CRUISE REPORT: AO94
(UPDATED OCT 2008)


HIGHLIGHTS
CRUISE SUMMARY INFORMATION
              WOCE section designation  AO94
    Expedition designation (ExpoCodes)  18SN19940724
                      Chief Scientists  Dr. Knut Aagaard/APL*
                                        Dr. Eddy Carmack/IOS**
                                        Dr. James Swift/SIO***
                                 Dates  24 JUL 1994 to 9 SEP 1994
                                  Ship  R/V Louis St. Laurent
                         Ports of call  Nome, Alaska - Halifax, Nova Scotia
                                                      89°59.9' N
         Station geographic boundaries  178°37.50' W             137°9.10' E
                                                      67°46.6' N
                              Stations  39
          Floats and drifters deployed  0
        Moorings deployed or recovered  0


     *Dr. Knut Aagaard • Principal Oceanographer and Professor, Oceanography
Applied Physics Laboratory at the University of Washington • Polar Science Center
              Tel: 206-543-8942 • Email: aagaard@apl.washington.edu

                 **Dr. Eddy Carmack • Senior Research Scientist
    Institute of Ocean Sciences  P.O. Box 6000 • Sidney, B.C. V8L 4B2 • Canada 
    Tel: (250)-363-6585 • Fax: (250)-363-6746 • Email: Carmacke@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

                                Dr. James Swift
    Scripps Institution of Oceanography • University of California, San Diego 
                9500 Gilman Drive 0214 • La Jolla, CA 92093-0214
         Tel: 858-534-3387 • Fax: 858-534-7383 • Email: jswift@ucsd.edu







INTRODUCTION

Traditionally both Canada and the United States have relied on aircraft and 
drifting ice camps in supporting scientific work in the Arctic Ocean. Early 
examples include the so-called Ski Jump project in 1951-1952 and the ice 
stations Alpha and Bravo in 1957. These efforts have been particularly 
successful in advancing process studies, obtaining certain time series 
measurements and exploring limited areas; they have been less successful in 
carrying out synoptic survey work and sophisticated geographically distributed 
measurements requiring heavy equipment and elaborate laboratory facilities. In 
the open ocean the latter are typically done from shipboard, but not until 1987, 
when the German research icebreaker Polarstern crossed the Nansen Basin of the 
Arctic Ocean, did a modern Western research vessel successfully operate in the 
Polar Basin. 

Russian scientists had also primarily used aircraft and drifting stations, 
having pioneered these techniques beginning with Papanin's North Pole I station 
in 1937. While the large and powerful Russian polar icebreaker fleet, one of 
which first reached the North Pole in 1977, routinely operates within the Polar 
Basin, the vessels are generally not used as scientific platforms. Meanwhile, 
the voyage of the Polarstern in 1987 was followed in 1991 by a remarkable joint 
Swedish-German undertaking using the icebreakers Oden and Polarstern to cross 
both the Nansen and Amundsen Basins, reaching the North Pole and returning to 
the Atlantic via northeast Greeenland. A U.S. icebreaker, the Polar Star, 
started out with the two European vessels but had to turn back near 85°N 
because of mechanical difficulties. 

Inspired by the planned Swedish-German undertaking, but also deeply concerned 
that North American scientists would be unable to participate in ship-supported 
work in the Arctic Ocean, Ed Carmack and I met with Canadian and U.S. Coast 
Guard representatives in Ottawa in the fall of 1989 to inquire about interest in 
making a scientific crossing of the Arctic Ocean and about whether the two Coast 
Guards thought such an undertaking was realistic. The immediate response was 
positive on both counts, and the initial target for the crossing was set as the 
summer of 1993. The next 58 months or so were filled with a stream of planning 
activities involving interested scientific parties, the ship operators and 
funding agencies. Two major changes were made: 

  • Because of the long planning time required, the expedition was moved back  
    one year to 1994; and
  • Because the yard schedule for the Polar Sea required her to be in Seattle on 
    1 October, the route was altered to return directly to the Pacific from the 
    North Pole, rather than via the Atlantic, that is, crossing the Canada Basin 
    twice, but with an expected net saving of time. 

Thanks to the efforts of a great many caring people, the myriad pieces in this 
planning activity all came together, and late in the evening of the 24th of July 
1994 the Louis S. St-Laurent and the Polar Sea steamed northward from Nome to 
start the Canada-U.S. 1994 Arctic Ocean Section. 

From the beginning the scientific goal of the undertaking had been to 
substantially increase the observational base necessary for understanding the 
role of the Arctic in global change. The objective was thus to make those 
measurements that would best promote the analysis and modeling of the 
biological, chemical and physical systems related to the Arctic and global 
change, and the controlling processes in these systems: 

  • Ocean properties pertinent to understanding circulation and ice cover; 
  • Biological parameters essential for defining the Arctic carbon cycle; 
  • Geological observations necessary for understanding past climates; 
  • Concentration and distribution of contaminants that impact the food 
    chain and the environment; 
  • Physical properties and variability of the ice cover; and 
  • Atmospheric and upper ocean chemistry and physics relevant to climate. 

In the following chapters, we shall see how all this came out.



CHRONOLOGY 

The CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent and the USCGC Polar Sea departed Victoria, British 
Columbia, together on the evening of the 17th of July 1994. The majority of the 
scientific party of 70 persons boarded by helicopter in Nome, Alaska, on July 
24th; several scientists had sailed with the ships from Victoria to set up 
equipment and make preliminary measurements. We sailed through the Bering Strait 
on July 25th and entered the ice in the northern Chukchi Sea early in the 
afternoon of the following day. 

During the first few days, the ships worked some distance apart, as the ice was 
not severe. However, from the 30th of July onward, ice coverage was typically 
complete, and the ships moved close together, operating in tandem for the most 
efficient icebreaking, taking turns leading. This greatly reduced the fuel 
consumption for the trailing icebreaker. The ships icebreaking in tandem 
averaged 3-5 knots during the northbound transit. Visibility was generally poor 
throughout the time spent in the ice, with fog and overcast the rule. July 31st 
was the only full clear day. Passive microwave satellite imagery (SSM/I) 
received in real time aboard the Polar Sea provided excellent strategic 
information on ice conditions for planning the northbound route and stations. 

Beginning in the central Chukchi Sea, the station line ran northward east of the 
Russia-U.S. Convention line, but once past 200 nautical miles from Wrangell 
Island, our track turned northwestward across the Chukchi Abyssal Plain and onto 
the Arlis Plateau, which we reached on the 3rd of August at 78°N. Heavy multi-
year ice limited our eastward penetration down the flank of the plateau to 
longitude 174°18'W. We therefore resumed the station line northward, with the 
intent of covering the region to the east along 78°N on the return voyage. Near 
80°N we again attempted a section to the northeast, but difficult ice 
conditions limited our penetration in that direction to 80°13'N, 172°46'W. We 
therefore continued working northwestward across the Mendeleyev Ridge and into 
the Makarov Basin. 

On Monday the 8th of August we had an overflight and data transfer by a Canadian 
ice reconnaissance flight carrying side-looking radar, which mapped the ice in a 
swath 200 km wide and extending 1100 km along our intended track northward. From 
this imagery it was clear that difficult ice conditions lay to the east. 
Detailed helicopter ice reconnaissance the next few days confirmed this, and on 
Sunday the 14th, near 85°N, 170°E, we decided to continue onto the Lomonosov 
Ridge near 150°E before turning east and running the final northward leg of the 
outbound voyage along 150-155°W

On the 15th of August the helicopter-borne CTD party found a new undersea 
mountain when the wire stopped paying out and they brought up mud from 850 m 
where the chart showed 3700 m. Three miles away on either side they found no 
bottom at 1450 m. 

The next three days brought a northeast gale, snow and poor visibility, and 
progress was slow through the heavy ice. On the 19th we reached our station on 
the crest of the Lomonosov Ridge at 88°47'N, 143°E, where we planned to turn 
eastward. There we found the water at intermediate depth to be about 1°C warmer 
than we had seen at the base of the ridge, suggesting that the large gap in the 
ridge shown in the charts does not exist. We had also observed sediment-laden 
ice ("dirty ice") throughout the long northward track, from the ice edge in the 
Chukchi Sea to the North Pole, indicating that sediment incorporated in the ice 
on the shallow continental shelves is transported hundreds of kilometers across 
the Arctic. 

Meanwhile, on the 17th we had had ice reconnaissance by a long-range Canadian 
aircraft, and on the 19th, while the ships remained on station on the ridge, we 
flew a 215-nautical-mile helicopter reconnaissance flight over the intended 
track. These showed very heavy ice at the location of our intended crossing 
point of the Lomonosov Ridge to the east, so we decided to continue northward on 
the section we were on and then return along an alternative route that would 
recross the ridge farther south. From there we would attempt to get onto the 
eastern flank of the Alpha Ridge to do seismic work and additional piston coring 
before continuing both these and our many other planned programs on the long 
voyage back to Alaska. 

However, this was not to be, for shortly after starting northward down the steep 
ridge flank, early Sunday morning on the 21st of August, and about 50 nautical 
miles from the Pole, the Polar Sea lost one of its four blades on the starboard 
propeller. Divers also sighted some damage to the blades on the centerline and 
port shafts. These casualties required that the expedition take the shortest 
route out of the ice, which was toward Svalbard. Our intended section northward 
took us in that direction, and since we had already surveyed that route by 
helicopter and knew it to be feasible, we decided to continue on our course. 
That same afternoon a U.S. Coast Guard C-130 aircraft from Kodiak dropped spare 
parts for our satellite receiver. At 0230 Monday morning, Alaska standard time, 
we reached our next science station at 90°N, the first North American surface 
ships to do so, and the first surface ships ever to do it directly over the long 
unexplored route from the Pacific side of the Arctic Ocean. Our station at the 
Pole took 28 hours, as we fully deployed every sampling program. Not only could 
we compare conditions with those found three years earlier by Swedish and German 
investigators, but we could add a great many new measurements (for example, the 
concentration and distribution of a great variety of contaminants). 

The last few hours before we arrived at the Pole, we had seen a large ship on 
the horizon. The ship, which proved to be the Russian nuclear icebreaker Yamal, 
had stopped in the ice about 20 nautical miles from the Pole to produce a 
children's television program. The Yamal planned to sail south along our 
intended track the next day, coincident with the shortest route out of the ice 
and the one that we needed to take because of the loss of one of Polar Sea's 
propeller blades. At 0800 on the 23rd we got underway toward Yamal's position, 
20 nautical miles to the southeast. Before noon an extraordinary rendezvous took 
place as the icebreakers of the three largest Arctic nations-Russia, Canada and 
the United States-commenced a historic polar gathering. More than 550 men, women 
and children met near the North Pole on the ice. The Yamal's officers and crew 
hosted a barbecue on the ice, and the three ships were open for tours. This 
unprecedented and impromptu rendezvous near the North Pole in many ways 
symbolized a new era of international cooperation in the Arctic Ocean. 

That evening all three ships sailed southward together toward Svalbard and made 
good progress, reaching south of 86°N by Thursday morning the 25th. At that 
point the ice conditions had improved, and we parted company with the Yamal to 
resume our scientific work, consonant with expeditiously exiting the Polar 
Basin. The pattern of southerly progress in somewhat lighter ice continued, and 
we occupied several high-quality science stations in the Eurasia Basin. On the 
27th we had an airdrop of helicopter parts. The same day we received word from 
the U.S. Department of State that we were not permitted to continue the work 
southward within 200 nautical miles of Svalbard. We therefore terminated our in-
ice section with a station at 83°51'N, 35°41'E. On Tuesday the 30th of August 
we exited the ice northwest of Svalbard, making course for Iceland. On the 31st 
we stopped the St-Laurent for a contaminant and oceanographic station in the 
Greenland Sea at 75°N, 6°W. This proved to provide an excellent end point for 
the Arctic Ocean Section, since it showed the prominent role of the Arctic Ocean 
outflow in changing the convective region of the Greenland Sea in recent years 
to a warmer and more saline state. 

The Polar Sea disembarked most of its scientific party in Keflavik, Iceland, on 
the 3rd of September and then proceeded to Nova Scotia in company with the St-
Laurent, the ships being slowed enroute by a storm with winds exceeding 60 
knots. The St-Laurent disembarked its scientific party in Dartmouth on the 9th 
of September, bringing to a close a remarkable and productive voyage. We had 
completed a highly successful scientific voyage literally across the top of the 
world, from the Pacific through Bering Strait, across Canada Basin, to the North 
Pole and into the Atlantic via Fram Strait.





                                ARCTIC OCEAN 94
                           CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent
                        24 July 1994 - 9 September 1994
                      Nome, Alaska - Halifax, Nova Scotia


                               CHIEF SCIENTISTS
                               Dr. Knut Aagaard
                          Applied Physics Laboratory
                           University of Washington
                                      and
                               Dr. Eddy Carmack
                          Institute of Ocean Sciences
                                      and
                                Dr. James Swift
                      Scripps Institution of Oceanography


                       Oceanographic Data Facility (ODF)
                              Final Cruise Report
                                  3 July 1998

                              Data Submitted by:
                          Oceanographic Data Facility
                      Scripps Institution of Oceanography
                            La Jolla, CA 92093-0214



OCEAN CIRCULATION AND GEOCHEMISTRY 

A CTD/HYDROGRAPHIC SECTION ACROSS THE ARCTIC OCEAN 
(James Swift)

The objectives of our water column work were: 

  • To study the origin and circulation of the waters of the Arctic Ocean and 
    nearby seas; 
  • To determine the surface-to-bottom distributions and sources of the physical 
    and chemical characteristics; 
  • To study the location, origin and structure of subsurface boundary currents; and 
  • To contribute to studies of the response of the regimes to environmental 
    forcing.

