resolved the salinity        |
|                          discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and     |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|60/1   124   bottle    2  Valve was found open. Oxygen as well as         |
|                          salinity and nutrients are acceptable.          |
|60/1   125   bottle    2  Valve was found open. Oxygen as well as         |
|                          salinity and nutrients are acceptable.          |
|60/1   126   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees with adjoining station for gradient.     |
|                          Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.  |
|61/1   118   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          gradient appears acceptable as are oxygen and   |
|                          nutrients.                                      |
|62/1   105   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Program |
|                          chose the appropriate readings. Salinity as     |
|                          well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.    |
|62/1   106   salt      4  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations.  3 attempts for a good      |
|                          salinity reading. Additional reading would      |
|                          result in a higher salinity. Code salinity bad, |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|62/1   132   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          gradient and is acceptable as are oxygen and    |
|                          nutrients.                                      |
|63/1   110   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Program |
|                          chose appropriate value. Salinity as well as    |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|63/1   123   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          gradient, structure in CTD trace. Salinity as   |
|                          well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.    |
|64/1   103   o2        2  Sample was overtitrated and backtitrated.       |
|                          Overshot endpoint. Oxygen is acceptable.        |
|64/1   110   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations.  3 attempts for a good      |
|                          salinity reading. First reading resolved        |
|                          salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as       |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|64/1   120   o2        4  Sampling error. Code Oxygen bad.                |
|64/1   122   o2        4  Sample was overtitrated and backtitrated.       |
|                          Overshot endpoint. Code Oxygen bad.             |
|64/1   130   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Program |
|                          chose the appropriate reading. Salinity as well |
|                          as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.         |
|66/1   109   o2        2  Draw temperature missed writing down,           |
|                          temperature for kg conversion should be okay.   |
|                          Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|67/1   111   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Program |
|                          chose appropriate readings. Salinity as well as |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|67/1   113   o2        2  Sample was overtitrated and backtitrated,       |
|                          overshot endpoint. Oxygen slightly low, good    |
|                          SiO3/O2 relationship, gradient, appears         |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|67/1   117   bottle    3  Bottle appears to have mis-tripped, draw        |
|                          temperature too warm. Nutrients and oxygen are  |
|                          low and indicate a mis-trip.                    |
|67/1   117   no2       4                                                  |
|67/1   117   no3       4                                                  |
|67/1   117   o2        4  Oxygen confirms mis-trip, code bad.             |
|67/1   117   po4       4  Nutrients indicate a mis-trip, code bad.        |
|67/1   117   salt      4  Salinity high compared to adjoining stations    |
|                          profiles and CTD, mis-trip, code bad.           |
|67/1   117   sio3      4                                                  |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+








