                                       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: I02
(Updated JUL 2009)


HIGHLIGHTS

                            Cruise Summary Information

               Section designation  I02
Expedition designation (ExpoCodes)  09FA20000926
                  Chief Scientists  Susan E. Wijffels / CSIRO
                             Dates  26 SEP 2000 - 12 NOV 2000
                              Ship  R/V FRANKLIN
                     Ports of call  Cocos Islands, AUS - Fremantle, AUS

                                               8.0 S
             Geographic boundaries  94.99 E            114.87 E
                                              34.01 S

                          Stations  142 CTD Stations
      Floats and drifters deployed  0
    Moorings deployed or recovered  0
     Chief Scientist Contact Info.  Susan E. Wijffels  
                                    CSIRO Marine Research
                                    GPO 1538
                                    Hobart, Tasmania 7000 Australia
                                    Phone: 03 6232 5450   Fax: 03 6232 5123
                                    e-mail: Susan.Wijffels@marine.csiro.au






CRUISE SUMMARY

RV FRANKLIN
FR09/2000


TITLE

Monitoring Ocean Climate Change around Australia: the Deep Ocean Time-series 
Sections.


ITINERARY

Leg 1
Departed Dampier, 1000 hrs Tuesday 26 September, 2000. 
Arrived Cocos Islands 0900 Saturday, 14 October 2000. 

Leg 2
Departed Cocos Islands, 1600 hrs Saturday, 14 October 2000. 
Arrived Fremantle,  0030 Tuesday, 31 October 2000. 
Departed Fremantle, 1300 Tuesday, 31 October 2000.
Arrived Fremantle, 1330 Sunday, 12 November 2000.


PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS
Susan E. Wijffels (Chief Scientist)
CSIRO Marine Research
GPO Box 1538
Hobart  Tasmania 7000  Australia
Tel: 03 6232 5450  Fax: 03 6232 5000
Email: Susan.Wijffels@marine.csiro.au

John A. Church, Steve R. Rintoul, Bronte Tilbrook 
CSIRO Marine Research 

Nathan Bindoff
Antarctic Co-operative Research Center
University of Tasmania 


SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES

• to establish a time series of full-depth repeat ocean measurements capable of 
  resolving decadal and longer time-scale changes in the structure of the oceans 
  around Australia, and their storage of important climate quantities such as 
  heat, freshwater, oxygen and carbon. The proposed surveys will build upon the 
  high-quality sections made in the mid-1990's as part of the World Ocean 
  Circulation Experiment (WOCE). 
• to use these data through comparisons with climate model runs to test climate 
  model predictions, and to determine whether and how fast climate is changing 
  due to the Greenhouse Effect and/or natural decadal variability. 
• to improve our understanding of basic ocean processes and fluxes through 
  collection of full depth direct velocity measurements while conducting the 
  repeat surveys. 


CRUISE OBJECTIVES

To reoccupy portions of several WOCE hydrographic lines between Australia and 
90°E in the southeast Indian Ocean as part of establishing a deep-ocean time-
series section grid around Australia. Full-depth 24 bottle 5L Niskin/CTD casts 
will be taken at WOCE spatial resolution. Sampling and chemical analyses will be 
completed for salinity, oxygen, nutrients, dissolved carbon and alkalinity. At-
sea quality control will occur with all CTD and sample data collected and 
scrutinised as soon as it is available and compared with the WOCE data. 


CRUISE TRACK

Two legs were undertaken (as indicated on Figure 1) - Dampier to Cocos Island 
and Cocos Island to Fremantle. One test and 62 CTD stations to the bottom were 
undertaken during leg one, and 80 CTD stations on leg two. 


RESULTS

The voyage achieved the cruise objectives. (Scientific Objective 3 was not 
addressed as no lowered Acoustic Doppler Profiler for attaching to the 
CTD/Rosette package was available). Of the 143 stations in the original station 
plan, only one station was missed due to poor weather.  Overall, the quality of 
the data is very high, with some exceptions as described in the Cruise Narrative 
below.

Exceptions to the otherwise high quality observations included some poor 
salinity data due to problems with the salinometers early in the cruise and 
trouble with the nitrate channel of the autoanalyser throughout the cruise.  The 
first problem we believe can be overcome given the stability of the Seabird CTD 
conductivity sensor; the nitrate data can be recovered by running the second 
(frozen) nutrient sample taken from each bottle.  The new oxygen system gave 
excellent results.

Preliminary comparison of the WOCE and DOTSS sections shows some significant 
changes.  Most dramatic is a shift of an upper ocean front along the 95°E 
section.  The front was located several degrees of latitude further south during 
DOTSS than in the WOCE section taken five years before.  The frontal shift 
resulted in temperature anomalies below the depth of the winter mixed layer of 
more than 3°C and salinity anomalies greater than 0.4 psu.  The front (hence 
the anomalies) extends throughout the upper 500 m of the water column.  More 
subtle but still significant changes occurred at the depth of the Antarctic 
Intermediate Water.  


CRUISE NARRATIVE

LEG 1

We departed Dampier on time in good weather, proceeding to the start of the CTD 
section commencing at about 24°S off the west Australian coast. En-route we 
completed a trial CTD station to test for leaking bottles. We then commenced the 
CTD section late on Wednesday 27 September. Winds were light but there was a 
swell coming from the south. 

The new load sensor to measure the tension on the CTD end of the cable worked 
well but the altimeter on the rosette package was not working for the first few 
stations. With the swell and the roll of the ship, the tension was momentarily 
going to zero on the more severe rolls. On station 11 (the first deep station - 
to 4400 m) there was a kink in the new CTD wire on recovery. On station 12 (to 
5000 m), the descent speed was reduced to 50 m/minute as the wire tension was 
going to zero on severe rolls. At about 500 m on the upcast, all contact with 
the CTD was lost. On recovery the lower 20 m of the wire was severely kinked. 
After consultation with Ian Helmond (in Hobart), 6500 m of CTD wire was streamed 
with a weight attached in an attempt to remove any residual twist in the wire. 
No further problems were encountered with CTD operations; a total of 63 CTD 
stations were completed on leg one. After the completion of CTD 63 at 1600 on 
October 13, we steamed to Cocos Island. In total, about 40 m was cut off the end 
of the CTD cable. 

During most of leg 1 we experienced steady south east trade winds at between 15 
and 25 knots. This made for easy working conditions except for the steaming 
between the last few CTD stations and the steam to Cocos Island.

