A.	Cruise Narrative

A.1	Highlights

A.1.a	WOCE designation		AR7E
        
A.1.b	EXPOCODE			06AZ129/1

A.1.c	Chief Scientist		A. SY
					Bundesamt Fuer Seeschiffahrt und Hydrographie
					Postfach 30 12 20
					Abtlg. M/M4
					D-20305
					Hamburg, Germany

A.1.d	Ship				R/V Valdivia
A.1.e	Ports of Call:		Reykjavik to Hamburg
A.1.f	Cruise dates:		September 12 to October 6, 1992


A.2	Cruise Summary Information

A.2.a	Geographic Boundaries:	60 N, 52.33 N, 42.67 W, 14 W

A.2.b	Total number of stations:  58

A.2.c	Floats and drifters deployed

A.2.d	Moorings deployed or recovered

A.3	List of Principal Investigators


A.4	Scientific Programme and Methods

Cruise # 129 by R.V. Valdivia (call sign: DESI) was a contribution to the World 
Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) Hydrographic Programme. It started on 
September 12 in Reykjavik (Iceland) and finished in Hamburg (Germany) on October 
6, 1992. The purpose of the cruise was to carry out a CTD survey from the east 
coast of Greenland at 60 N, 42 40 W to the southern tip of the Porcupine Bank 
off the west coast of Ireland at 52 20 N, 14 W (WOCE line AR7/East). The 
sampling was designed to meet WOCE requirements for repeat surveys. Valdivia 
cruise 129 was successful, and the data quality is expected to be good. The 
captain of the ship was Mr. Wolfgang Klaassen, the chief scientist was Dr. 
Alexander Sy.

Scientific Aims

The Atlantic Ocean is characterized through an intensive meridional circulation 
cell, carrying near surface water of tropical and subtropical origin northwards 
and deep water of arctic and subarctic origin southwards. The transformation and 
sinking of water masses at high latitudes are the important processes for the 
"overturning" of the ocean. The overturning rates and the intensity of the 
meridional transports of mass, heat, and salt are control parameters for the 
modelling of the ocean's role in climate.

Valdivia cruise 129 is part of the five-year observational programme WOCE- NORD 
(World Ocean Circulation Experiment - North Atlantic Overturning Rate 
Determination). Using repeated hydrographic sections between the southern tip of 
Greenland and Ireland in combination with current measurements from moored 
arrays the overturning rates of the North Atlantic will be quantified. The 
cruise is also part of the German WOCE programme, contributing to the global 
description of the world ocean. Valdivia cruise 129 covers section AR7/East 
within the WOCE hydrographic programme. The scientific measurements on this 
cruise included 58 surface-to-bottom CTD and small-volume stations. At the 
latter, a rosette water sampler was used with each CTD cast for on board 
analysis of salinity and oxygen. 12 electronic SIS DSRTs were used for in-situ 
temperature control, and 6 electronic SIS pressure meters for in-situ pressure 
control. The pre-cruise CTD calibration has been carried out at IfM Kiel, 
Germany; the post-cruise calibration is planned for late November 1992 at IfM 
Kiel. The station spacing was designed in accordance with bathymetry and was to 
vary between 10 nautical miles (nm) and 30 nm with a total length of the section 
of about 1200 nm. To avoid shallow topographic structures, and to resolve flows 
following bathymetry, the section was composed of five sections of different 
orientation instead of a straight line (see Fig 1.) In addition to the main work 
on section AR7/East XBT, XCTD, ADCP, and SST/SSS measurements have been carried 
out, however, XCTD and SST/SSS measurements for tests only. 

Instruments


CIDO2/Rosette:
NBIS MK-III  
Salinometer:
Guildline  
Titration unit:
Metrohn-Titroprocessor  
Further instrumentation:
ADCP, Thermosalinograph, XBT, XCTD


Course of the Cruise

R.V. Valdivia left Reykjavik on September 12, 17:30 UTC heading for 60N, 42.5 W. 
On September 13, work began on taking sea surface, XBT, and ADCP measurements. 
Except ADCP, these measurements were taken as part of the IGOSS programme 
(Integrated Global Ocean Services System) to be transmitted in near- real time 
via METEOSAT to the BSH from where they were fed into the GTS network of WMO for 
worldwide distribution (BATHY and TRACKOB messages). All CTD profiles from the 
hydrographic section were distributed worldwide as TESAC messages. On September 
15 the CTD station work began. An approaching storm system, however, interrupted 
work after measurements had been carried out at 11 CTD stations on September 17 
and 18. The work on the main section could be completed on September 28 (see 
station list). No serious problems affected CTD measurements. Only one and the 
same CTD was used for all stations. Between September 29 and October 1st three 
CTD test stations in deep water (> 4000 m) at 51.4N, 15.8W and at 49.3 N, 14.4 W 
have been carried out for quality control purposes. 