The water column program provided the trans-Arctic section a complete program of 
CTD (conductivity, temperature and depth) and "small-volume" hydrographic 
measurements meeting World Ocean Circulation Experiment parameter and quality 
recommendations.

The Louis S. St-Laurent is well equipped for high-latitude CTD/rosette work. On 
the starboard side of the vessel there is a small CTD/computer van and a large 
double-van rosette room. The rosette was launched through a large A-frame. The 
Louis S. St-Laurent is also outfitted with a full suite of laboratories for the 
analytical equipment.

We collected water column measurements at 35 hydrographic stations along the 
AOS-94 route: beginning on the Chukchi shelf, then across the Chukchi Abyssal 
Plain and Makarov Basin, then down the Eurasian side of the Lomonosov Ridge to 
the North Pole. Water column work was cut short at that point because the Polar 
Sea developed mechanical problems. Both ships exited the Arctic together through 
Fram Strait, occupying an additional four stations en route.

The U.S./Canadian water column measurement team on the Louis S. St-Laurent 
carried out full-depth CTD profiling and 36-level rosette sampling. Water 
samples were collected for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), helium, oxygen, CO2 
system components, AMS 14C, tritium, 18O, nutrients, salinity, trace metals, 
radionuclides and organic contaminants. CTD and water sampling was carried out 
at 39 stations and was remarkably trouble free.

We examined sections of potential temperature, salinity and density anomalies 
referred to 0 and 2000 db from the CTD data for our section from the Chukchi 
shelf to the North Pole. We observed multiple warm cores in the Atlantic layer 
(depths of about 200-400 m) near 1.0°C along the Chukchi boundary and warmer 
than 1.5°C on the Eurasian side of the Lomonosov Ridge. Earlier data from the 
Makarov Basin showed no water in this layer warmer than 0.5°C. In 1993 the 
Institute of Oceanographic Sciences (Patricia Bay) group found water warmer than 
1°C on the Makarov slope just north of the Chukchi Sea. The AOS-94 data extend 
this finding, showing the Atlantic layer near both the Chukchi and Lomonosov 
ridge boundary areas to be 0.5°C warmer than measured before 1993. In some 
places the insulating fresh, cold upper layer was somewhat eroded, though far 
from completely. One of the important issues facing us now is to place this 
warming in context. Such subdecadal variability is important to climate models.

We found the central Canadian sector of the Arctic Ocean to be an 
oceanographically active environment, not a "dead end" isolated from any active 
role in the global circulation by the shallow sill through the Bering Strait, 
the Lomonosov and other ridges, and its sheer distance from the North Atlantic 
Ocean. Instead, the Canadian sector is importing water, modifying it and 
exporting it in ways that have important effects and consequences.

For example, biological activity on the Chukchi shelf is so high in summer that 
phytoplankton photosynthesis can supersaturate oxygen in the surface waters 
there by almost 50% in places, yet the debris left behind by those organisms and 
their predators sinks and decays, regenerating nutrients and using up oxygen on 
the bottom of the shelf. These shelf-bottom waters can get rather dense, due 
partly to brines released from ice formation above, and then flow off the shelf, 
carrying regenerated nutrients and, potentially, contaminants into the central 
basin.

Winter shelf waters have been thought to reach rather high densities. Although 
there are observations of this, establishing a direct connection to the deep 
waters, which seems essential to models of deep water formation in the Arctic, 
has been elusive. We found during AOS-94 what is perhaps an important new piece 
to this puzzle: At station 22, on the periphery of the Makarov Basin, we saw a 
bolus of water dense enough to be centered at 1000 m, with unique 
characteristics indicating that it could have come only from the shelf. 
Relatively high CFC concentrations confirmed its recent origin. This bolus has 
entered the Makarov Basin and now slowly freshens the deep water. This may be 
the first direct observation of "new" high-density shelf water actually in the 
deep basins.

There is a weak, deep horizontal salinity gradient across the Chukchi- Makarov 
sector, with higher deep salinities near the pole on the Canadian side of the 
Lomonosov Ridge. At station 22 in the southeastern Makarov Basin we saw 
deflections in the salinity isopleths due to the bolus of relatively fresh, 
cold, young deep water.

Isopycnals generally slope slightly down from pole to shelf across the domain 
covered by this section, with more significant deflections associated with each 
principal bathymetric feature, and circulation associated with the bolus of 
young deep water found at station 22. Sharp isopycnal slopes over the Lomonosov 
Ridge (stations 30-34) showed geostrophic adjustment to relatively strong upper-
layer flow along the ridge crest. The most intense deep deflections in sigma-2 
were found on the Eurasian flank of the Lomonosov Ridge and, to a lesser extent, 
on the southeast flank of the Makarov Basin.

On their own the AOS-94 CTD/hydrographic/tracer/contaminant data are a unique, 
well-placed and important data set, providing the first referencequality section 
across the Chukchi Abyssal Plain and Makarov Basin and a careful, synoptic 
section of closely spaced stations across the Eurasian flank of the Lomonosov 
Ridge near the North Pole. The AOS-94 section also joins to the Oden 1991 
section in the Makarov Basin near the Lomonosov Ridge, and these in turn can be 
joined to the Polarstern 1987 Nansen Basin section to form a nearly complete, 
shelf-to-shelf trans-Arctic section of high-quality surface-to-bottom multi-
tracer stations.



1.  DESCRIPTION OF MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND CALIBRATIONS

1.1.  BASIC HYDROGRAPHY PROGRAM

The basic hydrography program consisted of salinity, dissolved oxygen and
nutrient (nitrite, nitrate, phosphate and silicate) measurements made from
bottles taken on CTD/rosette casts, plus pressure, temperature, salinity
and dissolved oxygen from CTD profiles.  There were 39 stations consisting
of 55 casts. 14 of these were radionuclide casts which are not reported.
All the casts were done in the ice with the exception of station 39, which
was located in the Greenland Basin.  Station 35 took place at the North
Pole.  Much of the cruise was carried out in low visibility with fog or
overcast conditions and with air temperatures around -1 to +1  deg.C. The
coldest air temperature was about -6  deg.C.  No insurmountable problems
were encountered during any phase of the operation.

CTD #6 was used for all but the last 3 stations, where CTD #1 was used.
There were problems with the pylon deck unit which caused tripping problems
starting at station 13 and continuing through station 15.  There are 2
casts reported for station 13, since there were no bottles for the first
cast due to the pylon deck unit malfunction.  The CTD deck unit blew a fuse
during cast 4 for station 26, which caused a delay of over 1 hour while the
problem was diagnosed and repaired.  Station 36 has 2 casts reported, as
the conductivity sensor was replaced for the second cast.  Then it was
thought that the main temperature sensor malfunctioned.  Therefore, CTD #6
was replaced by CTD #1 for the remaining 3 stations.  The CTD oxygen sensor
was malfunctioning throughout the cruise, and so these data were not
calibrated.  The uncalibrated CTD oxygen data are reported in this data
set.

The distribution of samples is illustrated in Figure 1.1.0.


Figure 1.1.0: Arctic 94 sample distribution, stas 1-39


1.2.  WATER SAMPLING PACKAGE

Hydrographic (rosette) casts were performed with a rosette system
consisting of a 36-bottle rosette frame (ODF), a 36-place pylon (General
Oceanics 1016) and 36 10-liter PVC bottles (ODF).  Underwater electronic
components consisted of ODF-modified NBIS Mark III CTDs (ODF #1 and #6) and
associated sensors and Benthos altimeter.  The CTD was mounted horizontally
along the bottom of the rosette frame, with a Sensormedics dissolved oxygen
sensor. CTD #1 had an FSI secondary PRT sensor deployed next to the CTD.
CTD #6 had 2 separate PRT turrets.  The altimeter provided distance-above-
bottom in the CTD data stream.  The rosette system was suspended from a
three-conductor 0.322" electro-mechanical cable.  Power to the CTD and
pylon was provided through the cable from the ship.  Separate conductors
were used for the CTD and pylon signals.  The dissolved oxygen, secondary
temperature and altimeter were interfaced with the CTD, and their data were
incorporated into the CTD data stream.

The deck watch prepared the rosette approximately 45 minutes prior to a
cast.  All valves, vents and lanyards were checked for proper orientation.
The bottles were cocked and all hardware and connections rechecked.  Upon
arrival at station, time, position and bottom depth were logged and the
deployment was begun.  The rosette was deployed from the boat deck on the
starboard side.

Each rosette cast was lowered to within 10-15 meters of the bottom, unless
the bottom return from the altimeter was extremely poor.  Bottles on the
rosette were each identified with a unique serial number.  These numbers
corresponded to the pylon tripping sequence, 1-36, where the first
(deepest) bottle tripped was bottle #1.

Averages of CTD data corresponding to the time of bottle closure were
associated with the bottle data during a cast.  Pressure, depth,
temperature, salinity and density were immediately available to facilitate
examination and quality control of the bottle data as the sampling and
laboratory analyses progressed.

Recovering the package at the end of deployment was essentially the reverse
of the launching.  The bottles and rosette were examined before samples
were taken, and any extraordinary situations or circumstances were noted on
the sample log for the cast.

Routine CTD maintenance included soaking the conductivity and CTD O2
sensors in distilled water between casts to maintain sensor stability.  The
rosette was stored in a heated rosette room between casts to insure the CTD
was not exposed to extreme cold or wind.

Rosette maintenance was performed on a regular basis.  O-rings were changed
as necessary and bottle maintenance was performed each day to insure proper
closure and sealing.  Valves were inspected for leaks and repaired or
replaced as needed.  No bottle replacements were necessary during the
cruise.

There were intermittent level-wind and brake problems with the winch on
board the CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent during the cruise, causing occasional
stops during casts.  Longer stops are noted in Appendix B.


1.3.  UNDERWATER ELECTRONICS PACKAGES

CTD data were collected with  modified NBIS Mark III CTDs (ODF #1 and #6).
These instruments provided pressure, temperature, conductivity and
dissolved O2 channels, and additionally measured a second temperature as a
calibration check.  Other data channels included elapsed-time, altimeter
and several power supply voltages.  The instrument supplied a 15-byte NBIS-
format data stream at a data rate of 25 Hz.  Modifications to the
instrument included a revised dissolved O2 sensor mounting; ODF-designed
sensor interfaces for O2 and FSI PRT (CTD #1 only); implementation of 8-bit
and 16-bit multiplexer channels; an elapsed-time channel; instrument ID in
the polarity byte and power supply voltages channels.

Table 1.3.0 summarizes the serial numbers of instruments and sensors used
during Arctic 94.


Table 1.3.0 Arctic 94 Instrument/Sensor Serial Numbers
      ________________________________________________________________

                ARCTIC OCEAN 94 CTD CONFIGURATION SUMMARY

         ODF    Pressure    Temperature    Conductivity      Casts
       CTD ID#             PRT1    PRT2                
       -------  --------  ---------------  ------------  -------------
                                           2932-H154=    Stas 1 - 36-1
          6     131911*   15777+   16183+  ---------------------------
                                              O2==        Sta 36-2
       --------------------------------------------------------------
                                   N/A                   Stas 37 & 38
          1     131910*   14304+  -------  5902-F117=    ------------
                                   1321++                   Sta 39
       ________________________________________________________________
              * Paine Model 211-35-440-05 strain gage/0-8850psi
              + Rosemount Model 171BJ
             ++ FSI Model OTM-D212
              = NBIS Model 09035-00151
             == GO Model 09035-00151


The NBIS temperature compensation circuit on the pressure interface was
disabled; all thermal response characteristics were modeled and corrected
in software.

The O2 sensor was deployed in a pressure-compensated holder assembly
mounted separately on the rosette frame and connected to the CTD by an
underwater cable. The O2 sensor interface was designed and built by ODF
using an off-the-shelf 12-bit A/D converter.

Although the secondary temperature sensors were located within 6 inches of
the CTD conductivity sensors, they were not sufficiently close to calculate
coherent salinities.  They were used as secondary temperature calibration
references rather than as redundant sensors, with the intent of eliminating
the need for mercury or electronic DSRTs as calibration checks.

The General Oceanics 1016 36-place pylon was used in conjunction with the
General Oceanics pylon deck unit.  There were some tripping problems caused
by the G.O. pylon/deck unit combination.  Usually these could be resolved
by the console operator via the pylon diagnostics routine.  This
combination provided generally reliable operation except for stations 13
through 15.  On station 13, cast 1, the pylon deck unit failed.  The backup
pylon deck unit was used until repairs were completed to the original
(station 13, cast 2 and stations 14 and 15).  The pylon emitted a
confirmation message containing its current notion of bottle trip position,
which was useful in sorting out mis-trips.  The acquisition software
averaged CTD data corresponding to the rosette trip once the trip was
initiated until the trip confirmed, typically 2-4.5 seconds on Arctic 94.