All Niskin bottles were sampled for salinity, oxygen and nutrients. Every second 
station, samples were also taken for alkalinity. Throughout the cruise, under-
way meteorological, surface temperature, salinity fluorescence and upper layer 
currents were measured. 

During the first leg of cruise FR09/00, we intended to test 2 XBT systems - the 
new Bureau of meteorology (BOM) hardware and the Sippican WindowsNT Software. 
The BOM system consists of a slower computer with a new IEEE interface. The 
Sippican software has been designed to work under WindowsNT and has never been 
tested against a CTD before. The BOM system worked well but the Sippican system 
could not be made to work on the first leg.  A detailed report is attached as 
Appendix A.  


Cetacean and marine wildlife sighting summary (Debbie Thiele)

Cetacean sighting survey effort was conducted during daylight hours on transit 
legs between CTD stations. A total of eight cetacean sightings (82 animals) were 
made on the survey. Cetaceans recorded were humpback whales, sperm whales, 
beaked whales and a range of tropical dolphin species. The frequency of 
cetaceans observed was low, however sea state conditions for surveying were 
generally poor to moderate, and rarely good due to the effect of SE winds. When 
sighting conditions were good, sightings were still rare. There are many factors 
that determine the distribution and movements of cetaceans. One reason which may 
explain the low number of sightings is that odontocete (toothed cetacean) prey 
may be more abundant in surface waters with a lower average temperature than is 
prevalent in this area at this time of year. Turtles were observed only in near 
shore waters during the first day of the cruise. Seabirds were present during 
most days, but not in large numbers. Surface feeding flocks were only 
occasionally observed after the first day in nearshore waters. Flying fish (very 
small to large) were also observed each day, but again in low numbers. Marine 
debris became more common as the ship neared the high seas fishing areas off the 
Indonesian EEZ.


LEG 2

Weather conditions on Leg 2 were often uncomfortable, with winds rarely below 20 
knots and often higher.  

As a result of the hard work during Leg 1, the gear on Leg 2 generally worked 
well.  Exceptions included the salinometers and the ADCP.  The range of the ADCP 
steadily decreased through the first part of Leg 2, and eventually no good data 
was received at all.  The problem was eventually traced to a broken bulkhead 
connector which could not be fixed at sea (a new connector was installed prior 
to the following voyage).  We encountered very few problems with the CTD and 
rosette system.  Near the end of the cruise we encountered some difficulties 
with firing bottles on several casts.  The problem was eventually traced to a 
combination of a small leak in the termination, a leak in the connector between 
the load cell and the CTD cable and a poor connection at the junction box on the 
winch drum.

Deep bottle salinities on the first part of Leg 2 were generally higher than 
those found on the previous WOCE occupations of these lines.   When a new 
salinometer was used during the latter half of Leg 2, the agreement between the 
deep WOCE and DOTSS data was very good.

We found the load cell on the CTD end of the wire to be useful when operating in 
rough conditions.  The fact that different load cells and their displays appear 
to be in different units is confusing and they should be made consistent in 
future.  In rough seas (i.e. when the ship is either pitching or rolling) it is 
not possible to eliminate occasional transient loads close to zero throughout 
the cast, at any practical lowering speed.  However, we encountered no problems 
with kinking of the wire associated with low loads on the end of the wire.  

We completed several casts to depths greater than 6000 m.  The tension at the 
block was near the limiting value of 1.1 tonnes, but casts to this depth could 
be done without exceeding this limit by decreasing the winch speed below 4000 m 
depth (at least in the relatively good weather we experienced at that time of 
the cruise).

The major event of Leg 2 was the emergency medical evacuation of the Chief 
Steward, Ron Culliney.  On Friday October 27 Ron suffered a suspected stroke.  
After consulting doctors on shore, we immediately headed for Fremantle as fast 
as possible.  On Sunday evening October 29 we rendezvoused with the Australian 
Navy vessel HMAS Anzac and Ron was transferred by IRB in very heavy seas and 
strong winds (8-10 m seas, 40+ knot winds).  The operation was completed in the 
dark. Ron was flown by helicopter from the Anzac to a Perth hospital early 
Monday morning.

The cruise was extended by 7 days to allow the work to be completed as in the 
original station plan.  Following Ron's transfer to the Anzac, Franklin 
continued to Fremantle to load the fuel, food, and replacement crew required to 
complete the work.  We tied up at the wharf at midnight Monday October 30, and 
sailed again as soon as bunkering was complete, at 1300 the following day.

We steamed west to resume the CTD stations where we left off.  In total, the 
diversion to Fremantle and return added more than  2000 nm of extra steaming to 
the cruise. Steaming west into the strong and persistent westerly winds for four 
days tried the patience of all on board. The weather continued to be marginal 
for much of the remainder of the cruise.  One station had to be skipped because 
there was no time to wait on station until the weather improved.  


SUMMARY

The most significant difficulty experienced during Leg 1 was kinking of the CTD 
wire on the first deep stations. However, after this problem was overcome no 
further difficulties were experienced. Whenever a new CTD cable is fitted there 
is a need to stream it to remove residual torque and to tension the cable on the 
drum before it is used for CTD casts. Careful attention was paid to ensure high 
quality hydrology and CTD data was collected; overall, the data quality is good 
and should be a valuable contribution to the establishment of long-term time-
series sections in the eastern Indian Ocean to measure both natural variability 
and anthropogenic climate change. 


PERSONNEL

Scientific participants on Leg 1 

  John Church          CMR          Cruise Leader/Manager 
  Ming Feng            CMR          Watchleader
  Linsay Pender        ORV
  Gary Carroll         CMR
  Ann Gronell          CMR
  Erik Madsen          ORV
  Bronte Tilbrook      CMR
  Alain Poisson        LPCM, Paris
  Gary Critchley       ORV
  Rebecca Cowley       ORV
  Neale Johnston       ORV
  Debbie Thiele        Deakin University

Scientific participants on Leg 2 

  Steve Rintoul        CMR          Cruise Leader/Manager 
  Neil White           CMR
  Serguei Sokolov      CMR
  Dan Conwell          ORV
  Pamela Brodie        ORV
  Mark Rosenberg       Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre
  Neale Johnston       ORV
  Val Latham           ORV
  Dave Terhell         ORV
  Mark Pretty          CMR
  Andrew Lenton        CMR
  Juliette Dubois      LPCM, Paris