A.5	Major Problems and Goals not Achieved

A.6	Other Incidents of Note

A.7	List of Cruise Participants
        
Table 2:  List of Cruise Participants

Name				Institutions*	Responsibility

Dr. Alexander Sy		BSH			Chief Scientist (CTD, tests)
Uwe Paul			BSH			Scientist CTD
Manfred Bersch		IfMH			Scientist (ADCP, XBT)
Gerd Stelter		BSH			Technician (software)
Norbert Verch		IfMH			Technician (salinometer)
Heiko Mauritz		BSH			Technician
Ines Horn			BSH			Technician (oxygen)
Rita Kramer-Geilun	BSH			Technicican (oxygen)
Anna Gyldenfeld		IfMH			Student
Sofie Woelk			IfMH			Student
Johannes Karstensen	IfMH			Student


Table 3:  List of Institutions


Abreviation		Institutions

BSH			Bundesamt fur Seeschiffahrt und Hydrographie
			Bernhard-Nocht-Str. 78  
			D-2000 Hamburg 36 Germany  
			Telex: 215 448 hydro d  
			Fax: (40) 3190 5000  
			Telemail: BSH.HAMBURG


IfMH			Institute fuer Meereskunde der University Hamburg
			Troplowitzstr. 7  
			D-2000 Hamburg 54 Germany  
			Telex: 212 586 ifmhh d  
			Fax: (40) 4123 4644  
			Telemail: IFM.HAMBURG


B.	Underway Measurements

B.1	Navigation and bathymetry
B.2	Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)
B.3	Thermosalinograph and underway dissolved oxygen, fluorometer, etc
B.4	XBT and XCTD
B.5	Meteorological observations
B.6	Atmospheric chemistry

C.	Hydrographic Measurements

C.1	Oxygen Measurements

During VALDIVIA cruise no. 129 (Sept./Oct. 1992) dissolved oxygen was measured 
by Winkler titration as modified by Kalle (1939), and using an automated 
endpoint detection.

The Winkler/Kalle method was our traditional analytical method we were sure of 
and were skilled in handling.  Several times the method has been intercalibrated 
with other institutes participating in the Baltic Monitoring Programme and in 
ICES research programmes.

In 1992 we improved and perfected our automatic endpoint determination. Further, 
stimulated by the intercomparison measurements with the Scripps Institution 
during METEOR cruise 18 we checked out method for possible iodine losses and 
started to adapt Carpenter's (1965) modification of the Winkler method.

The numerous experiments and tests could not be finished before Valdivia cruise 
129, and it would not have been wise to change our procedure at this time.

After this cruise we introduced Carpenter's modification of the Winkler 
technique, as recommended for WOCE.  The elimination of iodine loss by 
volatilization is the essential element of this modification.  This is 
accomplished by optimizing the concentrations of the pickling reagents, and by 
performing the titration in the oxygen bottle (iodine flask).

To check the Winkler/Kalle technique for systematic errors relative to the 
Winkler/Carpenter technique, a series of experiments was performed in our 
laboratory.:

1)	Opimizing the pickling reagent concentrations according to Carpenter 
resulted in oxygen values which are higher by

+ 0.074 ml/l O2

(average of 6 sets of comparison measurements, see appendix A)

2) 	Using iodine flasks to avoid iodine loss during sample transfer yielded 

+ 0.027 ml/l O2

(average of 4 sets of comparison measurements, see appendix A)

Thus, all oxygen values measured during VALDIVIA cruise 129 have been corrected 
by adding 

0.101 ml/l  O2

The concentration range of the cruise results was nearly covered by the oxygen 
concentrations of the comparison measurements.

D.	Acknowledgments

E.	References

Carpenter, J.H. (1965):  The Chesapeake Bay Institue technique for the Winkler 
dissolved oxygen method.  Limnology Oceanography.  10, 141-143 

Kalle, K. (1939):  Einige Verbesserungen zur Bestimmung des gelosten Saurstoffs 
im Meerwasser.  Ann. Hydrogr. u. Marit. Met. 67, 267-269.