1.4.  NAVIGATION AND BATHYMETRIC DATA

GPS position and bottom depth were logged manually three times for each
CTD/rosette deployment: at the beginning of the cast, at the bottom of the
cast and at the end of the cast. An ELAC 12KHz PDR (provided by IOS) was
occasionally used to determine bottom depth. It proved to be unreliable in
the ice, and not compatible with the Benthos pinger on the rosette.


1.5.  CTD DATA ACQUISITION, PROCESSING AND CONTROL SYSTEM

The CTD data acquisition, processing and control system consisted of a Sun
SPARCstation 2 computer workstation, ODF-built CTD deck unit, General
Oceanics 1016 pylon deck unit, CTD and pylon power supplies, and a VCR
recorder for real-time analog backup recording of the sea-cable signal.
One other Sun SPARCstation 2 system was networked to the data acquisition
system.  Each Sun system consisted of a color display with trackball and
keyboard (the CTD console), 18 RS-232 ports, 2.5 GB disk and 8mm cartridge
tape.  These systems were available for real-time CTD data display and
provided for hydrographic data management and backup.  Each sun
SPARCstation was equipped with a printer and an 8-color drum plotter.

The CTD FSK signal was demodulated and converted to a 9600 baud RS-232C
binary data stream by the CTD deck unit.  This data stream was fed to the
Sun SPARCstation.

The pylon deck unit was connected to the data acquisition system through a
serial port, allowing the data acquisition system to initiate and confirm
bottle trips.  A bitmapped color display provided interactive graphical
display and control of the CTD rosette sampling system, including real-time
raw and processed CTD data, winch and rosette trip displays.

The CTD data acquisition, processing and control system was prepared by the
console watch a few minutes before each deployment.  A console operations
log was maintained for each deployment, containing a record of every
attempt to trip a bottle as well as any pertinent comments.  Most CTD
console control functions, including starting the data acquisition, were
initiated by pointing and clicking a trackball cursor on the display at
icons representing functions to perform.  The system then presented the
operator with short dialog prompts with automatically-generated choices
that could either be accepted as defaults or overridden.  The operator was
instructed to turn on the CTD and pylon power supplies, then to examine a
real-time CTD data display on the screen for stable voltages from the
underwater unit.  Once this was accomplished, the data acquisition and
processing was begun and a time and position were logged for the beginning
of the cast.  A backup analog recording of the CTD signal on a VCR tape was
started at the same time as the data acquisition.  A rosette trip display
and pylon control window popped up, giving visual confirmation that the
pylon was initializing properly.  Various plots and displays were
initiated.  When all was ready, the console operator informed the deck
watch by radio.

Once the deck watch had deployed the rosette and informed the console
operator that the rosette was at the surface (also confirmed by the
computer displays), the console operator or watch leader provided the winch
operator with a target depth (wire-out) and maximum lowering rate, normally
60 meters/minute for this package.  The package then began its descent,
building up to the maximum rate during the first few hundred meters, then
optimally continuing at a steady rate without any stops during the down-
cast.

The console operator examined the processed CTD data during descent via
interactive plot windows on the display, which could also be run at other
workstations on the network.  Additionally, the operator decided where to
trip bottles on the up-cast, noting this on the console log.

The PDR was monitored to insure the bottom depth was known at all times.

The console operator monitored the rosette's distance to the bottom using
the altimeter display.  Around 100 meters above the bottom, depending on
bottom conditions, the altimeter typically began signaling a bottom return
on the console.  The winch speed was usually slowed to ~30 meters/minute
during the final approach.  The winch and altimeter displays allowed the
console operator to refine the target depth relayed to the winch operator
and safely approach to within 10-15 meters of the bottom.

Bottles were closed on the up-cast by pointing the console trackball cursor
at a graphic firing control and clicking a button.  The data acquisition
system responded with the CTD rosette trip data and a pylon confirmation
message in a window.  A bad or suspicious confirmation signal typically
resulted in the console operator repositioning the pylon trip arm via
software, then re-tripping the bottle, until a good confirmation was
received.  All tripping attempts were noted on the console log.  The
console operator then instructed the winch operator to bring the rosette up
to the next bottle depth.  The console operator was also responsible for
generating the sample log for the cast.

After the last bottle was tripped, the console operator directed the deck
watch to bring the rosette on deck.  Once the rosette was on deck, the
console operator terminated the data acquisition and turned off the CTD,
pylon and VCR recording.  The VCR tape was filed.  Usually the console
operator also brought the sample log to the rosette room and served as the
sample cop.


1.6.  CTD DATA PROCESSING

ODF CTD processing software consists of over 30 programs running under the
Unix operating system.  The initial CTD processing program (ctdba) is used
either in real-time or with existing raw data sets to:

  • Convert raw CTD scans into scaled engineering units, and assign
    the data to logical channels;
  • Filter various channels according to specified filtering
    criteria;
  • Apply sensor- or instrument-specific response-correction
    models;
  • Provide periodic averages of the channels corresponding to the
    output time-series interval; and
  • Store the output time-series in a CTD-independent format.

Once the CTD data are reduced to a standard-format time-series, they can be
manipulated in various ways.  Channels can be additionally filtered.  The
time-series can be split up into shorter time-series or pasted together to
form longer time-series.  A time-series can be transformed into a pressure-
series, or into a larger-interval time-series.  The pressure calibration
corrections are applied during reduction of the data to time-series.
Temperature, conductivity and oxygen corrections to the series are
maintained in separate files and are applied whenever the data are
accessed.

ODF data acquisition software acquired and processed the CTD data in real-
time, providing calibrated, processed data for interactive plotting and
reporting during a cast.  The 25 Hz data from the CTD were filtered,
response-corrected and averaged to a 2 Hz (0.5-second) time-series.  Sensor
correction and calibration models were applied to pressure, temperature,
conductivity and O2.  Rosette trip data were extracted from this time-
series in response to trip initiation and confirmation signals.  The
calibrated 2 Hz time-series data, as well as the 25 Hz raw data, were
stored on disk and were available in real-time for reporting and graphical
display.  At the end of the cast, various consistency and calibration
checks were performed, and a 2.0-db pressure-series of the down-cast was
generated and subsequently used for reports and plots.

CTD plots generated automatically at the completion of deployment were
checked daily for potential problems.  The two PRT temperature sensors were
inter-calibrated and checked for sensor drift.  The CTD conductivity sensor
was monitored by comparing CTD values to check-sample conductivities and by
deep Theta-Salinity comparisons with adjacent stations.  The CTD O2 sensor
was not calibrated to check-sample data as it was malfunctioning during
this cruise.

A few casts exhibited conductivity offsets due to biological or particulate
artifacts.  Some casts were subject to noise in the data stream caused by
sea cable or slip-ring problems, or by moisture in the interconnect cable
between the CTD and external sensors (i.e. O2).  Intermittent noisy data
were filtered out of the 2 Hz data using a spike-removal filter.  A least-
squares polynomial of specified order was fit to fixed-length segments of
data.  Points exceeding a specified multiple of the residual standard
deviation were replaced by the polynomial value.

Density inversions can be induced in high-gradient regions by ship-
generated vertical motion of the rosette.  Detailed examination of the raw
data shows significant mixing occurring in these areas because of "ship
roll".  In order to minimize density inversions, a ship-roll filter was
applied to all casts during pressure-sequencing to disallow pressure
reversals.  Since most of this cruise occurred in the ice, ship-roll was
not a significant factor.

The first few seconds of in-water data were excluded from the pressure-
series data, since the sensors were still adjusting to the going-in-water
transition.

Pressure intervals with no time-series data can optionally be filled by
double-quadratic interpolation.  The only pressure intervals missing/filled
during this leg were at 0 db, caused by chopping off going-in-water
transition data at pressure-sequencing.

When the down-cast CTD data have excessive noise, gaps or offsets, the up-
cast data are used instead.  CTD data from down- and up-casts are not mixed
together in the pressure-series data because they do not represent
identical water columns (due to ship movement, wire angles, etc.).  The 2
up-casts used for final Arctic 94 data are indicated in Appendix B.

There is an inherent problem in the internal digitizing circuitry of the
NBIS Mark III CTD when the sign bit for temperature flips.  Raw temperature
can shift 1-2 millidegrees as values cross between positive and negative, a
problem avoided by offsetting the raw PRT readings by ~1.5 deg.C.  The
conductivity channel also can shift by 0.001-0.002 mmho/cm as raw data
values change between 32767/32768, where all the bits flip at once.  This
is typically not a problem in shallow to intermediate depths because such a
small shift becomes negligible in higher gradient areas.

Appendix B contains a table of CTD casts requiring special attention;
Arctic 94 CTD-related comments, problems and solutions are documented there
in detail.


1.7.  CTD LABORATORY CALIBRATION PROCEDURES

Pre-cruise laboratory calibrations of CTD pressure and temperature sensors
were used to generate tables of corrections applied by the CTD data
acquisition and processing software at sea.  These laboratory calibrations
were also performed post-cruise.

Pressure and temperature calibrations were performed on CTDs #1 and #6 at
the ODF Calibration Facility in La Jolla.  The pre-cruise calibrations were
done in June 1994 prior to the Arctic Ocean 94 expedition and the post-
cruise calibrations were done in September 1994 for CTD #6, and October
1994 for CTD #1.

The CTD pressure transducers were calibrated in a temperature-controlled
water bath to a Ruska Model 2400 Piston Gage pressure reference.
Calibration data were measured pre-cruise at 13.30/8.60/-1.47  deg.C to 3
maximum loading pressures pre-cruise (640/1400/6080 db).  The post-cruise
CTD #1 calibration data were measured at -0.62 deg.C to a maximum loading
pressure of 6080 db.  For CTD #6, the post-cruise calibration data were
measured at -1.50/8.55 deg.C to maximum loading pressures of 6080/1400 db.
Figures 1.7.0 and 1.7.1 summarize the CTD #1 laboratory pressure
calibrations performed in June and October 1994, and figures 1.7.2 and
1.7.3 summarize the CTD #6 laboratory pressure calibrations performed in
June and September 1994.


Figure 1.7.0:  Pressure calibration for ODF CTD #1, June 1994.
Figure 1.7.1:  Pressure calibration for ODF CTD #1, October 1994.
Figure 1.7.2:  Pressure calibration for ODF CTD #6, June 1994.
Figure 1.7.3:  Pressure calibration for ODF CTD #6, September 1994.


Additionally, dynamic thermal-response step tests were conducted on the
pressure transducer to calibrate dynamic thermal effects.  These results
were combined with the static temperature calibrations to optimally correct
the CTD pressure.

CTD PRT temperatures were calibrated to an NBIS ATB-1250 resistance bridge
and Rosemount standard PRT in a temperature-controlled bath.  The primary
and secondary CTD temperatures were offset by ~1.5 deg.C to avoid the
0-point discontinuity inherent in the internal digitizing circuitry.
Standard and PRT temperatures were measured at 7 different bath
temperatures between -1.5 and 14.0  deg.C, both pre- and post-cruise (CTD
#1 only measured at 4 temperatures post-cruise).  Figures 1.7.4 and 1.7.5
summarize the laboratory calibrations performed on the CTD #1 primary PRT
during June 1994 and October 1994.  Figure 1.7.6 summarizes the laboratory
calibrations performed on the CTD #6 primary PRT during June 1994.  There
was no post-cruise laboratory calibration for the CTD #6 primary PRT as it
was believed to have malfunctioned during station 36, cast 2, after the
conductivity sensor was replaced. After that cast, CTD #1 was put into
place, and the main PRT for CTD #6 was worked on after its return to the
laboratory.  Figures 1.7.7 and 1.7.8 summarize the laboratory calibrations
performed on the CTD #6 secondary PRT during June 1994 and September 1994.


Figure 1.7.4:  Primary PRT Temperature Calibration for ODF CTD #1, June 1994.
Figure 1.7.5:  Primary PRT Temperature Calibration for ODF CTD #1, October 1994.
Figure 1.7.6:  Primary PRT Temperature Calibration for ODF CTD #6, June 1994.
Figure 1.7.7:  Secondary PRT Temperature Calibration for ODF CTD #6, June 1994.
Figure 1.7.8:  Secondary PRT Temperature Calibration for ODF CTD #6,September 1994.


These laboratory temperature calibrations were referenced to an ITS-90
standard.  Temperatures were converted to the IPTS-68 standard during
processing in order to calculate other parameters, including salinity and
density, which are currently defined in terms of that standard only.  Final
calibrated CTD temperatures were reported using the ITS-90 standard.


1.8.  FINAL CTD CALIBRATION PROCEDURES

A redundant sensor was used on each CTD as a temperature calibration check
while at sea.  CTD conductivity was calibrated to in-situ check samples
collected during each rosette cast.

Final pressure, temperature and conductivity corrections were determined
during post-cruise processing.