Franklin officers and crew members

  Ian Taylor           Master
  Arthur Staron        First Mate
  John Boyes           Second Mate
  Ian Murray           Chief Engineer
  Robert Cave          First Engineer
  Hugh McCormick       Electrical Engineer
  Phil French          Greaser
  Bill Hughes          Bosun
  Terry Ganim          A/B
  Tony Hearne          A/B
  Norm Irvine          A/B
  Gary Hall            Chief Cook
  Wayne Hatton         Second Cook
  Ron Culliney         Chief Steward




UNDERWAY PROCESSING NOTES

Data processing completed by Bernadette Heaney, 18 October 2001

1.  VOYAGE DETAILS

"Monitoring Ocean Climate Change around Australia: the Deep Ocean Timeseries 
Sections"

1.1 Principal Investigators

Dr S Wijffels, Dr J Church, Dr S Rintoul, Dr B Tilbrook, CSIRO Marine Research
Dr N Bindoff, Antarctic CRC


2.  UNDERWAY DATA

A set of standard "underway" instruments are logged onboard the research vessel 
"Franklin"; this data is displayed in real time onboard to assist with voyage 
planning and watch keeping; some of the data is subsequently processed onshore 
to produce a set of standard underway data.

The data is logged to hourly files; the naming convention is explained in 
section 4.1 on page 5; (these are referred to as "raw" data files.

The standard underway data set is 5 minute values of ship position (latitude and 
longitude), water depth, sea surface temperature and sea surface salinity; air 
temperature, wind speed and direction, humidity, barometric pressure, solar 
radiation; corrected wind speed and wind direction, ship direction and speed and 
gust. 

A data format guide can be found at
http://www.marine.csiro.au/datacentre/process/formats/uwy.htm


3.  SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE AND SALINITY

3.1  Instrument

Seabird thermosalinograph


3.2  Raw data

One minute averages
date and time UTC
quality indicator
mean temperature at the inlet
mean temperature at the probe
mean conductivity
mean salinity
turner fluorometer outputs (2) and spare channels (2)
number of samples for the current minute


3.3  Data Processing Procedures

Surface values of sea temperature and salinity for each CTD station are compared 
with the thermosalinograph values. An offset is then applied to the sea surface 
temperature and salinity.

The following offsets were used:
Salinity 0.034
Temperature -0.008


3.4  Data Coverage

02:15 26-sep-2000
01:20 12-nov-2000

The following data were rejected


TABLE 1.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

                                        salinity/
                                       temperature
       Start               End           or both    Comments
 -----------------  -----------------  -----------  ----------------------------------
 02:15 26-sep-2000  06:44 26-sep-2000       s       before bubbling problems corrected
 14:01 26-sep-2000  14:04 26-sep-2000       s    
 05:00 27-sep-2000  04:00 28-sep-2000    leave in   warning - "spikey" salinity data
 22:30 29-sep-2000  22:30 29-sep-2000       s    
 14:09 01-oct-2000  14:12 01-oct-2000       s    
 00:24 05-oct-2000  00:34 05-oct-2000       b    
 20:59 10-oct-2000  20:59 10-oct-2000       s    
 11:27 11-oct-2000  11:27 11-oct-2000       s    
 11:45 13-oct-2000  11:45 13-oct-2000       s    
 13:16 20-oct-2000  13:16 20-oct-2000       s    
 15:37 20-oct-2000  15:37 20-oct-2000       s    
 22:26 20-oct-2000  22:26 20-oct-2000       s    
 22:50 20-oct-2000  22:50 20-oct-2000       s    
_______________________________________________________________________________________



3.5  Data Quality

The CTD salinity values should be within .003 resolution, and the CTD 
temperature within .003 degrees ; the thermosalinograph only records to the 
second decimal place so the best precision would be within .01 psu for salinity 
and .01 degrees for temperature.

Bubbling problems which cause spikey salinity data were corrected on 06:44 26 
September.  Salinity data up till that time has been rejected.

Fluorometer data is not a standard product.


4.  OTHER

4.1  Hourly file naming convention

eg fr01079a00.tsg
vvyynnnhmm.int

where vv is vessel where fr - franklin
yy - year
ddd - day through year
a - hour through day a- 00; b 01 ... x 23
mm - 00 minute at start of file - usually files are started every hour - but if
logging is restarted minute of restart
tsg - thermosalinograph


4.2  Printed material

Printed materials created during the processing are available from the Data 
Centre (Terry Byrne).


4.3  Date and Times

All dates and times are in UTC unless otherwise stated.




ADCP DATA PROCESSING NOTES

1  FEATURES OF THIS VOYAGE 

Initially the maximum depth of useable ADCP data was typically 400 m (in deep 
water) which is expected with the narrow-band ADCP on the Franklin. The range 
deteriorated and by 8 Oct the range was about 220 m with some deep isolates. By 
the 20 Oct the range was unstable and shallow; the instrument was raised out of 
the water for examination on 31 October and then not used. A fault in the ADCP 
connectors was subsequently corrected on the following voyage. There was only 2% 
bottom track coverage. 

The Ashtech 3DF GPS was operating during this cruise. It's highly accurate 
values of the ship's heading, pitch and roll were used to determine the absolute 
water velocities; producing 95.6% possible coverage. Values of ship's heading 
from the ship's gyrocompass were not used in the processing. 

Differential GPS was operational at all times during this voyage, but 
unexplained small gaps in the data occurred.


2  SPECIAL PROCESSING FOR THIS CRUISE 

Only3DFship'sheadingandnogyrocompassheadingswereusedfordataprocessingusing the 3 
minute .adp ﬁles returned from the voyage. Direct velocities were used in 
preference to position derived GPS velocities. All data after 01:40 30 October 
have been rejected. 


2.1  Proﬁles integrated 

Bottom track corrected, no reference layer averaging in ﬁnal integration:  
fr0009_3df.abt: 48 20 minute proﬁles (2% or voyage) 

Best available correction (Bottom track preferred to direct GPS velocities, 
preferred to position derived velocities):  fr0009_3df.any: 2331 20 minute 
proﬁles  fr0009_3df_60.any:  785 60 minute proﬁles 

Non-integrated proﬁles (3 minute ensembles): 

All possible ensembles with best available correction (bottom track preferred to 
direct GPS velocities, preferred to position-derived GPS velocities).  
e_f0009_3df.any: 15426 3 minute proﬁles 

The following ﬁles were ﬁrst integrated using reference layer averaging over 
bins 2 to 8, then merged with ﬁles which were integrated using no reference 
layer averaging. 