Unesco, 1983. International Oceanographic tables. Unesco Technical Papers in 
Marine Science, No. 44.

Unesco, 1991. Processing of Oceanographic Station Data. Unesco memograph By 
JPOTS editorial panel.

 F.	WHPO Summary

The DQE flagged several salinity and oxygen values, each of which the PI 
responded to. It was also noted that the ctdsal in the bottle file was 
uncalibrated. In May 1996 the Pi sent station groupings and corrections to be 
applied to the CTDSAL. The CTDSAL in the hyd file was re-calibrated at the whpo 
as follows: 

	TEMPORAL DRIFT CORRECTION
		Stations 1-7 and 24-61 
			DSAL= -0.0067 + 0.00208786 * ISTA - 0.000195349 *
				ISTA**2 + 4.40793E-6 * ISTA**3 + OLDSAL
		Stations 8-23
			DSAL=OLDSAL
 
	SALINITY CORRECTION
		Station 8-23
			SALNEW = 0.1085 - 0.003109 * DSAL + DSAL
		Stations 24-37
			SALNEW = .2407 - .00697 * DSAL + DSAL
		Stations 43-46
			SALNEW = -.367 + .010349 * DSAL + DSAL
		Stations 39,41,42,47,50,53
			SALNEW = .0932 - .002734 * DSAL + DSAL
		Stations 38,40,48-52,54-61
			SALNEW = .2015 - .005887 * DSAL + DSAL

Four figures were created by the WHPO for the benefit of the reader.

Figure 3	shows station number versus the difference between the individual 
oxygen water samples and their corresponding CTD value (OXYGEN-CTDOXY).
Figure 4	shows the oxygen difference versus pressure
Figure 5	shows station number versus the difference between the individual 
salinity water samples and their corresponding CTD value (SALNTY-CTDSAL).
Figure 6	shows the salinity difference versus pressure.


Several data files are associated with this report.  The sum,hyd and csl files 
are preceeded with the expocode(ie 06AZ129_1.sum). The sum file contains  a 
summary of the location, time, type of parameters sampled, and other pertient 
information regarding each hydrographic station.  The hyd file contains the 
bottle data.  The csl file is a listing of ctd and calculated values at  
standard levels. The ctd data for each station are in individual *.wct files. 
The *.wct files have been zipped into one file called 06AZ129_1wct.zip. 

The following is a description of how the standard levels and calculated values 
were derived for the csl file:

Salinity, Temperature and Pressure:  These three values were smoothed from the 
individual CTD files over the N uniformly increasing  pressure levels using the 
following binomial filter-

t(j) = 0.25ti(j-1) + 0.5ti(j) + 0.25ti(j+1) j=2....N-1

When a pressure level is represented in the *.csl file that is not contained 
within the ctd values, the value was linearly interpolated to the desired level 
after applying the binomial filtering.   

Sigma-theta(SIG-TH:KG/M3), Sigma-2 (SIG-2: KG/M3), and Sigma-4(SIG-4: KG/M3): 
These values are calculated using the practical salinity scale (PSS-78) and the 
international equation of state for seawater (EOS-80) as described in the Unesco 
publication 44 at reference pressures of the surface for SIG-TH; 2000 dbars for 
Sigma-2; and 4000 dbars for Sigma-4.

Gradient Potential Temperature (GRD-PT: C/DB 10-3) is calculated as the least 
squares slope between two levels, where the standard level is the center of the 
interval.  The interval being the smallest of the two differences between the 
standard level and the two closest values. The slope is first determined using 
CTD temperature and then the adiabatic lapse rate is subtracted to obtain the 
gradient potential temperature.  Equations and Fortran routines are described in 
Unesco publication, Processing of Oceanographic Station Data, 1991.

Gradient Salinity (GRD-S: 1/DB 10-3) is calculated as the least squares slope 
between two levels, where the standard level is the center of the standard level 
and the two closes values.  Equations and Fortran routines are described in 
Unesco publication, Processing of Oceanographic Station Data, 1991.

Potential Vorticity (POT-V: 1/ms 10-11) is calculated as the vertical component 
ignoring contributions due to relative vorticity, i.e. pv=fN2/g, where f is the 
coriolius parameter, N is the bouyancy frequency (data expressed as radius/sec), 
and g is the local acceleration of gravity. 