ODF CTD #6 was used during stations 1-35 and station 36, cast 1.  The
conductivity sensor displayed erratic behavior during cast 1 for station 36.
The CTD was not used for several days between stations 35 and 36 and
even though precautions were taken to avoid freezing, it is believed that
the conductivity sensor froze and was damaged.  The conductivity sensor was
replaced for cast 2 but then it was thought that the primary temperature
sensor malfunctioned.  It was then decided to replace CTD #6 with CTD #1
for the remainder of the cruise (stations 37-39).  For stations 37 and 38,
CTD #1 did not have a secondary temperature channel as the CTD would not
function with it in place.  After consultation with personnel on shore, the
FSI secondary temperature sensor was successfully put in place for station 39.


1.8.1.  PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE

A second Rosemount PRT sensor was deployed for CTD #6, and the secondary
temperature channel for CTD #1 was an FSI PRT temperature module/OTM.
These were compared with the primary PRT channel on all casts during this
expedition (except for stations 37 and 38) to monitor for drift.  The
response times of the sensors were first matched, then preliminary
corrected temperatures were compared for a series of standard depths from
each CTD down-cast.

CTD #6

There was essentially no change between the pre- and post-cruise pressure
laboratory calibrations, so the pre-cruise pressure calibration was applied
for CTD #6.

The CTD #6 primary temperature sensor (PRT1) used during Arctic 94 was
believed to be ruined during station 36, cast 2.  The CTD #6 conductivity
sensor was changed after station 36, cast 1, and during cast 2, it was
thought that the primary PRT was malfunctioning.  Upon its return to La
Jolla, PRT1 was worked on.  There was no post-cruise calibration for the
primary temperature sensor.

The CTD #6 secondary temperature sensor (PRT2) was not affected by the
changed conductivity sensor because it was mounted in a different turret.
Using the PRT2 sensor for reporting CTD data was not a reasonable solution
because its distance from the single conductivity sensor would cause an
unacceptable level of noise in CTD salinity.  Since PRT1 was not destroyed
until after its use during the cruise, a comparison of shipboard PRT1 and
PRT2 data, combined with changes in the PRT2 laboratory calibrations, was
used to decide if any further correction was required for PRT1.

There was a constant offset maintained between the two PRTs on CTD #6.
Figure 1.8.1.0 summarizes the shipboard comparison between the primary and
secondary PRT channels for CTD #6 for all CTD casts, including the casts
which were not processed.


Figure 1.8.1.0:  Shipboard comparison of CTD #6 primary/secondary PRT
                 channels, pressure>1000db.


The pre- and post-cruise laboratory calibrations showed a shift of -0.0018
deg.C in the PRT2 correction over the temperature range of the cruise.
During pre-cruise laboratory calibrations, the PRT1-PRT2 difference was
-0.003 deg.C.  CTD #6 deep shipboard raw PRT1-PRT2 differences held steady
at -0.0015 to -0.0020 deg.C.  If the PRT2 pre-cruise laboratory calibration
was in effect for the whole cruise, then by station 10, the first station
for which we have deep data, PRT1 must already have changed at least 0.001
deg.C (since the difference was already -0.0015 to -0.0020 deg.C rather
than the -0.003 deg.C seen during the pre-cruise calibration).  Assuming
that the PRT2 post-cruise laboratory calibration was in effect for the
whole cruise (i.e.  changes occurred during shipping out for the cruise)
means that by station 10, PRT1 had already changed by 0.003 deg.C.  As
there was no way to tell when the change occurred, it was decided to split
the difference and offset the pre-cruise PRT1 correction by -0.002 deg.C
and apply this temperature correction to the Arctic 94 CTD #6 data.

CTD #1

There was an average ~0.6-db offset between the pre- and post-cruise
pressure laboratory calibrations.  This is a negligible difference, so the
pre-cruise pressure calibration was applied for CTD #1.

The pre- and post-cruise laboratory calibrations for the CTD #1 primary
temperature sensor (PRT1), showed an average shift of +0.0018 deg.C in the
PRT1 correction.  The secondary temperature sensor showed a shift of
+0.0020 to +0.0026 deg.C.

There was only one cast with a working secondary PRT for this CTD, as PRT2
would not function with the CTD for the first 2 CTD #1 stations.  The
PRT1-PRT2 difference was -0.518 deg.C pre-cruise, -0.517 deg.C post-cruise
and -0.518 deg.C for the third station below 500 db.  Shipboard DSRT-PRT1
differences were not helpful as only one cast had deep usable data.  As
there is no way to determine when the shift occurred, it was decided to
split the difference between pre- and post-cruise PRT1 corrections and
offset the pre-cruise PRT1 correction by +0.0009 deg.C for stations 37
through 39.


1.8.2.  CONDUCTIVITY

The corrected CTD rosette trip pressure and temperature were used with the
bottle salinity to calculate a bottle conductivity.  Differences between
the bottle and CTD conductivities were then used to derive a conductivity
correction.  This correction is normally linear for the 3-cm conductivity
cell used in the Mark III CTD.  Cast-by-cast comparisons showed only minor
conductivity sensor offset shifts, and no sensor slope changes.  This part
of the ocean has a very narrow range of conductivities, so the conductivity
slope correction does not have a great effect on the data.

The conductivity slopes for stations 1-36 for CTD #6 and stations 37-39 for
CTD #1 were fit to station number, with outlying values (4,2 standard
deviations) rejected.  Even though there was a change of conductivity
sensor for station 36 cast 2, the calculated slopes for both casts for that
station were so similar that it was decided to use the same slope
correction for all CTD #6 casts.  Conductivity slopes were calculated from
the 0-order fit for each CTD and applied to each Arctic 94 cast.  Figure
1.8.2.0. summarizes the final conductivity slopes for CTD #6 (stations
1-36) and Figure 1.8.2.1 for CTD #1 (stations 37-39).


Figure 1.8.2.0:  CTD #6 conductivity slope corrections by station number.
Figure 1.8.2.1:  CTD #1 conductivity slope corrections by station number.


Once the conductivity slopes were applied, residual CTD conductivity
offsets were calculated for each cast using bottle conductivities deeper
than 500 db.  Casts were grouped together based on CTD and known CTD
conductivity shifts to determine average offsets.  This also smoothed the
effect of any cast-to-cast bottle salinity variation.  The conductivity
offsets for CTD #6 (2 groups:  stations 1-35 and station 36, casts 1 and 2)
and for CTD #1 (stations 37-39) were fit to station number, with outlying
values (4,2 standard deviations) rejected.  Conductivity offsets were
calculated from the first-order fit for each station group for both CTDs
and applied to each Arctic 94 cast.  An average of the calculated offsets
for the 2 casts of station 36 was used, then the offset for cast 1 was
adjusted, as the up-cast was reported.

Smoothed offsets were applied to each cast, then some offsets were manually
adjusted to account for discontinuous shifts in the conductivity transducer
response or bottle salinities, or to maintain a consistent deep T-S
relationship from station to station.  Figure 1.8.2.2. summarizes the final
applied conductivity offsets for CTD #6 (stations 1-36) and Figure 1.8.2.3
for CTD #1 (stations 37-39).


Figure 1.8.2.2:  CTD #6 conductivity offsets by station number.
Figure 1.8.2.3:  CTD #1 conductivity offsets by station number.


Arctic Ocean 94 temperature and conductivity correction coefficients are
also tabulated in Appendix A.


SUMMARY OF RESIDUAL SALINITY DIFFERENCES

Figures 1.8.2.4, 1.8.2.5 and 1.8.2.6 summarize the residual differences
between bottle and CTD salinities for all casts after applying the
conductivity corrections.


Figure 1.8.2.4:  Salinity residual differences vs pressure (after correction).
Figure 1.8.2.5:  Salinity residual differences vs station # (after correction).
Figure 1.8.2.6:  Deep salinity residual differences vs station # (after 
                 correction).


The CTD conductivity calibration represents a best estimate of the
conductivity field throughout the water column.  3-sigma from the mean
residual in Figures 1.8.2.5 and 1.8.2.6, or +/-0.0211 PSU for all
salinities and +/-0.0012 PSU for deep salinities, represents the limit of
repeatability of the bottle salinities (Autosal, rosette, operators and
samplers).  This limit agrees with station overlays of deep Theta-Salinity.
Within most casts (a single salinometer run), the precision of bottle
salinities appears to be better than 0.001 PSU.  The precision of the CTD
salinities appears to be better than 0.0005 PSU.

Arctic 94 data were compared with final calibrated CTD data from Arctic 91.
Preliminary calibrated CTD data from Arctic 96 were also compared (Makarov
basin stations only).  Deep Theta-Salinity comparisons were made for casts
in the Fram, Makarov and Nansen basins and along the Lomonosov Ridge.  Only
the North Pole casts from Arctic 91 and Arctic 94 were in the same
geographical location, although station 30 from Arctic 94 and station 24
from Arctic 91 were extremely close (Lomonosov Ridge).  The two North Pole
stations showed less than 0.001 PSU difference.  The Lomonosov Ridge
stations looked the same.  The variation in the Nansen basin stations was
about .0015 PSU as well as in the Makarov basin stations.  The Makarov
basin stations for Arctic 96, had much variability in the bottle salts and
only 1 CTD cast. The variability within the Arctic 91 CTD stations alone is
at least .001 PSU for this basin, with the bottle salts variability being
twice that much.  The standard seawater batches from Arctic 91 (P-115) and
Arctic 96 (P-125) have not been cross-calibrated with other batches, so no
corrections for standard seawater batch differences have been considered.
A cross-calibration of standard seawater batches is planned for mid-1998
[Mant97].

During the Arctic 94 cruise, a question was raised concerning the
temperature calibration correction used for final processing of Arctic 91
data.  The data were re-examined and it was determined that it was possible
that the main PRT had shifted 2 millidegrees during pre-cruise shipping and
that the rest of the shift occurred during post-cruise shipping (another
4.6 millidegrees).  This determination was based on PRT1 minus PRT2
differences during both the cruise and pre/post-cruise calibration, as well
as the fact that there was no shift pre/post for PRT2.  Such a correction
would move the Arctic 91 temperatures 2 millidegrees warmer.  This would
mean that the deep basin thetas for Arctic 91 and Arctic 94 would then be
within 1 millidegree of each other.


1.8.3.  CTD DISSOLVED OXYGEN

Please note that the CTD oxygen data for Arctic 94 are not calibrated.
Working in high latitudes provides extremely harsh conditions for CTD
dissolved oxygen sensors. Their performance is severely impacted due to the
extreme cold.  In addition, the CTD oxygen sensor was malfunctioning off
and on throughout the cruise, thus making it extremely difficult if not
impossible to calibrate the CTD oxygen.  The data reported are the
preliminary data automatically generated shipboard.  They are provided only
to suggest the gross oxygen features.

There are a number of problems with the response characteristics of the
Sensormedics O2 sensor used in the NBIS Mark III CTD, the major ones being
a secondary thermal response and a sensitivity to profiling velocity.
Stopping the rosette for as little as half a minute, or slowing down for a
bottom approach, can cause shifts in the CTD O2 profile.  Winch stops
longer than .5 minute and deeper than 5 db which may have affected CTD
oxygen data are documented in Appendix B.  Most launches had pauses of
between .5 to 1 minute at or just below the surface.  In two cases, this
pause lasted up to 2 minutes.

Because of these problems, up-cast CTD rosette trip data cannot be
optimally calibrated to O2 check samples.  Instead, down-cast CTD O2 data
are derived by matching the up-cast rosette trips along isopycnal surfaces.
When down-casts were deemed to be unusable (see Appendix B), up-cast CTD O2
data were processed despite the signal drop-offs typically seen at bottle
stops.  The differences between CTD O2 data modeled from these derived
values and check samples are then minimized using a non-linear least-
squares fitting procedure.

The general form of the ODF O2 conversion equation follows Brown and
Morrison [Brow78] and Millard [Mill82], [Owen85].  ODF does not use a
digitized O2 sensor temperature to model the secondary thermal response but
instead models membrane and sensor temperatures by low-pass filtering the
PRT temperature.  In-situ pressure and temperature are filtered to match
the sensor response.  Time-constants for the pressure response Taup, and
two temperature responses TauTs and TauTf are fitting parameters.  The Oc
gradient, dOc/dt, is approximated by low-pass filtering 1st-order Oc
differences.  This gradient term attempts to correct for reduction of
species other than O2 at the cathode.  The time-constant for this filter,
Tauog, is a fitting parameter.  Oxygen partial-pressure is then calculated:

   Opp=[c1*Oc+c2]*fsat(S,T,P)*e**(c3*Pl+c4*Tf+c5*Ts+c6*dOc/dt)  (1.8.3.0)

where:
   Opp           = Dissolved O2 partial-pressure in atmospheres (atm);
   Oc            = Sensor current (uamps);
   fsat(S,T,P)   = O2 saturation partial-pressure at S,T,P (atm);
   S             = Salinity at O2 response-time (PSUs);
   T             = Temperature at O2 response-time (deg.C);
   P             = Pressure at O2 response-time (decibars);
   Pl            = Low-pass filtered pressure (decibars);
   Tf            = Fast low-pass filtered temperature (deg.C);
   Ts            = Slow low-pass filtered temperature (deg.C);
   dOc/dt        = Sensor current gradient (uamps/secs).