GPS corrected (direct GPS velocities preferred to position-derived velocities):  
fr0009_3df.agp: 2331 20 minute proﬁles  fr0009_3df_60.agp: 785 60 minute proﬁles 

NB: See ADCP Format Guide for explanation of processed ﬁle formats. 


3  DATA REJECTIONS 

Out of a total of 15798 three minute ensembles, 15426 made it through to the 
processed ﬁle stage, with 364792 total good bins. 
Bin 1 rejections 661 

Number of bins rejected due solely to: 
%Good < 30%: 201597 
%Good < 50%: where RLA was bad and no acceleration: 4325 
%Good < 70%: where RLA was bad and there was acceleration: 217 
Vertical Velocity > 0.22 m/s : 2196
S.D. of error velocity > 0.13 m/s: 3842 
Absolute Velocity > 2 m/s: 0 
Isolates: 713 
dv/dz shear per metre in upper 200 m > 0.10 m/s : 12 

Number of bins rejected due to multiple tests: 192349 

NB: this larger ejection of bins is most likely rejections at depth overall (as 
obviously entire ensembles weren't rejected). The faulty connectors have thought 
only to effect the range of the proﬁles; i.e. the accuracy of the remaining 
vectors should not be effected. 


4  CALIBRATION 

ADCP water proﬁle vectors (measured relative to the ship) are calibrated by 
being rotated through an angle alpha and multiplied by scaling factor 1 + beta. 
The rotational calibration primarily corrects for misalignment of the transducer 
with respect to the ship, of the ship with respect to the gyrocompass (or 3DF 
GPS), and the error in the gyrocompass (or 3DFGPS). The scaling multiplier 
primarily corrects biases arising from the proﬁler itself. Both of these 
calibrations make a large difference to the resultant currents, particularly 
because they are both applied to the usually large ship-relative currents. For 
example, a scaling multiplier of 0.01 applied when the water velocity with 
respect to the ship is 6m/s alters the measured absolute currents by 6 cm/s. 

The following calibrations were chosen for this voyage. 

alpha = 0.730 +/- 0.3 degrees
1 + beta =  1.0096 +/- 0.005


5  ERRORS 

The data provided should not be taken as absolutely true and accurate. There are 
many sources of error, some of which are very hard to quantify. Often the 
largest error is that of determining the ship's actual velocity. 


5.1  Accuracy of water velocity relative to the ship 

The theoretical approximate short-term velocity error for our 150kHz narrow-band 
ADCP is: 

sigma = 1/(pulse length   X   square root of pings per average)

For a 3 minute ensemble with say 170 pings, using 8m pulse, this gives a 
theoretical error of 1 cm/s for each value (that is, independently for each 
bin). 

For 20 minute proﬁles, with say 1150 pings averaged, the error in measuring the 
velocity of the water relative to the ship is probably reduced to the long term 
systematic bias. Of this bias, RDI says

"Internal bias is typically less than 1 cm/s, depending on several factors 
including temperature, mean current speed, signal/noise ratio, beam geometry 
errors, etc. It is not yet possible to measure ADCP bias and to calibrate or 
remove it in post-processing." 

In addition, there are the transducer alignment and attitude sensor errors, 
which mainly cancel out where bottom-track ship velocities are used (see Section 
5.3). For GPS ship velocity corrected currents, the transducer alignment and 
attitude sensor errors probably have a residual effect after calibrating of 
roughly: 

0.3 cm/s per m/s of ship speed, due to, say, 0.3 degree uncertainty and 
variation in alignment angle. 

0.5cm/s perm/sofshipspeed,dueto,say,0.005uncertaintyandvariationinscaling 
factor. 

This gives us, say, 0.58 cm/s error per m/s of ship speed, or3.6 cm/s at 12 
knots. 

Other sources of bias might be the real-time and post-processing data screening, 
and depth-dependent bias. 


5.2  GPS proﬁles 

In the presence of SA (see sections 1 and 3), errors are larger and even very 
large errors cannot be removed by dv/dt screening (because this would bias the 
long term average - there is reason to assume that given a long enough period 
the accumulated SA error is close to zero). 


5.3  Bottom track proﬁles 

Firstly note that errors incurrent speed arising from transducer alignment and 
attitude sensor limitations will substantially cancel out. Normally ,the 
accuracy of screened bottom track data appears to be of the same order of 
accuracy as non-SA GPS, that is, about 2 - 3 cm/s for a 20 minute proﬁle. 
However, the error in the current direction is at least the error in alpha.




CTD PROCESSING NOTES

Data processing completed by Bob Beattie


1.  SUMMARY

These notes relate to the production of QC'ed, calibrated CTD data from R V 
Franklin voyage Fr 09/2000 (26 Sept - 12 Nov, 2000)

Data for 142 stations was acquired using a Seabird SBE911 CTD unit fitted with a 
24 bottle rosette sampler. Pressure and temperature were calculated using the 
Seabird-supplied calibration factors and the data was subjected to automated QC 
to remove spikes

The laboratory salinity determinations from the first part of the voyage were of 
less than ideal quality for performing conductivity calibration. The laboratory 
salinities for deployments 78 - 143 were of high quality and gave a calibration 
standard deviation of 0.0022 psu. This calibration was also applied to the 
remaining deployments. We consider this approach to be justified, as the 
laboratory analyses and a comparison of the output of the primary and secondary 
conductivity sensors revealed little, if any, long term sensor drift during the 
voyage.

Dissolved Oxygen was calibrated by fitting the data to an Owens and Millard 
(1985) model of the Beckman-style oxygen sensor. It is apparent that this model 
does not quantify all factors affecting the sensor output, which means that the 
CTD oxygen values should only be used for qualitative interpretation. 


2.  VOYAGE DETAILS

2.1  Title

Monitoring Ocean Climate Change around Australia. The Deep Ocean Time-series 
Sections

2.2  Principal Investigators

Susan E Wijffels & John A Church , CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart & Nathan 
Bindoff, Antarctic Co-operative CRC, University of Tasmania, Hobart


2.3  Voyage objectives

The voyage summary states that the purpose was to reoccupy portions of several 
WOCE hydrographic lines between Australia and longitude 95E as part of 
establishing a deep-ocean time series section grid around Australia. For further 
details are contained in the voyage summary
(http://www.marine.csiro.au/franklin/plans/fr0900s.html).