Bouyancy Frequency (B-V: cph) is calculated using the adiabatic leveling method, 
Fofonoff (1985) and Millard, Owens and Fofonoff (1990).  Equations and Fortran 
routines are described in Unesco publication 44.

Potential Energy (PE: J/M2: 10-5) and Dynamic Height (DYN-HT: M) are calculated 
by integrating from 0 to the level of interest.  Equations and  Fortran routines 
are described in Unesco publication, Processing of Oceanographic Station Data, 
1991.

Neutral Density (GAMMA-N: KG/M3) is calculated with the program GAMMA-N (Jackett 
and McDougall) version 1.3 Nov. 94.  



Data Quality Evalutions

DQE of CTD data for the 129-th cruise of the r/v "Valdivia" WOCE section AR7E in 
the Northern Atlantic.

Eugene Morozov

Data quality of 2-db CTD temperature, salinity and oxygen profiles and reference 
rosette samples were examined. Vertical distributions theta-salinity and theta-
oxygen curves were compared for individual stations using the data of up and 
down CTD casts and rosette probes. Data of several neighboring stations were 
compared.

The data were compared with the 91/1 cruise of the r/v "Tyro" (April, 1991), 
90/3 cruise of the r/v "Tyro" (July, 1990) and cruise 18 of the r/v "Meteor" 
(September, 1991) carried out in the same region of the Northern Atlantic.

Questionable data in *.hy2 file were marked in QUALT2 word.

Quality bytes in .hyd file do not have bytes for BTLNBR. It was fixed at the WHP 
office. In future it should be done by originators.

Listing of results from the comparison of salinity and oxygen data. OnlY those 
stations are listed which have data remarks. The remarks for salinity and oxygen 
are given separately.

SALINITY

It is necessary to calibrate CTD salinities in upcast measurements. Usually the 
differences between upcast CTDSAL and SALNTYes are much greater than possible 
discrepancies for WOCE, and usually there is no definite offset for upcast 
CTDSAL (except stations 19 -23) Compared with SALNTY. Sometimes the 
discrepancies exceeed 0.01. I believe that none of upcast CTDSALes are 
calibrated.

Duplicate determinations of salinity made from rosette samples at the same level 
indicate that bottle measurements are a high quality data set that match WOCE 
requirements. Nevertheless there are several bottle measurements which I 
consider questionable or even bad. Usually they do not agree with the general 
vertical distribution of salinity or fall far from theta-S curve. 

Station Pressure Remarks

	14	397 db	SALNTY (34.869) is low compared with upcast CTDSAL
				(34.874) and downcast CTDSAL (34.889), flag 3.
		602 db	SALNTY (34.870) is low compared with upcast CTDSAL
				(34.875) and downcast CTDSAL (34.890), flag 3.
		1005 db	SALNTY (34.884) is hill compared with upcast CTDSAL.
				(34.880) and downcast CTDSAL (34.878), flag 3.
		2021 db	SALNTY (34.864) is low compared with upcast CTDSAL
				(34.867) and downcast CTDSAL (34.872), flag 4.
	16	There is a difference of about 0.01 for all levels of measurements 
between upcast CTDSAL and SALNTY (SALNTY is less). The agreement between SALNTY 
and downcast CTDSAL is better, nevertheless discrepancies at two levels are 
higherthan norm:
		800 db 	SALNTY (34.876) is low compared with upcast CTDSAL
				(34.886) and downcast CTDSAL (34.890), flag 4.
		900 db 	SANLTY (34.871) is low compared with upcast CTDSAL
				(34.878) and downcast CTDSAL (34.880), flag 4. 
	18	699 db	SALNTY (34.881) is low compared with upcast CTDSAL
				(34.886) and downcast CTDSAL (34.889), flag 3.

There is a front between stations 18 and 19 (different water masses)
and many intrusions, so I flag only very large discrepancies.There is
a difference of about 0.01 for all levels of measurements between
upcast CTDSAL and SALNTY (SALNTY is less) for stations 19 through 23.
It seems that there is an offset of about -0.01 for upcast CTDSAL for
these four stations. The agreement between SALNTY and downcast
CTDSAL is better.