1.9.  BOTTLE SAMPLING

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

  • CFCs;
  • 3He;
  • O2;
  • Total CO2;
  • Alkalinity;
  • Trace Metals;
  • Tritium;
  • Nutrients;
  • Salinity;
  • HCH;
  • 18O;
  • HC;
  • Radionuclides;
  • Methane;
  • Barium.

Some properties were sampled by cast or by station, so the actual sequence
of samples drawn was modified accordingly.

One member of the sampling team was designated the sample cop, whose sole
responsibility was to maintain the sample log and insure that sampling
progressed in the proper drawing order.  The numbers of the individual
sample containers, and the rosette bottle from which the samples were
drawn, were either recorded on the sample log for the cast, or, in the case
of samples taken by/for groups other than ODF, maintained by pre-numbered
adhesive labels attached to each Niskin bottle prior to a cast, and to the
sample containers to be used for sampling from each Niskin.  Thus each
Niskin bottle, and each sample from that bottle, shared a common, unique
number (the Bedford Institute of Oceanography numbering system).  In the
latter case, the sample log was simply checked as the sample was drawn.
The sample log also included any comments or anomalous conditions noted
about the rosette and bottles.

Normal sampling practice included opening the drain valve before opening
the air vent on the bottle, indicating an air leak if water escaped.  This
observation and/or 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 as an indicator of leaking or mis-tripped bottles.


1.10.  BOTTLE DATA PROCESSING

Bottle data processing began with sample drawing, and continued until the
data were considered to be final.  One of the most important pieces of
information, the sample log sheet, was filled out during the drawing of the
many different samples, and was useful both as a sample inventory, and as a
guide for the technicians in carrying out their analyses.  Any problems
observed with the rosette before or during the sample drawing were noted on
this form, including indications of bottle leaks, out-of-order drawing,
etc.  Oxygen draw temperatures recorded on this form were at times the
first indicator of rosette bottle-tripping problems. Additional clues
regarding bottle tripping or leak problems were found by individual
analysts as the samples were analyzed and the resulting data were processed
and checked by those personnel.

The next stage of processing was accomplished after the individual
parameter files were merged into a common station file, along with CTD-
derived parameters (pressure, temperature, conductivity, etc.).  The
rosette cast and bottle numbers were the primary identification for all
ODF-analyzed samples taken from the bottle, and were used to merge the
analytical results with the CTD data associated with the bottle.  At this
stage, bottle tripping problems were usually resolved, sometimes resulting
in changes to the pressure, temperature and other CTD properties associated
with the bottle.  All CTD information from each bottle trip (confirmed or
not) was retained in a file, so resolving bottle tripping problems
consisted of correlating CTD trip data with the rosette bottles.

Diagnostic comments from the sample log, and notes from analysts and/or
bottle data processors were entered into a computer file associated with
each station (the "quality" file) as part of the quality control procedure.
Sample data from bottles suspected of leaking were checked to see if the
properties were consistent with the profile for the cast, with adjacent
stations, and, where applicable, with the CTD data.  Various property-
property plots and vertical sections were examined for both consistency
within a cast and consistency with adjacent stations by data processors,
who advised analysts of possible errors or irregularities.  The analysts
reviewed and sometimes revised their data as additional calibration or
diagnostic results became available.

Based on the outcome of investigations of the various comments in the
quality files, WHP water sample codes were selected to indicate the
reliability of the individual parameters affected by the comments.  WHP
bottle codes were assigned where evidence showed the entire bottle was
affected, as in the case of a leak, or a bottle-trip at other than the
intended depth.

WHP water bottle quality codes were assigned as defined in the WOCE
Operations Manual [Joyc94] with the following additional interpretations:
     
   2 | No problems noted.
   3 | Leaking.  An air leak large enough to produce an
     | observable effect on a sample is identified by a code of
     | 3 on the bottle and a code of 4 on the oxygen.  (Small
     | air leaks may have no observable effect, or may only
     | affect gas samples.)
   4 | Did not trip correctly.  Bottles tripped at other than
     | the intended depth were assigned a code of 4.  There may
     | be no problems with the associated water sample data.
   5 | Not reported.  No water sample data reported.  This is a
     | representative level derived from the CTD data for
     | reporting purposes.  The sample number should be in the
     | range of 80-99.
   9 | The samples were not drawn from this bottle.


WHP water sample quality flags were assigned using the following criteria:
     
   1 | The sample for this measurement was drawn from the water
     | bottle, but the results of the analysis were not (yet)
     | received.
   2 | Acceptable measurement.
   3 | Questionable measurement.  The data did not fit the
     | station profile or adjacent station comparisons (or
     | possibly CTD data comparisons).  No notes from the
     | analyst indicated a problem.  The data could be
     | acceptable, but are open to interpretation.
   4 | Bad measurement.  The data did not fit the station
     | profile, adjacent stations or CTD data.  There were
     | analytical notes indicating a problem, but data values
     | were reported.  Sampling and analytical errors were also
     | coded as 4.
   5 | Not reported.  There should always be a reason
     | associated with a code of 5, usually that the sample was
     | lost, contaminated or rendered unusable.
   9 | The sample for this measurement was not drawn.


WHP water sample quality flags were assigned to the CTDSAL (CTD salinity)
parameter as follows:
     
   2 | Acceptable measurement.
   3 | Questionable measurement.  The data did not fit the
     | bottle data, or there was a CTD conductivity calibration
     | shift during the up-cast.
   4 | Bad measurement.  The CTD up-cast data were determined
     | to be unusable for calculating a salinity.
   7 | Despiked.  The CTD data have been filtered to eliminate
     | a spike or offset.


WHP water sample quality flags were assigned to the CTDOXY (CTD O2)
parameter as follows:
     
   1 | Not calibrated.  Data are uncalibrated.
   2 | Acceptable measurement.
   3 | Questionable measurement.
   4 | Bad measurement.  The CTD data were determined to be
     | unusable for calculating a dissolved oxygen
     | concentration.
   5 | Not reported.  The CTD data could not be reported,
     | typically when CTD salinity is coded 3 or 4.
   7 | Despiked.  The CTD data have been filtered to eliminate
     | a spike or offset.
   9 | Not sampled.  No operational CTD O2 sensor was present
     | on this cast.


Note that all CTDOXY values were derived from the down-cast pressure-series
CTD data.  CTD data were matched to the up-cast bottle data along isopycnal
surfaces.  If the CTD salinity was footnoted as bad or questionable, the
CTD O2 was not reported.

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:


Table 1.10.0: Frequency of WHP quality flag assignments.
____________________________________________________________________________

                     Rosette Samples Stations 001-039                      
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Reported |                   WHP Quality Codes                  
            Levels  |     1       2       3       4       5       7       9
 -------------------|------------------------------------------------------
 Bottle      1269   |     0    1207       5      29      27       0       1
 CTD Salt    1269   |     0    1262       0       7       0       0       0
 CTD Oxy     1227   |  1227       0       0       0      42       0       0
 Salinity    1229   |     0    1181      42       6       3       0      37
 Oxygen      1072   |     0    1059       8       5       4       0     193
 Silicate    1095   |     0    1037      53       5       0       0     174
 Nitrate     1095   |     0    1084       6       5       0       0     174
 Nitrite     1091   |     0    1086       0       5       4       0     174
 Phosphate   1095   |     0    1090       0       5       0       0     174
____________________________________________________________________________


Additionally, all WHP water bottle/sample quality code comments are
presented in Appendix C.


1.11.  PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURES

All pressures and temperatures for the bottle data tabulations on the
rosette casts were obtained by averaging CTD data for a brief interval at
the time the bottle was closed on the rosette, then correcting the data
based on CTD laboratory calibrations.

The temperatures are reported using the International Temperature Scale of
1990.


1.12.  SALINITY ANALYSIS

Equipment and Techniques

Two Guildline Autosal Model 8400A salinometers were used to measure
salinities.  The salinometers were modified by ODF and contained interfaces
for computer-aided measurement.  Autosal #55-654 was used for stations
007-011, 015-016 and 019.  Autosal #57-396 was used on the  other stations.
The salinity analyses were performed when samples had equilibrated to
laboratory temperature, usually within 8-20 hours after collection.  The
salinometers were standardized for each group of analyses (typically one
cast, usually 36 samples) using at least one fresh vial of standard per
cast.  A computer (PC) prompted the analyst for control functions such as
changing sample, flushing, or switching to "read" mode.  At the correct
time, the computer acquired conductivity ratio measurements, and logged
results.  The salinometer cell was flushed until two groups of readings met
software criteria for consistency, both within and between groups; the two
averages of the groups of measurements were then averaged for a final
result.

Sampling and Data Processing

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

PSS-78 salinity [UNES81] was calculated for each sample from the measured
conductivity ratios.  The difference (if any) between the initial vial of
standard water and one run at the end as an unknown was applied linearly to
the data to account for any drift.  The data were added to the cruise
database.  1229 salinity measurements were made and 110 vials of standard
water were used.  The estimated accuracy of bottle salinities run at sea is
usually better than 0.002 PSU relative to the particular Standard Seawater
batch used.

Laboratory Temperature

The ship had no air-conditioned spaces, because it normally worked only in
cold environments, and the salinometer laboratory varied widely in
temperature, from 23-31 deg.C.  Bath temperatures were switched around from
time to time, to try to keep up with room temperature.  One Autosal bath
temperature was normally set 3 deg.C higher than the other so that
hopefully at least one would be close enough to run salts.  The salinometer
laboratory normally changed several degrees depending on whether the ship
was stopped or underway; however, under steady conditions, the temperature
stability was fair, with the lab temperature generally within 1-2 deg.C of
the Autosal bath temperature.

Standards

IAPSO Standard Seawater (SSW) Batch P-120, was used to standardize the
salinometers.


1.13.  OXYGEN ANALYSIS

Equipment and Techniques

Dissolved oxygen analyses were performed with an ODF-designed automated
oxygen titrator using photometric end-point detection based on the
absorption of 365nm wavelength ultra-violet light.  The titration of the
samples and the data logging were controlled by PC software.  Thiosulfate
was dispensed by a Dosimat 665 buret driver fitted with a 1.0 ml buret.
ODF 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 (approximately
0.012N) and thiosulfate solution (50 gm/l).  Standard solutions prepared
from pre-weighed potassium iodate crystals were run at the beginning of
each session of analyses, which typically included from 1 to 3 stations.
Several standards were made up during the cruise and compared to assure
that the results were reproducible, and to preclude the possibility of a
weighing or dilution error.  Reagent/distilled water blanks were
determined, to account for presence of oxidizing or reducing materials.

Sampling and Data Processing

Samples were collected for dissolved oxygen analyses soon after the rosette
sampler was brought on board, and after CFC and helium were drawn.  Nominal
125ml volume-calibrated iodine flasks were rinsed twice with minimal
agitation, then filled via a drawing tube, and allowed to overflow for at
least 3 flask volumes.  The sample temperature was measured with a small
platinum resistance thermometer embedded in the drawing tube.  Reagents
were added to fix the oxygen before stoppering.  The flasks were shaken
twice to assure thorough dispersion of the precipitate, once immediately
after drawing, and then again after 20 minutes.  The samples were usually
analyzed within a few hours of collection and the data were then merged
with the cruise database.

Thiosulfate normalities were calculated from each standardization and
corrected to 20 deg.C.  The 20 deg.C normalities and the blanks were
plotted versus time and were reviewed for possible problems.  New
thiosulfate normalities were recalculated after the blanks had been
smoothed as a function of time, if warranted.  These normalities were then
smoothed, and the oxygen data were recalculated.

Oxygens were converted from milliliters per liter to micromoles per
kilogram using the in-situ temperature.  Ideally, for whole-bottle
titrations, the conversion temperature should be the temperature of the
water issuing from the bottle spigot.  The sample temperatures were
measured at the time the samples were drawn from the bottle, but were not
used in the conversion from milliliters per liter to micromoles per
kilogram because the software for this calculation was not available.
Because of the very small slope of the density vs. temperature curve at the
temperatures encountered on this cruise, and the small range of water
temperatures encountered, no significant error was introduced by this
method of conversion.  Aberrant drawing temperatures provided an additional
flag indicating that a bottle may not have tripped properly.

1072 oxygen measurements were made with no major problems with the
analyses.  The auto-titrator generally performed very well.

Volumetric Calibration

Oxygen flask volumes were determined gravimetrically with degassed
deionized water (DIW) to determine flask volumes at ODF's chemistry
laboratory.  This is done once before using flasks for the first time and
periodically thereafter when a suspect bottle 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

Potassium iodate standards, nominally 0.42 to 0.45 grams, were pre-weighed
in ODF's chemistry laboratory to +/-0.0001 grams.  The exact normality was
calculated at sea after the volumetric flask volume and dilution
temperature were known.  Potassium iodate was obtained from Johnson Matthey
Chemical Co.  and was reported by the supplier to be >99.4% pure.  All
other reagents are "reagent grade" and are tested for levels of oxidizing
and reducing impurities prior to use.


1.14.  NUTRIENT ANALYSIS

Equipment and Techniques

Nutrient analyses (phosphate, silicate, nitrate and nitrite) were performed
on an ODF-modified 4-channel Technicon AutoAnalyzer II, generally within a
few hours after sample collection.  With only one nutrient analyst aboard,
it was necessary on occasion to refrigerate some samples at 2 to 6 deg.C
for up to 12 hours.