                            -53-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|67/1   131   salt      5  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  Salinity analyst stated    |
|                          that a sample was missed, suspect from the data |
|                          that is was 30. Reassigned sample numbers and   |
|                          corrected files. Salinity is lost.              |
|67/1   132   o2        5  O2 system froze, sample lost.                   |
|68/1   124   salt      5  Salinity operator stated she missed a sample.   |
|                          Salinity lost.                                  |
|68/1   130   salt      4  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional reading would result in lower        |
|                          salinity. Code salinity bad.                    |
|68/1   136   o2        3  Oxygen is high compared with adjoining          |
|                          stations, SiO3/O2 relationship and CTDO. No     |
|                          analytical problems noted. SiO3 is a little     |
|                          low, following other nutrients and acceptable.  |
|                          Code oxygen questionable.                       |
|69/1   101   o2        3  Oxygen high does not agree with CTDO or         |
|                          adjoining stations. No analytical notes         |
|                          indicating a problem. Code oxygen questionable, |
|                          salinity and nutrients are acceptable.          |
|69/1   103   o2        3  Oxygen high does not agree with CTDO or         |
|                          adjoining stations. No analytical notes         |
|                          indicating a problem. Code oxygen questionable, |
|                          salinity and nutrients are acceptable.          |
|69/1   111   o2        3  Oxygen high does not agree with CTDO or         |
|                          adjoining stations. No analytical notes         |
|                          indicating a problem. Code oxygen questionable, |
|                          salinity and nutrients are acceptable.          |
|69/1   127   o2        2  Missed recording O2 draw temperature, taken     |
|                          after sampling, conversion to kg units is       |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|69/1   127   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations for gradient.    |
|                          Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.  |
|69/1   133   o2        3  Oxygen value high as reported by CTD operator.  |
|                          Also appears slightly high on SiO3/O2           |
|                          relationship. No analytical problems noted.     |
|                          Code oxygen questionable.                       |
|70/1   105   o2        4  Oxygen high does not agree with CTDO or         |
|                          adjoining stations.                             |
|70/1   108   o2        4  Oxygen high does not agree with CTDO or         |
|                          adjoining stations.                             |
|70/1   111   salt      2  Salinity thimble came out with cap. This may    |
|                          have cause the slightly high salinity , just    |
|                          within measurement specifications. Salinity as  |
|                          well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.    |
|70/1   113   salt      2  Salinity thimble came out with cap. This may    |
|                          have cause the slightly high salinity , within  |
|                          measurement specifications. Salinity as well as |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|71/1   101   bottle    2  Bottle ran out of water for salinity. There     |
|                          were 3 parameters, DIC, Alkalinity and 13C/14C  |
|                          taking duplicates. This totals 8.45L and should |
|                          have been enough water. Bottle o-rings checked  |
|                          prior to Station 73.                            |
|71/1   101   o2        4  Sampling error.  Ran out of reagents.           |
|71/1   102   o2        2  Oxygen appears a little low, could also have    |
|                          been part of the sampling error.                |
|71/1   104   o2        4  Oxygen high does not agree with CTDO or         |
|                          adjoining stations.                             |
|71/1   107   o2        4  Oxygen high does not agree with CTDO or         |
|                          adjoining stations.                             |
|71/1   109   o2        4  Oxygen low.  Analyst noted large debris in      |
|                          sample during analysis.                         |
|71/1   132   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          gradient agreement with adjoining stations.     |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+





                            -54-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|71/1   133   o2        4  Oxygen high, does not have good SiO3/O2         |
|                          relationship, agreement with adjoining stations |
|                          or CTDO.                                        |
|71/1   135   o2        4  Oxygen high, does not have good SiO3/O2         |
|                          relationship, agreement with adjoining stations |
|                          or CTDO.                                        |
|71/1   135   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          gradient agreement with adjoining stations.     |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|72/1   101   o2        4  Oxygen high, along with 3, 5, 8, 11 and 36,     |
|                          uncertain of the cause.                         |
|72/1   101   salt      2  Salinity run had a large drift. Analyst could   |
|                          not obtain a good ending Standard Seawater      |
|                          value. Suspect salinometer was the problem.     |
|                          Salinity is within measurement specifications   |
|                          and has a reasonable agreement with the CTD and |
|                          adjoining stations.                             |
|72/1   103   o2        4  Oxygen high. Code O2 bad.                       |
|72/1   105   o2        4  Opened flask too soon before running. Oxygen    |
|                          high. Code O2 bad.                              |
|72/1   108   o2        4  Oxygen high. Code O2 bad.                       |
|72/1   111   o2        4  Oxygen high. Code O2 bad.                       |
|72/1   117   o2        5  Oxygen sample lost, was mistakenly drawn from   |
|                          18, 18=19, 19=20 and 20 drawn from 21.          |
|72/1   118   o2        2  Oxygen were drawn off on level, corrected data  |
|                          file and oxygen is acceptable.                  |
|72/1   119   o2        2  Oxygen were drawn off on level, corrected data  |
|                          file and oxygen is acceptable.                  |
|72/1   120   o2        2  Oxygen sampler suspected he drew from bottle 20 |
|                          with flask intended for 21, redrew from 21.     |
|72/1   136   o2        4  Oxygen high. Code O2 bad.                       |
|73/1   101   salt      2  Salinity run had a large drift. Suspect         |
|                          salinometer was the problem. Salinity is within |
|                          measurement specifications and has a reasonable |
|                          agreement with the CTD and adjoining stations.  |
|                          Salinometer retired after Station 76 run.       |
|73/1   133   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          variation in CTD profile, gradient, agrees with |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinity as well as oxygen  |
|                          and nutrients are acceptable.                   |
|74/1   104   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue    |
|                          very obvious with this station. It was taken    |
|                          off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad,   |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|74/1   105   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue    |
|                          very obvious with this station. It was taken    |
|                          off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad,   |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|74/1   106   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue    |
|                          very obvious with this station. It was taken    |
|                          off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad,   |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|74/1   107   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue    |
|                          very obvious with this station. It was taken    |
|                          off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad,   |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|74/1   108   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue    |
|                          very obvious with this station. It was taken    |
|                          off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad,   |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|74/1   109   o2        2  Oxygen flask was chipped, used flask 1640       |
|                          instead of                                      |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+