	19	501 db	SALNTY (34.984) is low compared with upcast CTDSAL
				(34.994) and downcast CTDSAL (35.015), flag 4.
		601 db	SALNTY (35.014) is low compared with upeast CTDSAL
				(35.023) and downcast CTDSAL (35.034), flag 3.
		There is a large vertical gradient of salinity at this level that is 
why I flag these measurements as Qble not Bad.
		1407 db SALNTY (34.947) is low compared with upcast CTDSAL
				(34.955) and downcast CTDSAL (34.955), flag 4

OXYGEN

CTDOXY calibration in the upper 300 db, sometimes 800 db is bad for many 
stations. CTDOXY measurements at these stations do not at all match with bottle 
OXYGEN. Several bottle OXYGEN measurements do not agree with the general 
vertical distribution. Comparison with neighboring stations, with other cruises 
and with the form of the vertical distribution given by CTDOXY data make me 
think that these data are bad or questionable.

Station Pressure Remarks

	5	CTDOXY calibration is high in the interval 1000-1500 db.

	6	CTDOXY calibration is high in the upper 300 db.

	7	492	OXYGEN (287.0) is low, flag 3; CTDOXY = 293.4

	8	398	OXYGEN (282.4) is low, flag 3; CTDOXY = 288.0

	9	800	OXYGEN (290.3) is low, flag 4; CTDOXY = 294.4
			CTDOXY calibration is bad in the upper 400 db.

	10	CTDOXY calibration is low in the interval 1800-2800 db.  Thelowest 
bottle OXYGEN (2804 db) is Qble. There is a decrease of OXYGEN compared with 
(2731 db) bottle which is 110supported by CTDOXY There is such a similar near 
bottom OXYGEN decrease on station 9 (2527 and 2615 db) supported by CTDOXY.

	12	This station is the most difficult one to take a decision. 
Nevertheless I flag 6 bottles bad and 4 bottles Qble. The vertical distribution 
of OXYGEN below 1700 db does not match neither with the station 13 nor with 
downcast CTDOXY. CTDOXY for stations 12 and 13 are in a good agreement between 
themselves and with OXYGEN measurements for station 13. OXYGEN measurements 
below 1700 db do not match neither with the Meteor 18 data (1991) nor with the 
data from "Tyro" cruises in 1990 and 1991. These data fall out from the THETA-
OXYGEN curve as well.

I flag the following bottles:

	1711db      OXYGEN  (296.6) flag 4; CTDOXY  (291.5)
	1915db      OXYGEN  (296.6) flag 4; CTDOXY  (284.5)
	2016db      OXYGEN  (288.5) flag 4; CTDOXY  (281.1)
	2214db      OXYGEN  (282.7) flag 4; CTDOXY  (273.9)
	2422db      OXYGEN  (277.4) flag 4; CTDOXY  (272.1)
	2630db      OXYGEN  (276.4) flag 4; CTDOXY  (273.0)
	2831db      OXYGEN  (278.2) flag 3; CTDOXY  (275.8)
	2931db      OXYGEN  (283.5) flag 3; CTDOXY  (277.6)
	3033db      OXYGEN  (291.0) flag 3; CTDOXY  (288.5)
	3137db      OXYGEN  (301.8) flag 3; CTDOXY  (296.8)

	13	1303	OXYGEN (294.0) is low, flag 3; CTDOXY= 297.8

	14	397	OXYGEN (296.5) is high, flag 4; CTDOXY= 282.2
		2021	OXYGEN (291.8) IS HIGH, flag 3; CTDOXY= 287.3
		CTDOXY calibration is low in the upper 800 db.

	15	1102	OXYGEN (285.8) is low, flag 3; CTdOXY= 291.8

	17	CTDOXY calibration is low in the interval below 2000 db.
		CTDOXY calibration is high in the upper 600 db.

	18	CTDOXY calibration is low in the interval below 2000 db.

	20	CTDOXY calibration is high in the upper 200 db.

	21	CTDOXY calibration is high in the upper 200 db.

	23	CTDOXY calibration is high in the upper 400 db.

	28	2525	OXYGEN (272.9) is high, flag 3; CTDOXY= 269.7
		There is a maximum near this pressure on the CTDOXY curve, but it is 
no so pronounced.

	29	497	OXYGEN (251.0) is high, flag 4; CTDOXY= 224.4

	30	2787	OXYGEN (773.5) is high, flag 4; CTDOXY= 268.7

	31	1400	OXYGEN (275.9) is low, flag 3;  CTDOXY= 278.5

	32	CTDOXY calibration is high in the interval 1000-2000 db.

	33	2115	OXYGEN (271.9) is low, flag 4; CTDOXY = 276.5
		CTDOXY calibration is high in the interval 1000-2000 db.