The methods used are described by Gordon et al. [Gord92], Hager et al.
[Hage72], Atlas et al. [Atla71].  The analog outputs from each of the four
channels were digitized and logged automatically by computer (PC) at 2
second intervals.

Silicate was analyzed using the technique of Armstrong et al. [Arms67].  An
acidic solution of 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.  Tartaric
acid was also added to impede PO4 color development.  The sample was passed
through a 15mm flowcell and the absorbance measured at 820nm.  ODF's
methodology is known to be non-linear at high silicate concentrations (>120
uM); a correction for this non-linearity is applied through ODF's software.

A modification of the Armstrong et al. [Arms67] procedure was used for the
analysis of nitrate and nitrite.  For the nitrate analysis, the seawater
sample was passed through a cadmium reduction column where nitrate was
quantitatively reduced to nitrite.  Sulfanilamide was introduced to the
sample stream followed by N-(1-naphthyl)ethylenediamine dihydrochloride
which coupled to form a red azo dye.  The stream was then passed through a
15mm flowcell and the absorbance measured at 540nm.  The same technique was
employed for nitrite analysis, except the cadmium column was not present,
and a 50mm flowcell was used for measurement.

Phosphate was analyzed using a modification of the Bernhardt and Wilhelms
[Bern67] technique.  An acidic solution of ammonium molybdate was added to
the sample to produce phosphomolybdic acid, then reduced to phosphomolybdous 
acid (a blue compound) following the addition ofdihydrazine sulfate.  The 
reaction product was heated to ~55 deg.C toenhance color development, then 
passed through a 50mm flowcell and theabsorbance measured at 820m.

Sampling and Data Processing

Nutrient samples were drawn into 40 ml polypropylene, screw-capped
centrifuge tubes.  The tubes were cleaned with 10% HCl and rinsed with
sample twice before filling.  Standardizations were performed at the
beginning and end of each group of analyses (typically one cast, usually 36
samples) with an intermediate concentration mixed nutrient standard
prepared prior to each run from a secondary standard in a low-nutrient
seawater matrix.  The secondary standards were prepared aboard ship by
dilution from dry, pre-weighed primary standards.  Sets of 5-6 different
standard concentrations were analyzed periodically to determine the
deviation from linearity as a function of concentration for each nutrient.

After each group of samples was analyzed, the raw data file was processed
to produce another file of response factors, baseline values, and
absorbances.  Computer-produced absorbance readings were checked for
accuracy against values taken from a strip chart recording.  The data were
then added to the cruise database.  1095 nutrient samples were analyzed.
No major problems were encountered with the measurements, other than a
continuing difficulty in holding the lab temperature constant, and a
rapidly changing range of concentrations over the first few stations.
These changes resulted in a few off-scale peaks, which required gain-
setting changes and re-runs of several samples at each station where this
occurred.  The pump tubing was changed once.

Nutrients, reported in micromoles per kilogram, were converted from
micromoles per liter by dividing by sample density calculated at 1 atm
pressure (0 db), in-situ salinity, and an assumed laboratory temperature of
25 deg.C.

Standards

Na2SiF6, the silicate primary standard, was obtained from Fluka Chemical
Company and Fisher Scientific and was reported by the suppliers to be >98%
pure.  Primary standards for nitrate (KNO3), nitrite (NaNO2), and phosphate
(KH2PO4) were obtained from Johnson Matthey Chemical Co. and the supplier
reported purities of 99.999%, 97%, and 99.999%, respectively.



TOTAL CARBONATE AND TOTAL ALKALINITY: TRACERS OF SHELF WATERS IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN 
(E. Peter Jones)

Modern oceanographic measurements include a suite of many tracers, each of which 
often has a significance in determining the origin of a particular water mass 
and tracing its circulation. In the Arctic Ocean, total carbonate and total 
alkalinity have been shown to be effective tracers of waters that have flowed 
into central regions from the continental shelves. In addition, these 
measurements are an integral part of an assessment of carbon fluxes into and 
within the Arctic Ocean.

Total alkalinity and total carbonate in seawater are closely related to 
salinity, with small deviations from a linear relationship resulting primarily 
from the dissolution or precipitation of calcium carbonate. In near-surface 
water, carbon from biological decay can also be a significant contributor to 
changes in total carbonate. Biological productivity can be assessed with the aid 
of total alkalinity and nutrient measurements, and the total carbonate and total 
alkalinity data will contribute to an assessment of the carbon budget of the 
Arctic Ocean.

Total alkalinity and total carbonate analyses are best carried out on "fresh" 
samples: the analyses were done onboard ship within about 20 hours after they 
were collected, using standard techniques (potentiometric titration and 
coulometry). Samples were collected at almost all oceanographic stations at 
almost all sampling depths, typically 36 from the surface to the bottom, using 
the rosette sampler. The time between stations did not allow water from every 
sampling depth to be analyzed, though more than 90% of them were. The quality of 
the data is high, reflected in replicate analyses with an average difference of 
just over 1 part per thousand for total alkalinity and 0.9 parts per thousand 
for total carbonate.

Higher total alkalinity values observed in the near-surface water at many 
stations during AOS-94 are attributed to dissolved calcium carbonate brought 
into the Arctic Ocean by runoff. This signal helps to determine the sources of 
fresh water by separating river runoff from sea ice meltwater, and it helps in 
tracing the circulation pattern of river runoff. Near-surface "excess" 
alkalinity, indicating the presence of river runoff, was found at all stations 
in the Canada Basin and in the Amundsen Basin. In the Nansen Basin the "excess" 
total alkalinity was much reduced or not present, indicating that most of the 
nearsurface fresh water in these regions of the AOS-94 path comes from melting 
sea ice.

High values of total carbonate were also observed near the surface. These 
correspond to the total alkalinity maximum and are consistent with dissolved 
calcium carbonate being brought into the Arctic Ocean by river runoff. There are 
also high total carbonate values in the halocline (depth about 100 m) of the 
Canada Basin that correspond closely with the nutrient maximum, consistent with 
the "excess" total carbonate being regenerated along with nutrients during the 
decay of biogenic matter. These high values were not present after Station 14, 
where the nutrient maximum also disappeared. The total carbonate in the near-
surface water and in the halocline can be used to assess the amounts of carbon 
entering the Arctic Ocean from the Siberian tundra (river runoff) and the amount 
entering as a result of carbon fixation on the continental shelves.

Profiles of both total alkalinity and total carbonate show small variations in 
deeper water that are greater than the precision of these measurements. These 
structures may be interpretable in terms of the water masses present and 
processes such as the sequestering of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, but any 
definitive interpretation will have to await more detailed data analysis, not to 
mention inspired thought.


TRANSIENT TRACERS: CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS AND CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 
(E. Peter Jones and Fiona A. McLaughlin)

The cloud of international concern over the growing anthropogenic releases of 
refrigerants, aerosols and solvents and their impact on climate and the ozone 
layer, ironically, has had a silver lining for oceanographers. The measurement 
of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) in seawater, from 
the surface to the bottom, provides a tool for tracing water masses since they 
were last at the sea surface with a time clock that spans most of this century. 
Such data give important information about the various layers within the ocean, 
for example: Are they rapidly flushed or isolated? Are the waters transported 
from other oceans or nearby shelves? These are important questions in Arctic 
Ocean research, as they relate directly to the transport of contaminants - such 
as organochlorines and radionuclides - to the Arctic food chain.

Measuring CCl4 may also contribute to understanding the ocean's ability to 
absorb carbon dioxide, a critical question for those attempting to predict 
global warming. CCl4 can be used as a surrogate for estimating levels of 
atmospheric carbon dioxide, as both compounds have been increasing in the 
atmosphere in a similar fashion since the turn of the century. The depth at 
which CCl4 is found in the ocean thus signals the depth at which anthropogenic 
carbon dioxide, produced in the twentieth century, is found.

AOS-94 provided an opportunity to measure a suite of CFCs (CFC-12, CFC-11 and 
CFC-113) and CCl4 on a transect crossing the Arctic Ocean. Samples were 
collected at almost all oceanographic stations at almost all sampling depths, 
typically 36 from the surface to the bottom, using the rosette sampler. The 
samples were analyzed using a standard purge-and-trap gas chromatograph.

Previous cruises sampled different regions in different years: the Nansen Basin 
in 1987, the Nansen and Amundsen Basins and the North Pole in 1991, and the 
southwestern Canada Basin in 1993. The latter cruise yielded information 
suggesting that the structure and circulation of water masses in the Arctic 
Ocean may be undergoing a major change. AOS-94 CFC data will allow us to 
determine the rate, magnitude and extent of these changes.

Although results are preliminary, certain key features are evident. CFC and CCl4 
profiles obtained at Station 19 above the Mendeleyev Ridge, where boundary 
currents are believed strong, and at Station 29 in the central Makarov Basin, 
where flows are believed to be weak, show important differences in both the 
concentrations and the penetration depths of all the compounds. This suggests 
that transport mechanisms are stronger around the basin's exterior than at its 
interior and that bathymetry plays a major role in the circulation of the Arctic 
Ocean.

Furthermore, Station 35, east of the Lomonosov Ridge in the central Amundsen 
Basin, shows higher values of CFCs and CCl4 in intermediate water layers 
compared to the central Makarov Basin. This suggests a closer connection with 
laterally transported incoming source waters. In the deep waters of the Makarov 
Basin, greater than 2000 m, concentrations of CFCs and CCl4 are below detection 
limits, indicating that these waters have a residence time longer than a 
century. In the Amundsen Basin the penetration is deeper, with CCl4 values above 
the detection limit to beyond 3000 m, signaling that these waters are less 
isolated than those in the Makarov Basin. A mesoscale feature is apparent from 
temperature and salinity measurements and is confirmed by CFC concentrations at 
Station 22 between 900 and 1400 m, about 20% higher than nearby stations. This 
eddy-like structure is evidence of a mechanism whereby waters from the Siberian 
Shelf are transported into the interior of the Makarov Basin.


References

Anderson, L.G., K. Olsson and M. Chierici, A carbon budget for the Arctic 
     Ocean, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 12, 455-465, 1998.

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).

Hage72.
     Hager, S. W., Atlas, E. L., Gordon, L. D., Mantyla, A. W., and Park,
     P. K., "A comparison at sea of manual and autoanalyzer analyses of
     phosphate, nitrate, and silicate," Limnology and Oceanography, 17, pp.
     931-937 (1972).

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.

Mant97.
     Mantyla, A. W. (1997). Private communication.

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).

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



AIR-WATER GAS EXCHANGE OF HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANES IN THE ARCTIC
(Liisa Jantunen and Terry Bidleman)

Our objectives for the AOS-94 cruise were to measure the transfer of chlorine-
containing pesticides between the atmosphere and the Arctic Ocean. The focus was 
on pesticides that have largely been banned in Canada and the United States but 
are still used in other countries. These chemicals are emitted into the 
atmosphere through current usage and volatilization of old residues from soils. 
Air currents carry them to remote areas worldwide, including the Arctic. One 
pesticide of special interest was hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH).

HCH is applied as a technical mixture that contains several isomers, largely a-
HCH (60-70%), b-HCH (5-12%) and g-HCH (10-15%) (Iwata et al. 1993). The active 
ingredient, g-HCH, is also produced in pure form and sold as the pesticide 
Lindane. Both insecticides were produced during World War II and are still in 
large-scale use today. Canada banned technical HCH in 1971, followed by the 
United States in 1978. Lindane is still registered for restricted applications 
in these countries and is the main HCH product used in Europe (Barrie et al. 
1993, Hinckley et al. 1991). Technical HCH was heavily used in Asian countries 
throughout the 1980s. Reports from India range from 20,000 to 47,000 tons/year 
(Iwata et al. 1993, Hinckley et al. 1991). It is estimated that the cumulative 
worldwide use since the introduction of HCH products is over 500,000 tons 
(Voldner and Li 1995). Because of their widespread usage and ease of transport, 
HCHs are the most abundant pesticides in the Arctic air and surface waters.

Air was sampled by drawing approximately 700 m3 per day through a filter 
followed by a polyurethane foam cartridge. HCHs were extracted from water by 
passing 4-20 L through a filter followed by a C8-bonded silica cartridge. 
Analysis was done in the home laboratory, using capillary gas chromatography 
with electron capture detection and negative ion mass spectrometry.

The accompanying figures show the results of air and water sampling for a-HCH; 
they also contain data collected in the Bering and Chukchi Seas in 1993 aboard 
the Russian R/V Okeah to complete the overall picture. The figures show the 
spatial distribution of a-HCH, from the Bering Sea to the Greenland Sea over the 
North Pole. Concentrations of a-HCH in water of the Bering and Chukchi Seas 
averaged 2.00 ± 0.48 ng/L (Jantunen and Bidleman 1995), increased in the Arctic 
Ocean to 4.61 ±0.45 ng/L and decreased in the Greenland Sea to 1.52 ±0.33 ng/L. 
The trend of a-HCH in air was opposite to that found in the water. The 
concentrations were highest over the Bering and Chukchi Seas (123 ±16 pg/m3) and 
the Greenland Sea (119 ±16 pg/m3) but decreased dramatically over the Arctic 
Ocean (57 ±20 pg/m3). The dip over the polar ice cap may be due to rain 
scavenging by fog and drizzle and inhibited revolatilization from surface water 
by the ice cap.