                            -55-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|75/1   114   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue    |
|                          very obvious with this station. It was taken    |
|                          off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad,   |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|75/1   115   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue    |
|                          very obvious with this station. It was taken    |
|                          off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad,   |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|75/1   116   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue    |
|                          very obvious with this station. It was taken    |
|                          off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad,   |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|75/1   117   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue    |
|                          very obvious with this station. It was taken    |
|                          off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad,   |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|75/1   118   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue    |
|                          very obvious with this station. It was taken    |
|                          off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad,   |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|75/1   119   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue    |
|                          very obvious with this station. It was taken    |
|                          off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad,   |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|75/1   120   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue    |
|                          very obvious with this station. It was taken    |
|                          off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad,   |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|75/1   121   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue    |
|                          very obvious with this station. It was taken    |
|                          off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad,   |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|75/1   122   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinometer had an issue    |
|                          very obvious with this station. It was taken    |
|                          off-line after Station 76. Code salinity bad,   |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|75/1   128   o2        2   Analyst made the comment fix. SiO3/O2          |
|                          relationship is good. Oxygen is acceptable.     |
|76/1   104   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  Salinometer had an issue   |
|                          very obvious starting with Station 74. It was   |
|                          taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity  |
|                          bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.       |
|76/1   105   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  Salinometer had an issue   |
|                          very obvious starting with Station 74. It was   |
|                          taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity  |
|                          bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.       |
|76/1   106   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  Salinometer had an issue   |
|                          very obvious starting with Station 74. It was   |
|                          taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity  |
|                          bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.       |
|76/1   107   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  Salinometer had an issue   |
|                          very obvious starting with Station 74. It was   |
|                          taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity  |
|                          bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.       |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+






                            -56-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|76/1   108   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  Salinometer had an issue   |
|                          very obvious starting with Station 74. It was   |
|                          taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity  |
|                          bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.       |
|76/1   109   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  Salinometer had an issue   |
|                          very obvious starting with Station 74. It was   |
|                          taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity  |
|                          bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.       |
|76/1   110   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  Salinometer had an issue   |
|                          very obvious starting with Station 74. It was   |
|                          taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity  |
|                          bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.       |
|76/1   111   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  Salinometer had an issue   |
|                          very obvious starting with Station 74. It was   |
|                          taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity  |
|                          bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.       |
|76/1   112   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  Salinometer had an issue   |
|                          very obvious starting with Station 74. It was   |
|                          taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity  |
|                          bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.       |
|76/1   113   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  Salinometer had an issue   |
|                          very obvious starting with Station 74. It was   |
|                          taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity  |
|                          bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.       |
|76/1   114   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  Salinometer had an issue   |
|                          very obvious starting with Station 74. It was   |
|                          taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity  |
|                          bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.       |
|76/1   115   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  Salinometer had an issue   |
|                          very obvious starting with Station 74. It was   |
|                          taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity  |
|                          bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.       |
|76/1   116   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  Salinometer had an issue   |
|                          very obvious starting with Station 74. It was   |
|                          taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity  |
|                          bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.       |
|76/1   117   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  Salinometer had an issue   |
|                          very obvious starting with Station 74. It was   |
|                          taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity  |
|                          bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.       |
|76/1   118   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  Salinometer had an issue   |
|                          very obvious starting with Station 74. It was   |
|                          taken off-line after Station 76. Code salinity  |
|                          bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.       |
|77/1   102   o2        4  Debris in sample.  Endpoint looks okay. Oxygen  |
|                          high compared with adjoining stations and CTD.  |
|77/1   103   o2        4  Oxygen high compared with adjoining stations    |
|                          and CTDO. No analytical problem noted. Code     |
|                          oxygen questionable.                            |
|77/1   127   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees with salinity max bottle values for      |
|                          adjoining stations, variation in CTD profile at |
|                          bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and     |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|78/1   122   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees with salinity max bottle values for      |
|                          adjoining stations, as is 21.  Salinity as well |
|                          as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+