2.4  Area of operation

See Figure 1


3.  PROCESSING NOTES

3.1  Background Information

The data was acquired with CSIRO's CTD unit #20, a Seabird SBE911 with dual 
conductivity and temperature sensors, an SBE13B, 'Beckman' dissolved oxygen 
sensor and a 24-bottle rosette.

The raw CTD data was converted to scientific units and written to netCDF format 
files for processing using the matlab-based, procCTD package. procCTD is 
described in the procCTD User's Manual.

procCTD applies automated QC and preliminary processing to the data. This 
includes spike removal, identification of water entry and exit, conductivity 
sensor lag corrections and the determination of the pressure offsets. It also 
loads the hydrology data and computes the matching CTD sample burst data.

The conductivity and dissolved oxygen calibrations were then computed and 
applied to the data and the files of binned, averaged data were produced.


3.2  Pressure and temperature calibration

Pressure and temperature were computed using the Seabird-supplied calibrations.

An additional pressure offset correction was computed for each deployment by 
assuming a linear drift between the pre and post-deployment, out-of-water 
pressures. The pressure offsets for the voyage are plotted in Figure 2, below. 
The pressure sensor shows slight hysteresis in its response, with the out-of-
water offsets for the deeper deployments being about 0.4 dB greater than the in-
water offsets.


Figure 2:  Pressure Offsets, deployments 1-120, 122-143


The mean outputs of the primary and secondary temperature sensors generally 
agree within 1.9 +/- 0.3 mDeg C (Fig 3) 


Figure 3:  Mean Difference, Temperature sensors, P > 1000 dB


3.3  Conductivity calibration

Salinometer problems were experienced during the first leg and early part of the 
second leg of the voyage, as can be seen from the scatter in the (CTD-bottle) 
Conductivity plot (Fig 4)


Figure 4:  (CTD - bottle) Conductivity, Deployments (1-120, 122-143)


After consultation with Steve Rintoul, we decided to use the calibration for 
deployment 78 onwards to calibrate the whole voyage. The reasoning for this was 
that:

1. The salinometer problems had been resolved from deployment 78 onwards, as 
   evidenced by the much-reduced reduced scatter in the difference plot (Fig 4).
2. Fig 4 and the plot of Mean (Primary - Secondary) Conductivity (Fig 5) suggest 
   that the sensor calibrations did not change significantly during the voyage.

The difference between the primary and secondary CTD conductivity cells was 
essentially zero at the start of the voyage and had increased to only 0.0003 S/m 
by deployment 113. (The secondary cell became unserviceable after it developed a 
crack in its glass electrode during deployment 114.)

The procCTD calibration procedures differs from our old (pre procCTD) procedures 
in that

• The calibration is applied in addition to the Manufacturer's Calibration, 
  rather than being applied to the raw data.
• No allowance is made for inter-deployment drift.

The calibration for deployments 78 - 143, with no sample data explicitly flagged 
as Suspect or Bad, but using procCTD's Exclude Outliers option, gives the 
following calibration factors:

Scale Factor (a1) 1.0001923 w.r.t. Manufacturer's calibration
Offset (a0) 1.17496E-04 ditto
Calibration S.D. (Sal) 0.002203 psu


3.4  Dissolved Oxygen Sensor Calibration

Our model for the response of the Dissolved Oxygen sensor is based on Owens and 
Millard (1985). It uses an iterated, 6-parameter fit for the parameters:

Oxygen Current Slope
Oxygen Current Bias
Sensor Lag
Activation Energy
Reaction Volume
Temperature weight

In principle, the last 4 factors should be constant for the sensor type and 
geometry, with only the Slope and Bias changing, as the sensor becomes depleted. 
In practice, we iterate some or all of the other components, as we have not yet 
determined the ideal default values.

In addition, the sensor model does not take account of all factors affecting the 
sensor output. as there seems to be an additional hysteresis effect that allows 
only one, rather than both, of the downcast and upcast sensor outputs to be 
matched to the bottle data. (The 'downcast samples' are the downcast values for 
the same pressures as the 'Upcast sample bursts.)

For fr0009, I adopted the following strategy:

1. The default Reaction Volume and Temperature Weight were assumed to be correct
   Reaction Volume -29.6
   Temperature Weight 0.9
2. The same oxygen sensor was used for the whole voyage, so it was possible to 
   perform a whole-of-voyage iteration, calibrating the bottle data against both 
   the down and upcast CTD 'sample burst' data. The Reaction Volume and 
   Temperature Weight were left fixed and values were computed for the other 
   four parameters.
3. The Lag and Activation Energy were fixed at the values determined from the 
   whole-of-voyage iteration:
     Sensor Lag 7.8681
     Activation Energy 4611.6
4. The deployments were arbitrarily divided into 4 groups of sequential 
   deployments, to reduce the effect of sensor depletion, and values of slope 
   and bias were computed by calibrating the bottle data against the downcast 
   'sample bursts'.

            Deployment                                 Fit S.D.
             grouping    Current Slope  Current Bias  (uMole/l)
            ----------  --------------  ------------  ---------
              1-35        4.2217E-04    -3.7086E-03    5.2162
             36-70        4.3017E-04     5.6643E-04    3.7585
             71-100       4.0114E-04    -4.946E-03     3.7112
            101-143       4.0253E-04    -2.259E-03     2.4792

This produces a reasonable agreement between the bottle data and the downcast 
profile, but it is by no means perfect. There was an unexpected 7% increase in 
sensitivity occurred somewhere between deployments 36 and 100. As far as I know, 
the same DO sensor was used for the whole voyage. You would have expected the 
Current Slope (gain) to progressively increase as the sensor reagents become 
depleted, but this is obviously not the case.

Two typical downcast profiles are shown in Fig 6.

The calibrated oxygen data should only be used for qualitative and semi-
quantitative work. It is as good a fit as can be expected, given the limitations 
of our current understanding of the oxygen sensor model.


3.5  Other sensors

No other CTD sensors were logged during this voyage.


3.6  Binned data files

The calibrated data was 'filtered' to remove pressure reversals and binned into 
2dB averaged netCDF files. The binned values were calculated by applying a 
linear, least-squares fit to the bin data and using this to interpolate the 
value for the bin mid-point. This is more accurate than simply taking the mean 
of the data.