The water/air fugacity ratio can be calculated from the a-HCH concentrations in 
air and water and the temperature-dependent Henry's Law constant. The fugacity 
ratio expresses the saturation state of surface water relative to the partial 
pressure of the a-HCH in air. In the 1980s fugacity ratios of a-HCH were less 
than 1.0 in Arctic and sub-Arctic waters, indicating that the surface water was 
undersaturated and the net flux was air to sea. Our measurements in the Bering 
and Chukchi Seas (Jantunen and Bidleman 1995) and on the AOS-94 cruise show that 
concentrations of a-HCH in the air have decreased by three-fold since 1990. 
Reducing the partial pressure of a-HCH in air has raised fugacity ratios to 
above 1.0. Thus the surface waters are now oversaturated and volatilizing a-HCH.

Release of a-HCH from the ocean can be sensed by following the proportion of its 
two enantiomers in water and air. Enantiomers are mirror-image molecules that 
have the same physicochemical properties but that often differ in their 
biochemical characteristics. Right- and left-handed amino acids are familiar 
examples, and a-HCH is similar. The enantiomeric ratio (ER) of a-HCH is defined 
as (+)a-HCH /(-)a-HCH. The ER in the manufactured pesticide is 1.00 (racemic) 
and is not changed by abiotic reactions such as hydrolysis and photolysis. 
However, enzymes can and frequently do react selectively with one enantiomer, 
leading to ERs that differ from 1.00 (Buser and Muller 1995). We have found 
selective depletion of either (+) or (-) a-HCH in surface water, presumably the 
result of microbial degradation. These enantiomeric "signatures" of a-HCH are 
reflected in the overlying air, providing a direct indication of sea-to-air 
transfer.

The figures above show the ERs of a-HCH in water and air with latitude. In the 
Bering and Chukchi Seas the ERs are greater than 1.00, indicating a degradation 
of (-)a-HCH relative to (+)a-HCH. Selective breakdown of (+)a-HCH in the Arctic 
Ocean and the Greenland Sea reverses the ERs to less than 1.00. These 
enantiomeric profiles are also found in air samples collected over open-water 
regions, indicating volatilization of a-HCH from surface water. The a-HCH in air 
over the ice cap was near racemic. Fugacity ratios at higher latitudes also show 
the potential for a-HCH to volatilize (this work and Falconer et al. 1995), but 
fluxes are probably inhibited by the ice cover.

Using the ER of a-HCH provides a way of distinguishing a-HCH that has been 
microbially processed and recycled to the atmosphere by the oceans from "fresh" 
a-HCH that has undergone aerial transport from source regions. Enantiomers of 
chiral pesticides, such as a-HCH, chlordanes and heptachlor, may also prove 
useful for tracing water masses with different ER signatures when employed with 
traditional tracers such as salinity, temperature, nutrients and dissolved 
oxygen.


References

Barrie, L.A., D. Gregor, B. Hargrave, R. Lake, D. Muir, R. Shearer, B. Tracey 
    and T. Bidleman (1992) Arctic contaminants-Sources, occurrence and pathways. 
    Science of the Total Environment, 122: 1-74.
Buser, H., and M. Muller (1995) Isomer and enantioselective degradation of 
    hexachlorocyclohexane isomers in sewage sludge under anaerobic conditions. 
    Environmental Science and Technology, 29: 664-672.
Falconer, R., T. Bidleman and D. Gregor (1995) Air-water gas exchange and 
    evidence for metabolism of hexachlorocylohexanes in Resolute Bay, NWT. 
    Science of the Total Environment, 160/161: 65-74.
Hinckley, D., T. Bidleman and C. Rice (1991) Atmospheric organochlorine 
    pollutants and air-sea exchange of hexachlorocylohexane in the Bering and 
    Chukchi Seas. Journal of Geophysical Research, 96: 1702-1713.
Iwata, H., S. Tanabe, N. Sakai and R. Tatsukawa (1993) Distribution of 
    persistent organochlorines in the oceanic air and surface seawater and the 
    role of oceans on their global transport and fate. Environmental Science and 
    Technology, 27: 1080-1098.
Jantunen, L., and T. Bidleman (1995) Reversal of the air-water-gas exchange 
    direction of hexachlorocyclohexanes in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. 
    Environmental Science and Technology, 29 (4): 1081-1089.
Voldner, E., and Y. Li (1995) Global usage of selected persistent 
    organochlorines. Science of the Total Environment, 160-161, 201-206.



VOLATILE HALOMETHANES
(Robert M. Moore and Charles Geen)

Volatile organohalogens have an important influence on atmospheric chemistry. In 
particular, halogenated methanes provide a source of atmospheric chlorine and 
bromine radicals, which can affect ozone concentrations. There has been shown to 
be a strong correlation between elevated atmospheric concentrations of 
brominated substances and sudden tropospheric ozone depletion events, especially 
during the Arctic spring. There are also indications that brominated compounds 
play a significant role in stratospheric ozone destruction.

It is important to distinguish between natural and anthropogenic inputs of these 
compounds. In attempting to understand the ozone depletion events in the Arctic 
boundary layer, there has been considerable interest in examining the natural 
Arctic marine origins of volatile bromine compounds (bromoform in particular) as 
potentially significant sources of gaseous halogens to the atmosphere. Our 
research group has previously found evidence of an ice-algal source of bromoform 
and dibromomethane in the Arctic. Evidence also exists in northern waters for a 
phytoplankton source of volatile iodine compounds, which can play a role in the 
biogeochemical cycling of iodine and in atmospheric chemistry.

Our objective in participating in the AOS-94 cruise was to extend the database 
of measurements of distributions and concentrations of brominated, chlorinated 
and iodinated methanes in the Arctic Ocean. This would contribute to the goal of 
determining the natural origins of these compounds; in fact, this expedition was 
the culmination of a five-year, Arctic-wide study of the sources of such 
substances. Measurements were also made of the trace gas concentrations in 
seawater that had been allowed to equilibrate with the atmosphere; these are 
needed for calculating fluxes of the gases between the ocean and the atmosphere.

Almost 500 seawater samples were analyzed by gas chromatography during the 
cruise. Vertical profiles from many stations provided further general 
oceanographic knowledge of water column distributions of the halomethanes and 
generally showed the concentrations of the halocarbon gases of interest to be 
higher in the surface waters and to decrease with depth. However, since our 
interests were principally the origins and behavior of naturally produced 
volatile halocarbons in the upper ocean, the work focused on surface-water 
distributions and the results from the equilibration experiments. Initial data 
analysis centered on the primary compounds of interest-bromoform (CHBr3), 
dibromomethane (CH2Br2) and chloroiodomethane (CH2ClI)-but data are being 
processed for other compounds in our suite of analytes, including 
bromodichloromethane (CHBrCl2), chlorodibromomethane (CHBr2Cl), methyl iodide 
(CH3I) and diiodomethane (CH2I2).

The results of the equilibration experiments indicate that the direction of flux 
will be from the ocean to the atmosphere, since the water is supersaturated with 
respect to the air. The water column is stably stratified, so there is little 
downward mixing. Other dissipation processes, such as hydrolysis and 
substitution reactions, are relatively slow, so ventilation to the atmosphere is 
likely to be the main short-term removal mechanism for any of these dissolved 
gases in the seawater.

The results of our seawater measurements during AOS-94 indicate that some of the 
halomethane concentrations in the upper water column at these high latitudes 
beneath the polar ice pack are relatively high, even during late summer and 
early fall. For example, bromoform concentrations at most stations are equal to 
or greater than any others that we have previously measured from spring to 
autumn in the open ocean waters or beneath the ice of several Arctic regions, 
including Baffin Bay, Alert, Resolute Bay, the Beaufort Sea, the Bering Sea and 
the Chukchi Sea. It would appear that while temporal variations may be 
relatively large in open ocean areas and in regions where the ice cover melts 
for part of the year, they may not be as great in permanently ice-covered 
regions.

The unexpected picture emerging from the AOS-94 expedition-that halomethane 
concentrations remain high beneath the polar ice cap throughout the summer and 
into the fall-means it is likely that even in winter, when such substances may 
not be produced, large amounts would still be present in surface waters. If in 
fact there is a fairly constant source of halomethanes beneath the ice pack, any 
lead, crack, polynya or open water could provide a flux of these gases to the 
atmosphere at any time. In this case the question of the possible origins of the 
Arctic springtime atmospheric pulse of bromine then becomes one of physics and 
ice dynamics. That is, how often, and for how long, are open-water areas present 
in the Arctic during the dark winter and early spring?

Finally, in pursuing our questions of possible biological sources of these 
gases, it will be of interest for us to examine our halocarbon data at 
particular stations in collaboration with information provided by other AOS-94 
colleagues. While halomethane concentrations may not be directly correlated with 
bulk phytoplankton biomass, they might demonstrate some correlation with the 
presence or species abundance of particular ice algae or phytoplankton 
identified by other researchers during the expedition.


C2-C6 HYDROCARBONS
(Peter C. Brickell and Jan W. Bottenheim)

In recent years there has been growing concern about human impact on the high 
Arctic regions. Light hydrocarbons (C2-C6) in the environment include species 
that are primarily anthropogenic (for example, acetylene) and those that are 
primarily biogenic in origin (for example, isoprene). These species are of 
concern in the troposphere because they play a major role in ground-level ozone 
formation in urban and urbanimpacted regions. The study of the light hydrocarbon 
composition of the high Arctic troposphere can provide one more indication of 
human impact on the region. In addition, the study of light hydrocarbons in 
background environments can lead to a better understanding of photochemical 
reaction pathways occurring in these and other more polluted locations. The high 
Arctic environment is generally free of the myriad of local and regional 
anthropogenic hydrocarbon sources that complicate the study of hydrocarbon 
photochemistry in southern continental regions.

The goals of the light hydrocarbon measurement program during AOS-94 were to:

  • Develop a reference light hydrocarbon database for the very high latitudes 
    in summer;
  • Compare these data with those previously taken from land-based sites in the 
    high Arctic (for example, Barrow, Alaska; Alert, N.W.T., Canada; and the 
    Norwegian Arctic);
  • Look for evidence of unusual patterns of chemical processes in the Arctic 
    troposphere; and
  • Investigate the levels and patterns of anthropogenic light hydrocarbons at 
    very high latitudes and compare these with the levels of other anthropogenic 
    tracers measured during AOS-94.

Air for light hydrocarbon analysis was sampled in two ways. We collected air in 
electropolished stainless steel canisters using a battery-powered pump, and 
samples were stored for later analysis. Air was also drawn through a stainless 
steel sampling line mounted 22 m above the water line above the port flying 
bridge. The line was routed to the laboratory, where samples were 
preconcentrated and then immediately analyzed by in-situ gas chromatography. 
Canisters could also be analyzed by this system for intercomparison measurements 
with our laboratory in Toronto.

Because the location of the sampling line was fixed, this second method of 
sampling could only be used when a substantial breeze (more than 3 m/s) was 
blowing off the port side of the ship. This was necessary to avoid sampling 
emissions from the vessel itself, and it essentially limited sampling to times 
when the ship was stopped for science stations and when other sources of 
contamination (such as helicopters) were absent. Suitable conditions for 
sampling were determined by monitoring the real-time output of carbon monoxide 
and condensation nuclei counter instruments. Sampling with the portable canister 
system was more flexible and allowed air to be collected from any upwind 
location on the ship or even on the ice if conditions warranted it. In total 113 
canister samples and 53 direct samples were collected; 40 of the canister 
samples were analyzed with the on-board gas chromatography system.

Canister data are available for the lowmolecular-weight alkanes and acetylene. 
During AOS-94 the mean ethane concentration from 73 to 80°N was 836 ± 68 pptv on 
the Pacific side of the Arctic Ocean. This agrees well with the concentrations 
observed during the 1988 ABLE 3A aircraft study based at Barrow, Alaska. Farther 
north, from 81 to 87°N, ethane concentrations dropped to 726 ± 36 pptv. From 
87°N through the Pole and down to 80°N on the Atlantic side of the Arctic Ocean, 
ethane concentrations rose slightly to 765 ±51 pptv. Propane concentrations 
followed a similar pattern for the three areas. Acetylene concentrations were 
initially 56 ± 6 pptv and rose slightly to 64-65 pptv in the high-latitude and 
Atlanticside areas. The Pacific-side data agree well with those from the 1988 
ABLE 3A for Alaska, and the high-latitude and Atlantic-side concentrations 
compare very favorably with those for the Norwegian Arctic.


______________________________________________________________________________

 AOS-94 LIGHT HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS AND RATIOS COMPARED WITH THOSE 
 FROM OTHER RESEARCHERS FOR ALASKA AND THE NORWEGIAN ARCTIC.
                         