	34	1506	OXYGEN (284.8) is high, flag 4; CTDOXY = 280.8
		CTDOXY calibration is low below 2500 db.

	37	CTDOXY calibration seems low in the interval 1000-1875 db compared 
only with neighboring stations. There are no bottle measurements to compare. The 
station is made over the submarine ridge 80 some changes in the oxygen 
distribution are possible. Data of the "Tyro" cruise gives even lower values of 
oxygen but not exactly in the same place over the bottom elevation.

	42	2118	OXYGEN (283.4) is high, flag 4; CTDOXY = 275.1

	43	3751	OXYGEN (240.3) is low, flag, 3; CTDOXY = 243.1

	45	CTDOXY calibration is high below 2500 db. compared with bottle 
measurements but it matches well with "Tyro" and "Meteor 18" data. CTDOXY 
calibration is low in the upper 400 db.

	46	CTDOXY calibration is low in the upper 800 db.
 
	47	CTDOXY calibration is low in the upper 800 db.

	48	CTDOXY ca]ibration is low in the upper 800 db and below 2500 db.

	49	43O6	OXYGEN (239.9) is low, flag 3; CTDOXY= 242.1
		CTDOXY Calibration is low in the upper 800 db.

	50	CTDOXY calibration is low in the upper 500 db.

	51	3832	OXYGEN (238.7) is low, flag 3; CTDOXY= 240.8
		CTDOXY calibration is low in the upper 400 db.

	52	CTDOXY calibration is low in the upper 600 db.

	53	CTDOXY calibration is bad in the upper 800 db.
 
	54	CTDOXY calibration is low in the upper 1200 db.

	55	CTDOXY calibration is low in the upper 1000 db.

	56	CTDOXY calibration is low in the upper 1000 db.

	57	CTDOXY calibration is low for the entire station.

	58	CTDOXY calibration is low for the entire station.

	59	CTDOXY ca]ibration is low for the entire station.


H.	Response to DQE Report

Morozov's suspicion concerning V129 CTDSAL is correct. CTDSAL in the bottle file 
is the uncorrected CTD salinity, i.e. no laboratory or in-situ correction is 
applied to CTDSAL. 2 X-Y-diagrams attached (salinity residuals before and after 
correction) confirm Morozov's findings and will explain why a comparison of 
SALNTY with upsast CTDSAL as carried out by Morozov produced a wrong insight 
into the data quality (compare Morozov's remarks on salinity for V129 stat. # 
16, 19-23). Thus his recommendations for QUALT2 SALNTY flags are not accepted 
except for stat. # 16 (800.2 db). By the way, there is an error in his remarks 
for stat. # 14 (1005 db): SALNTY (34.884) is a wrong number.

Concerning the CTDOXY calibration we did compare the uptrace CTDOXY with the 
bottle oxygen data, however, with bad results. That is not surprising because 
the oxygen sensor response depends on the flow of water, i.e. measurements 
differed considerably for a moving and for a stopped CTD. Thus CTDOXY is not 
shown in bottle files. 3 X-Y-diagrams of the final fit may help to answer your 
question as to how well the CTDOXY and OXYGEN data are reconciled. The problem 
of presumed poorly calibrated data in the upper ocean is the same as for 
"Meteor" 18 data ( see data report). Thus results from comparisons of CTDOXY 
with OXYGEN in the upper  ocean should not lead to any down-flagging.

I attached a copy of Morozov's QUAL2 listing with my comments. V129 stat. # 12 
is bad, indeed. CTD Cable problems appeared at this station (see remark in *.SUM 
file) which caused several mistrips. It cannot be excluded that several bottles 
were not reordered correctly. I assumed that at least bottles # 1-5 were not 
affected by mistrips. Perhaps I am wrong. Thus I suggest to downflag all flags 
to 3 (SALNTY included). The bottles should be flagged with 4. Or you can 
downflag QUAL1 according my suggestion and flag QUAL2 according your comments.

   The following Table lists the levels where the QUALT1 flag was replaced by 
the QUALT2 flag, as per Sy's request. 