Each bin is assigned a QC flag for each binned parameter. Our flagging scheme is 
described in 
http://www.marine.csiro.au/datacentre/ext_docs/DataQualityControlFlags.pdf.

The QC Flag for each bin is estimated from the values for the bin components. 
(We haven't yet documented this. For the moment, refer to the comments in matlab 
function matlab/toolbox/ local/dpg/util/@QCFlag/estimate.m (or 'help 
estimate').) The QC Flag for derived quantities, such as Salinity and Dissolved 
Oxygen is taken to the worst of the estimates for the parameters from which they 
are derived.


4.  REFERENCES

Beattie, R.D., in prep, procCTD CTD Processing Procedures Manual. FrameMaker 
    document /net/fdcs/opt/fdcs/src/ctd/doc/procCTD.fm

Owens, W.B, and J.C. Millard Jr., 1985: A new algorithm for CTD oxygen
    calibration. J. Physical Oceanography., 15, 621-631.

Pender, L., 2000: Data Quality Control Flags.
    http://www.csiro.marine.au/datacentre/ext_docs/DataQualityControlFlags.pdf




HYDROLOGY PROCESSING REPORT

Data processing completed by Rebecca Cowley, 1 November, 2001


1  SUMMARY

These notes relate to the production of calibrated hydrology data for the RV 
Franklin voyage Fr0009. Salinity, dissolved oxygen and nutrient data was 
processed. 143 deployments were completed, of which 138 have valid data.


2  VOYAGE DETAILS

The following information is taken from Voyage Summary Fr0900.


2.1  Chief scientist
 
     Susan E. Wijffels (Chief Scientist)
     CSIRO Marine Research
     GPO Box 1538
     Hobart Tasmania 7000 Australia
     Tel: 03 6232 5450 Fax: 03 6232 5000
     Email: Susan.Wijffels@marine.csiro.au

     John A. Church, Steve R. Rintoul, Bronte Tilbrook
     CSIRO Marine Research

     Nathan Bindoff
     Antarctic Co-operative Research Center
     University of Tasmania


2.2  Voyage objectives

To reoccupy portions of several WOCE hydrographic lines between Australia and 
95° E in the southeast Indian Ocean as part of establishing a deep-ocean time-
series section grid around Australia. Full-depth 24 bottle 5L Niskin/CTD casts 
will be taken at WOCE spatial resolution. Sampling and chemical analyses will be 
completed for salinity, oxygen, nutrients, dissolved carbon and alkalinity. At-
sea quality control will occur with all CTD and sample data collected and 
scrutinized as soon as it is available and compared with the WOCE data.


2.3  Area of operation

See Figure 1


3  PROCESSING NOTES

3.1  Introduction

The hydrology data was processed according to the procedures outlined in 
"Hydrology data processing procedures", First edition, Rebecca Cowley.

Hydrology data is collected on the upcast of a CTD deployment, and salinity data 
is compared to calibrated CTD upcast burst data. Erroneous values are deleted 
from the dataset. Dissolved oxygen and nutrient data are compared deployment to 
deployment, with obvious outliers deleted from the dataset.

CTD unit #20 was used on this voyage and 143 deployments were completed, of 
which 138 contain hydrology data. Deployments 121, 128 - 130 and 132 do not 
contain hydrology data. Salinity, dissolved oxygen and nutrient data were 
collected.


3.2  Salinity

Salinity data deleted from the dataset are shown in Table 2. All deletions were 
due to a bad sample or analysis. Many outliers were retained and can be 
attributed to the surface water structure which leads to anomalies between the 
CTD and hydrology data. The area of sampling had surface water with steep 
haloclines. The final CTD salinity - Hydro salinity offset plot is shown in 
Figure 7.

Table 2:  Salinity measurements deleted from hydrology dataset.

           ___________________________________________________

                        Rosette   Niskin       CTD-Hydro
            Deployment  Position  bottle  salinity difference
            ----------  --------  ------  -------------------
                 4          6      5020        -0.015
                 8          4      5022        -0.013
                15         21      5014        -0.02
                17          2      5009         0.013
                17         18      5016         0.013
                20         15      5019         0.05
                21         11      5001        -0.021
                21         12      5055        -0.017
                24         17      5017         0.015
                24         20      5023        -0.011
                24         21      5014        -0.016
                27          4      5006        -0.011
                29         11      5016        
                30         23      5004        
                34         13      5003        -0.03
                39         20      5020        -0.2
                40         11      5011        -0.035
                42         11      5011        -0.036
                44         22      5005        -0.022
                45         22      5005        -0.014
                46         22      5005        -0.012
                47         22      5005        -0.017
                50         14      5026        
                50         22      5005         0.025
                68         10      5021         0.032
                69         10      5021         0.036
                74         10      5021        -0.017
                76         10      5021        -0.007
                76         10      5021         0.053
                76         18      5022         0.014
                76         19      5004        -0.041
                76         21      5003         0.013
                76         22      5007        -0.026
                77         10      5021        -0.007
                85         21      5003        -0.173
                90          7      5013         0.021
                93         18      5010        -0.986
                97          2      5019        -0.019
               101         10      5009        -0.019
               102         13      5013        -0.01
               102         20      5006         0.013
               104         11      5026        -0.073
               109         16      5005         0.198
               109         22      5008         0.023
               120         14      5016        -0.01
               122         18      5022         0.257
               127         18      5010        -0.19
               136         17      5021         0.788
           ___________________________________________________


Figure 7:  CTD salinity - Hydro salinity final offset plot.


3.2.1  Data Quality

During the first leg of the voyage, problems were encountered with the 
salinometer, and more scatter in the data is apparent in the early results. Many 
results have been kept as the difference in bottle and CTD salinity may be due 
to the steep haloclines present in the top 500 metres of the deployment.

3.3  Dissolved oxygen

Table 3 lists the dissolved oxygen data points that were deleted from the 
dataset due to errors in analysis or sample collection.


Table 3.  Dissolved oxygen measurements deleted from the dataset.