                            -57-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|79/1   115   no2       3                                                  |
|79/1   115   no3       3                                                  |
|79/1   115   po4       3  Nutrients low and appear to have been drawn     |
|                          from 16. NO3 and NO2 do not have this same      |
|                          agreement with 16, so they are even lower. No   |
|                          similar feature is seen in oxygen or salinity.  |
|                          Code nutrients questionable, salinity and       |
|                          oxygen acceptable.                              |
|79/1   115   sio3      3                                                  |
|79/1   121   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees with salinity gradient bottle values for |
|                          adjoining stations.  Salinity as well as oxygen |
|                          and nutrients are acceptable.                   |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+




























































                            -58-

                                Appendix D


          CLIVAR A22:  Pre-Cruise Sensor Laboratory Calibrations



+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                         CTD 796 Sensors - Table of Contents                           |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|CTD                           Manufacturer         Serial     Station  Appendix D Page |
|Sensor                        and Model No.        Number     Number    (Un-Numbered)  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|PRESS (Pressure)              Digiquartz 401K-105  0796       1-81            1        |
|T1 (Primary Temperature)      SBE3plus             03-4138    1-39            4        |
|T1 (Primary Temperature)      SBE3plus             03-4924    40-81           5        |
|C1 (Primary Conductivity)     SBE4C                04-3369    1-81            6        |
|O2 (Dissolved Oxygen)         SBE43                43-0614    1-81            7        |
|T2 (Secondary Temperature)    SBE3plus             03-4907    1-81            8        |
|C2 (Secondary Conductivity)   SBE4C                04-3399    1-81            9        |
|REFT (Reference Temperature)  SBE35                35-0035    1-81           10        |
|TRANS (Transmissometer)       WET Labs C-Star      CST-327DR  1-81           11        |
|RINKO (Optical O2 & Temp.)    RinkoIII ARO-CAV      084       1-47           13        |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+












CCHDO DATA PROCESSING NOTES

Date        Contact     Data Type    Action           Summary
----------  ----------  -----------  ---------------  --------------------------
2012-04-19  K. Sanborn  BTL/SUM      Submitted        PRELIMINARY, NOT to go online 
            Some bottle data parameters are considered preliminary and should be 
            resolved by the on shore labs. Submission of a22_hy1.csv, a22.sea, 
            a22.sum and a22_33AT20120324_ct1.zip and Cruise Report will be 
            submitted in 5 different submission sessions.

2012-04-30  K. Sanborn  HYD/SEA/SUM  Submitted        Preliminary
            Data should be labeled as Preliminary until all Project PI's inform 
            you otherwise.  

2012-04-30  C Berys     HYD/SEA/SUM  Website Updated  Available under 'Files as received' 
            File a22_hy1.csv containing BTL data, submitted by Kristin Sanborn 
            on 2012-04-30, available under 'Files as received', unprocessed by 
            CCHDO.

            File a22.sea containing WOCE BTL data, submitted by Kristin Sanborn 
            on 2012-04-30, available under 'Files as received', unprocessed by 
            CCHDO.

            File a22.sum containing WOCE SUM file, submitted by Kristin Sanborn 
            on 2012-04-30, available under 'Files as received', unprocessed by 
            CCHDO. 

2012-04-30  K. Sanborn  CrsRpt       Submitted        prelim., pdf & txt formats, to go online 

2012-04-30  C. Berys    CrsRpt       Website Updated  Available under 'Files as received' 

2012-06-26  M. Johnson  CrsRpt       Submitted        Updates 4/30/12 submission

2012-07-05  J Kappa     CrsRpt       Website Updated  Reformatted TXT version online
            • added CCHDO summary pages             
            • added these Data Processing Notes

2012-07-10  J Kappa     CrsRpt       Website Updated  Reformatted PDF version online
            • added CCHDO summary pages
            • added internal links, bookmarks, TOC
            • added these Data Processing Notes










