STNNBR
CAST NO
SAMP NO
CTDPRS
CTDSAL
CTDOXY
SALNTY
OXYGEN
QUALT1
QUALT2




*******
*******
*******
*******


12
 1
11
1711.0



296.6
~~~2
~~~4
12
 1
10
1915.4



296.6
~~~2
~~~4
12
 1
  9
2016.4



288.5
~~~2
~~~4
12
 1
  8
2214.7



282.7
~~~2
~~~4
12
 1
  7
2422.4



277.4
~~~2
~~~4
12
 1
  5
2630.7



276.4
~~~2
~~~4
12
 1
  4
2831.2



278.2
~~~2
~~~3
12
 1
  3
2931.4



283.5
~~~2
~~~3
12
 1
  2
3033.4



291.0
~~~2
~~~3
12
 1
  1
3137.0



301.8
~~~2
~~~3
13
 2
16
1303.3



294.0
~~~2
~~~3
14
 1
10
2021.3



291.8
~~~2
~~~3
15
 1
11
1102.6



285.8
~~~2
~~~3 
16
 1
16
  800.2


34.8756

~~3~
~~4~ 
28
 1
  4
2525.7



272.9
~~~2
~~~3
30
 1
17
2787.5



273.5
~~~2
~~~4
31
 1
11
1399.9



275.9
~~~2
~~~3
33
 1
  9
2115.4



271.9
~~~2
~~~3
34
 1
11
1506.5



284.8
~~~2
~~~4
42
 1
12
2118.5



283.4
~~~2
~~~4
43
 1
  4
3751.4



240.3
~~~2
~~~3
51
 1
  1
3832.0



238.7
~~~2
~~~3



I.      Appendicies

Appendix  A

1)	Means of 10 oxygen measurements in each case, using reagent concentrations 
accorrding to 

Winkler/Kalle
Winkler/Carpenter
Difference
ml/l
ml/l
ml/l



5.817  +/-  0.0066
5.884  +/-  0.0050
0.067  +/-  0.0075
5.348  +/-  0.0076
5.440  +/-  0.0033
0.093  +/-  0.0075
5.628  +/-  0.0050
5.683  +/-  0.0025
0.055  +/-  0.0053
5.570  +/-  0.0043
5.683  +/-  0.0036
0.080  +/-  0.0051
6.013  +/-  0.0208
6.081  +/-  0.0125
0.068  +/-  0.0125
5.983  +/-  0.0043
6.062  +/-  0.0054
0.079  +/-  0.0062



Mean diff of the 6 sets of comparison
0.74 +/- 0.0138
measurements +/-  error of the mean 
(95% confidence level) 



2)	Means of 10 oxygen measurements in each case (reagent concentrations 
according to Carpenter), using

Normal O2 flasks
Iodine flasks
Difference
ml/l
ml/l
ml/l



5.551  +/-  0.0029
5.566  +/-  0.0036
0.015  +/-  0.0044 
5.448  +/-  0.0050
5.475  +/-  0.0064
0.027  +/-  0.0076
5.101  +/-  0.0064
5.135  +/-  0.0064
0.035  +/-  0.0084
5.017  +/-  0.0036
5.047  +/-  0.0036
0.030  +/-  0.0048



mean diff of the 4 sets of comparison
0.027  +/-  0.0135  
measurements +/- error of the mean
(95% confidence level)
                                             


1) + 2) mean difference of the oxygen
        values caused by iodine loss 
0.101 +/- 0.0193



Cruise Plan


Line  AR7E     57°N - Ireland to Greenland

Logistical requirements:
Length (nm): 1110
Small Volume Stations:   38
Repeats/Yr: 4x;1/     No. of Yrs: 5
Program constraints: Once each season; and late winter or early spring
                     annually.  Full depth sampling and full suite of small
                     vol. tracers required.  Salinity vital.  Dense station
                     spacing and to bottom over ridges and slopes.


     Operator: GERMANY
     Chief scientist: Sy/BSH
     Ship: VALDIVIA                Cruise/leg: 06AZ129/1
     Cruise date: Sept. 12-Oct. 6 1992
     Cruise plan received:
     Cruise report received: Dec. 92
     ADCP: Bersch/IfMH
     CTD: Paul/BSH
     CTD pressure: Unknown
     CTD salinity: Unknown
     CTD temperature: Unknown
     CTD uncalibrated pressure: Unknown
     Oxygen: Unknown
     Potential temperature: Unknown
     Reverse pressure: Unknown
     Reverse temperature: Unknown
     Salinity: Unknown
     XBT: Bersch/IfMH
     XCTD: Unknown
     Notes: Relocated at CP3-4.