               ______________________________________________

                            Rosette 
                Deployment  Position  Reason for deletion
                ----------  --------  ----------------------
                    13          1     Dubious result
                    13          2     Dubious result
                    13          3     Dubious result
                    13          4     Dubious result
                    43      11 to 21  Dubious result
                    54          5     Bad sample or analysis
                    64          8     Bad sample or analysis
                    64         14     Bad sample or analysis
                    65       2 to 14  Incomplete records
                    69         10     Bad sample or analysis
                    74         10     Bad sample or analysis
                    75          4     Bad sample or analysis
                    76         10     Bad sample or analysis
                    77         10     Bad sample or analysis
                    77         13     Bad sample or analysis
                    82          1     Bad sample or analysis
                    82          5     Bad sample or analysis
                    88         19     Bad sample or analysis
                   109          1     Bad sample or analysis
                   134          4     Bad sample or analysis
               ______________________________________________


3.3.1  Data Quality

The dissolved oxygen data quality for this voyage is good.


3.4  Nutrients

Due to contamination of the milli-q water supply, nitrate results for many runs 
were adjusted after the voyage. Below is a brief description of the corrections 
applied to the dataset. During the cruise it was noted that the Nitrate/Nitrite 
standard curve was giving a slight negative intercept. This negative intercept 
became more apparent as the cruise continued. The problem was traced back to the 
Milli-Q water system and changing all filters gave little improvement. Milli-Q 
water from a carbouy that had been loaded on at Hobart was used to make all the 
nitrate reagents and ASW carrier which instantly corrected the problem and the 
negative intercept was no longer evident. The duplicate samples from the 
affected runs were stored at Marmion for later analysis back at Hobart. 
Unfortunately there was a problem with the freezer at Marmion and all the 
samples thawed and were unfrozen for an undetermined time.

Back in Hobart:-

The theoretical recovery of the SRM's from the runs were calculated.
The percentage error appeared to give a linear correlation with concentration 
  using SRM and QC samples.
The percentage recovery of samples from the runs were calculated against the SRM 
  and QC recovery.
The correction used was:
  (Uncorrected Value times 100) divided by (Percentage recovery of the low SRM + 
  (Uncorrected Value minus Low SRM concentration) times (difference in 
  percentage recovery between the low and high SRMs divided by difference in SRM 
  concentrations) )

Table 4 lists the data that was deleted from the dataset in the post-voyage 
processing and the reasons.


Table 4:  Nutrient results deleted from the dataset.

_________________________________________________________________________

        Rosette   
 STN    Position  Bottle  Reason for deletion
 ---  ----------  ------  ----------------------------------------------
 15       12       5005   All nutrients - Sample taken from wrong bottle 
 18        6       5011   All nutrients - Sampling or analysis error
 18        8       5026   All nutrients - Sampling or analysis error
 21        9       5012   Silicate -      Sampling or analysis error
 37       12       5017   Nitrate -       Sampling or analysis error
 46       19       5013   Phosphate -     Sampling or analysis error
 68        9              All nutrients - Sampling or analysis error
 69       10              All nutrients - Sampling or analysis error
 69   All results         Nitrate -       Sampling or analysis error
 74       10              All nutrients - Sampling or analysis error
 76       10       5021   All nutrients - Sampling or analysis error
 77       10       5021   All nutrients - Sampling or analysis error
 86   All results         All nutrients - Analysis error
 87   All results         All nutrients - Analysis error
 88   All results         Phosphate -     Sampling or analysis error
 91       20              Phosphate -     Sampling or analysis error
 92        3       5023   Phosphate -     Sampling or analysis error
_________________________________________________________________________


3.4.1  Data Quality

The nitrate/nitrite results are dubious for some casts due to the analysis 
problems during the voyage. Silicate and phosphate appear to be good, but no 
quality control report is available at this time.


4  OTHER

Niskin bottle numbers were altered from the 4-digit number to a three digit 
number for archiving purposes. The bottle numbers were originally '50XX' where 
'50' represents a 5 litre bottle and XX represents the rosette position. In the 
archive, the bottle numbers have had the '0' removed.

Copies of printed materials and further information can be obtained from the 
Data Centre (Terry Byrne or Rebecca Cowley).


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We received excellent support from the Ship's officers and crew and the 
scientific staff.  We thank them and the shore based support staff for ensuring 
the success of the cruise.   A number of people at CMR put in significant effort 
prior to the cruise to design, install and test new systems to meet the 
demanding needs of this cruise. In particular we thank Ron Plaschke for his 
logistics support and overseeing the upgrading/installation of the new systems 
and  Ian Helmond and the Workshop for their design and assembly.  We also thank 
Chari Pattiaratchi, Chief Scientist of the following cruise, for accommodating 
the need to extend the cruise following the medical evacuation.


Susan Wijffels      John Church             Steve Rintoul
Chief Scientist     Cruise Leader Leg 1     Cruise Leader Leg 2


Figure 1:  Hydrographic stations occupied during the cruise are indicated by 
           triangles. 





APPENDICES

                                   APPENDIX A

                        REPORT ON TESTING OF XBT SYSTEMS

The BOM system was tested with 14 XBTs over 4 CTDs. The XBTs all matched each 
other well and matched the CTDs with varying depth offsets of less than 2 or 3m. 
There appears to be a slight temperature offset but this is within 0.2 degC 
which is within the specifications for t-7 probes. No detailed analysis has been 
done but the data looks good and the system appears to work well. The data will 
be given to BOM who will do the detailed comparison after the CTD corrected data 
is available.

The Sippican system had problems from the beginning. The Sippican software had 
not been loaded before the computer was sent from Hobart. We installed the 
software, which apparently cause the computer to malfunction and run V E R Y 
slowly. Several days were lost trying to figure this problem out. We tried to 
re-install windows but the Windows 2000 system disks that had been sent were 
corrupted. Finally, Erik managed to fix the computer's hard drive and, at Rick's 
suggestion, we reloaded the Sippican system with the mk12 card installed. When 
we tried to launch a probe, the system couldn't communicate with the mk12 card 
because the "MK12IO.SYS" file was either missing or not working properly. We 
found the file and tried putting it various places but no luck. Given that it 
was installed (presumably properly and in the right place) by the Sippican 
installation, we have no idea why it didn't work. In the end, we ran out of CTDs 
and gave up. Steve Rintoul will be bringing a BOM windows computer with the 
Sippican program and mk12 card already installed to test on the second leg. 

All credit to Erik Madsen for putting a LOT of time and effort into getting both 
systems up and (almost) running. 




                                   APPENDIX B

                           INDIAN OCEAN NUTRIENT DATA
                     Summary of corrections to the dataset

Introduction 

During 2000, a Franklin voyage in the Indian Ocean was undertaken to repeat a 
WOCE section. The nutrient data on this voyage was collected using an Alpkem 
system. The results of the voyage compared with the WOCE section appear to have 
many run-based errors associated with them, and some bias in the phosphate 
results.  Below are some figures showing the comparison of the voyage data and 
WOCE data. In the first and second panels of each figure, data is compared to 
the mean WOCE data from between -10 and -50 latitude (ref). The calculation is 
the (concentration - ref)/standard deviation of the ref. In the third panels, 
the difference between the first two panels is shown. 
 
All nutrient results are in um/kg and the nitrate results include nitrite.


Summary of corrections to the dataset. 

The following corrections were made in order to improve the quality of the data: 

1. The calibration of the data was re-done. The method outlined in the CSIRO 
   Hydrochemistry manual was not used. Instead, calibration of the data was done 
   using an adaptation of the WOCE Operations Manual method. The sensitivity 
   factor of each calibrant was calculated, then the closest calibrant to the 
   sample result was used to calculate the concentration. This initial step made 
   a considerable improvement in the data.  
2. The results were examined closely, and bad calibrants were removed from 
   selected runs, some of the original run data was re-imported and some bad 
   results were flagged bad in the dataset. A summary of all these alterations 
   is given in Table 5.   
3. A small section of nitrate was corrected based on QC sample results (runs 59 
   to 64), where there was a clear relationship between the QC results and the 
   sample results. Unfortunately, the remainder of the dataset could not be 
   corrected in the same way. The refractive index and blank values were 
   averaged over the entire set of runs for nitrate and silicate, and these 
   values used in place of individual run values. For phosphate, the refractive 
   index and blank average for the first 49 runs was used in place of individual 
   run values.  
4. A final check of the results plotted against depth and potential temperature 
   showed some bad results and these were flagged with a 4.   


Conclusion 

The final data has been corrected as best as possible. Further correction with 
SRM (standard reference material - OSI standards) data is not advisable, as 
there are errors associated with the make-up of these standards. The QC sample, 
which was bulk seawater sample that was autoclaved and then spiked, was included 
in every run. As this is a sample that is not diluted before a run, it is not 
subject to the same errors as the SRMs. The figures below show the QC sample 
results after the final corrections were made to the dataset. It may be possible 
to further correct the data based on the QC sample results, however, there does 
not appear to be any clear relationship between the observed difference from the 
WOCE results and the variation in the QC sample results.  

Estimation of precision: 

The precision of the results was estimated from the mean and standard deviation 
of the QC sample results from all runs. The mean coefficient of variation (CV% - 
standard deviation/mean*100%) for each nutrient is: 

                              Nitrate/nitrite:  5.55%
                              Silicate:         1.5% 
                              Phosphate:        3.55% 

The plots below show a summary of the final results and the precision at each 
concentration. 


Table 5:  Summary of corrections to the data made in step 2. 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

   Run     Station   Nutrient   Adjustment 
 --------  --------  ---------  -------------------------------------------------------------------
     9        13        All     remove cal 4  
    13        17        All     remove cal 3 and 5 
    17        20        Ni      Remove cal 5 
    18        21        All     Remove cal 5 
    22        25        Ni      Remove cal 5 
    34        34        Ni      Remove cal 5 
    39        39        Ni      Remove cal 5 
    46        46        Ni      Re-import data 
    46        46        Ph      Bad result RP19, delete 
    57        57        All     Remove cal 5 
    58        58        All     Remove cal 5 
    59        59        Ni      Remove cal 5 
    60        60        All     Remove cal 5 
    61        61        All     Remove cal 3 
    63        63        All     Remove cal 5 
    64        64        All     Remove cal 4 
    65        65     Ni and Ph  Bad second cal 5, adjust to 1980100 (ni), )103000 )(ph) 
    71        71        Ni      Use -28573 and -33120 as cal 0 value 
    72        72        Ni      Bad second set of calibrants, duplicate first set 
    79        79        All     remove cal 4  
    84        84        Ni      Bad second set of calibrants, duplicate first set 
    85        85        Ni      Remove cal 3 and cal 5 
    89        89        Si      Remove cal 1 
    96        96        All     remove cal 4 
    97        97        All     remove cal 5 
    98        98        All     remove cal 5 
   123       123        All     Bad calibration, remove all data 
   126       126        All     Remove cal 5 
   130       130        All     Remove cal 5 
   131       131        All     Remove cal 5 
   132       132        All     Remove cal 5 
   133       133        All     Remove cal 2 
   134       134        all     Bad calibration, remove all data 
   136       136        All     Remove cal 4 
   141        88     phosphate  Remove cal 5, re-import phosphate data from stn 88, call it run 141 
 59 to 64  59 to 64     Ni      Correct to QC result of run 55 
    37        37        Ni      Flag sample 3712 as bad 
    46        46        P       Flag sample 4619 as bad 
    70        70        Ni      Flag all data as bad 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 


REFERENCES 
 
WOCE Operations Manual, Volume 3. WHP Office Report WHPO 91-1. WOCE Report No. 
    68/91. November 1994, Revision 1. 

CSIRO Hydrochemistry Operations Manual (1999). Cowley, R., Critchley, G., 
    Eriksen, R., Latham, V., Plascke, R., Rayner, M., Terhell, D.  




CCHDO DATA PROCESSING NOTES

DATE      CONTACT   PARAMETER         ACTION/SUMMARY
--------  -------   ----------------  ------------------------------------------
12/15/08  Cowley    NUTs              Submitted; no header, lat/lon 
          Status: public
          Name: Cowley, Rebecca
          Institute: CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
          Country: Australia
          Expo: Line: I05, I09, I02, I10 (parts of each)
          Date: 2000-09-26 
          Action: Merge Data
          Notes: This file contains re-processed nutrient data (November, 2008). 
          The salinity and oxygen data are also included. Nutrient results are 
          in um/kg, WOCE flags are included for the nutrients only. A PDF 
          document describing the re-processing is available from Rebecca 
          Cowley.

          Voyage PI is Susan Wijffels.

10/13/09  Kappa     Cruise Report     Prepared text and pdf cruise reports
          Compiled report from:
            Docs submitted by PI
            Docs obtainted from CSIRO web site:
              http://www.marine.csiro.au/marq/edd_search3.rvdata1?lPla=FR&lVoy=
              9&lVyr=2000&lDtp=All&cSub=View+available+datasets
                Copyright CSIRO Australia, 2004
            CCHDO Data Processing Notes
          Placed docs in online directories