                            Ethane   Acetylene  Propane  Acetylene/ Propane/
                            (pptv)     (pptv)   (pptv)    Ethane    Ethane
                          ---------  ---------  -------  ---------  -------
 Pacific (73-80°N)         836 ± 68   56 ± 6     69 ± 12    0.061     0.084
 High Latitude (80-87°N)   726 ± 36   64 ± 7     64 ± 8     0.088     0.089
 Atlantic (87-90-80°N)     765 ± 51   65 ± 8     87 ± 59    0.085     0.113
 Alaska*                   865 ± 59   57 ± 17    53 ± 15    0.066     0.061
 Norwegian Arctic†        1195 ± 27   67 ± 18    87 ± 30    0.056     0.073

  * From Blake, D.R., D.F. Hurst, T.W. Smith, W.J. Whipple, T. Chen, N.J. 
    Blake and F.S. Rowland (1992) Summertime measurements of selected non-
    methane hydrocarbons in the Arctic and Sub-arctic during the 1988 Arctic 
    Boundary Layer Expedition (ABLE 3A).  Journal of Geophysical Research, 
    97: 16,559-16,588.
  † From Hov, O., S.A. Penkett, I.S.A. Isaksen and A. Semb (1984) Organic 
    gases in the Norwegian Arctic. Geophysical Research Letters, 11: 425-428.
______________________________________________________________________________


Ratios of acetylene and propane to ethane concentrations were also calculated 
for this data set. The acetylene-to-ethane ratio for the Pacific side data is 
consistent with the one for Alaska, but the Atlantic-side ratio is higher than 
for the Norwegian Arctic. This difference is due to the lower AOS-94 ethane 
results for the Atlantic side. Propane-to-ethane ratios are slightly higher than 
those reported by other researchers for both the Pacific side and Atlantic side. 
The difference on the Pacific side is attributable to the somewhat higher 
propane concentrations, and on the Atlantic side the difference is again due to 
lower ethane concentrations.

The preliminary data from the light hydrocarbon canister sampling program agree 
well with work that has been done previously in the Alaskan and Norwegian 
Arctic. The lower ethane concentrations on the Atlantic side of the Arctic Ocean 
are probably attributable to increased distance from terrestrial sources. The 
ethane concentrations observed in the high-latitude portion of the transect may 
be useful for determining the degree of aging of the air mass encountered in 
this area. These light hydrocarbon concentrations will provide additional data 
for estimating the background tropospheric volatile organic compound levels used 
to input advective inflows for continental atmospheric modeling. In addition, 
although only data from the high Arctic regions have been presented here, we 
collected hydrocarbon and some additional atmospheric data throughout the entire 
circumnavigation of the North American continent during AOS-94. This has yielded 
a unique data set for assessing the nature of continental and oceanic air 
masses, as well as providing an extended latitudinal profile from 7 to 90°N for 
these atmospheric species. Finally, once the Arctic data are available from all 
the compounds analyzed with the in-situ gas chromatograph, it is expected that 
an improved understanding of background atmospheric chemical processes will have 
been derived from the sampling carried out on this unique expedition.



CLOUD RADIATION 

ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION AND CLIMATE PROGRAM
(Dan Lubin and Robert H. Whritner)

One of the major physical components of climate change is the way in which solar 
energy is redistributed in the Earth-atmosphere system. This subject also 
includes the simultaneous emission of thermal (infrared) energy from the Earth's 
surface and its partial entrapment by the atmosphere (the "greenhouse" effect). 
Globally well-mixed increases in carbon dioxide abundance are believed by many 
to be enhancing the greenhouse effect and increasing the global surface 
temperature field. This could have serious repercussions for Arctic Ocean 
climate, as the Arctic Ocean surface exists for much of the year at temperatures 
just below the freezing point of water. A small increase in surface temperature 
could potentially have a large impact on the geographic extent of Arctic sea 
ice, with resulting changes to the energy balance between the atmosphere and 
ocean.

Most of the scientific community's insight into potential "global warming" 
scenarios comes from large computer simulations called general circulation 
models (GCMs). The GCMs are quite sophisticated but often suffer from a lack of 
experimental input data and input physics from many remote regions throughout 
the world, particularly the Arctic. AOS-94 offered a unique opportunity to 
deploy state-of-the-art atmospheric radiation budget measurement apparatus in 
the high Arctic and to allow them to gather data continuously for several weeks. 
This was the first high-Arctic expedition to deploy these advanced optical 
instruments, and the large resulting data set should enable better 
representation of the Arctic atmosphere in the GCMs.

The California Space Institute project consisted of three major components, all 
deployed aboard the Polar Sea. The first was a battery of broad-band solar and 
infrared flux radiometers mounted above the pilothouse. Three Eppley Laboratory 
radiometers measured downwelling short-wave (0.28-2.8 mm), near-infrared (0.78-
2.8 mm) and middle-infrared (4-50 mm) radiation reaching the Arctic Ocean 
surface. A Biospherical Instruments radiometer measured downwelling solar 
ultraviolet and visible radiation at 0.308, 0.320 and 0.380 mm, as well as 
radiation in the intervals 0.580-0.680 mm (to match a satellite radiom- eter) 
and 0.400-0.700 mm (total photosynthetically active radiation). These 
radiometers operated automatically and recorded data in one-minute averages 
continuously throughout the cruise.

The second component consisted of the shipboard satellite tracking facility, the 
TeraScan system manufactured by the SeaSpace Corporation. In addition to 
providing weather and ice navigation for the expedition, the satellite tracking 
enabled this project to measure energy reflected and emitted to space at the 
same time that the shipboard instruments were measuring solar and terrestrial 
radiation impinging on the Arctic Ocean surface. The TeraScan system was used to 
track NOAA polar-orbiting satellites, obtaining 1.1-km spatial resolution images 
from the advanced very high resolution radiometers (AVHRR), which measure 
radiation at five visible and infrared wavelengths. The Defense Meteorological 
Satellite Program (DMSP) satellites were also tracked, giving this project 
access to the special sensor microwave imager (SSM/I), which was used to map sea 
ice along the expedition's track. Throughout the cruise, the Polar Sea TeraScan 
facility tracked between five and ten satellite overpasses per day.

The third component consisted of a Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) 
spectroradiometer operating in the middle infrared (5-20 mm) with a spectral 
resolution of 1 cm-1 (Lubin 1994). FTIR data collection was coordinated with the 
NOAA satellite overpasses, and a total of 178 sky scenes were studied with the 
FTIR instruments. This instrument made detailed measurements of radiation 
trapped by the atmosphere in the middle-infrared window (8-13 mm). Under clear 
skies the atmosphere is relatively transparent in this wavelength range, and a 
large portion of the heat given off by the ocean surface escapes to space. Under 
cloudy skies, this window is mostly closed, meaning that far less radiation 
escapes to space and the greenhouse effect is enhanced. These greenhouse 
enhancements due to clouds are more than an order of magnitude larger than what 
is expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so 
understanding the role of clouds in the atmospheric energy balance is critical 
before we can make meaningful "global warming" predictions with GCMs.

During the summer of 1994, the atmosphere over the Arctic Ocean exhibited a 
great deal of complexity, much more than is now represented in the GCMs. A 
common occurrence was multiple-layered cloud systems. The figure above is an 
image of terrestrial infrared radiation (10.5-11.5 mm) emitted by the Arctic 
ocean-atmosphere system to space, expressed in units of equivalent brightness 
temperature. At the time of this satellite overpass (4 August) the Polar Sea was 
at 78°N, roughly in the center of the image, where there were three distinct 
temperature ranges in the cloud fields corresponding to three distinct ranges in 
cloud top height. When the atmosphere contains a large amount of liquid or ice 
water, as is the case with these multiplelayered cloud systems, a large portion 
of the sun's energy is reflected back to space or absorbed by the atmosphere 
before reaching the surface. 

Two examples of atmospheric emission spectra from the CalSpace FTIR instrument 
are shown in the figure below, under low atmospheric opacity. Here the 
instrument is measuring terrestrial energy trapped by the atmosphere and emitted 
straight back down toward the ship. The middle infrared window exists between 
800 and 1300 cm-1 on this plot. The dotted curve, obtained under clear skies, 
shows that there is very little energy being trapped and re-emitted by the 
atmosphere in the window, meaning that most is escaping to space. For wave 
numbers shorter than 800 and longer than 1300 cm-1, the atmosphere is largely 
opaque, and most of the energy emitted by the Earth's surface at these wave 
numbers is always trapped by carbon dioxide and water vapor. The upper (solid) 
curve was obtained under a high ice cloud, and we can see that in the window 
this cloud results in nearly an order of magnitude more energy at the ocean 
surface. 

The figure above shows two FTIR emission spectra obtained under overcast skies 
(the most frequent sky condition during AOS-94). The upper (dotted) curve was 
obtained on 4 August, the same day as the AVHRR and solar radiometer data 
discussed above. At the time of this measurement there was so much liquid water 
in the atmosphere that the atmosphere radiated energy to the surface almost like 
a perfect blackbody, as signified by the smoothness of this curve. In this 
situation, when we have a combination of high cloud layers appearing very cold 
in the satellite data (that is, they are radiating relatively little energy to 
space) and low cloud layers radiating nearly as much energy as possible to the 
surface, at nearly the surface temperature, the greenhouse effect of the 
atmosphere is nearly at a maximum. The lower (solid) curve was obtained under a 
single-layer stratus cloud. The middle infrared window is almost but not quite 
closed. This is because the cloud base is several degrees colder than the 
surface and because the cloud emissivity is less than one, mean- ing that the 
cloud does not contain enough liquid water to emit radiation like a perfect 
blackbody. A doubling of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is expected to 
increase the flux of infrared radiation at the surface by 3-4 W/m2. The 
enhancements in surface infrared radiation related to changing cloud liquid 
water content and emissivity are on the order of tens of watts per square meter.

The FTIR cloud emission spectra can be used to estimate the effective radius of 
the cloud droplet size distribution (Lubin 1994), which in turn can indicate 
whether or not continental air masses are influencing cloud microphysics. 
Radiative transfer analysis of the AOS-94 cloudy sky emission spectra suggest 
that 30% of the stratiform clouds sampled have effective droplet radii of 7 mm 
or smaller, in which case they are probably influenced by continental air masses 
and aerosol concentrations. By showing this type of microphysical phenomenon, 
along with the large variability in cloud optical depth that can occur (0- 50), 
this program has illustrated that the summer atmosphere in the high Arctic is as 
dynamically and radiatively complex as that over any other continent or ocean.



Reference

Lubin, D. (1994) Infrared radiative properties of the maritime Antarctic 
    atmosphere. Journal of Climate, 7: 121-140.



AEROSOLS
(John D. Grovenstein, Richard Leaitch and Fred Hopper)

Aerosols, especially those that influence cloud microphysics (droplet size 
spectra), are important in atmospheric research because they influence climate 
directly by backscattering and absorption of incoming solar radiation and 
indirectly by affecting cloud albedo. Wigley (1989) suggested that the latter 
effect could be the reason that the planet has not exhibited heating as 
predicted by global climate models of the "greenhouse effect." Generally climate 
models are poorly parameterized for aerosol and cloud microphysics, especially 
in the remote Arctic. Therefore, it is necessary to measure these parameters to 
provide data sets for modelers and to diagnose future environmental change. 

The figure above is a time series of aerosol concentration from AOS-94. The 
uppermost dotted line is the condensation nuclei (CN) concentration measured by 
TSI models 3025 and 3022 condensation nuclei counters. This number represents 
the concentration of the finest nuclei (nucleation mode) with a radius of 0.003 
mm to the larger aerosols up to a radius of 3 mm. The uppermost solid line is 
the cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) concentration active at 1% supersaturation. 
These measurements were taken with an instantaneous CCN spectrometer introduced 
by Fukuta and Saxena (1979). For this study the spectrometer was operated at a 
range of 0.2-1.3% supersaturation. The spectrometer makes one spectral sweep 
every 15 s. The middle dotted line is the CCN concentration active at 0.33% 
supersaturation measured by the DH Associates cloud con- densation nuclei 
counter. This instrument records the number of CCN active at a single 
supersaturation (set at 0.33% for this study). The lowermost dotted line is the 
large aerosol concentration (0.3-1.0 mm) measured with a Particle Measuring 
Systems passive cavity aerosol spectrometer probe (PCASP-100X). The instrument 
provides a histogram of aerosol concentration in 15 size ranges. The 
concentration from each size range is totaled to provide the concentration 
reported in the figure.

Sampling began on day 208 with instruments running on a continuous basis. The 
concentration of aerosols measured by all instruments decreased sharply upon 
entering the ice. The concentration of CN, CCN (active at 1% supersaturation) 
and CCN (active at 0.33% supersaturation) "track" each other through the time 
series, with the PCASP-100X showing this trend but not as dramatically as the 
other measurements. Generally CCN concentrations in maritime air masses rarely 
exceed 100 cm-3; however, concentrations above 100 cm-3 were measured over a 
time of days in the remote Arctic Ocean (days 218-224 and days 228-232). These 
large CCN concentrations also accompanied large CN concentrations, which in one 
instance (day 224) exceeded 7000 cm-3. 

The concentrations of the larger aerosols, measured by the PCASP-100X and the 
CCN active at 0.33% supersaturation, never exceeded 100 cm-3 while we were 
sampling in the ice. The observations of the largest CN and CCN (active at 1% 
supersaturation) concentrations correspond to the lowest observed concentrations 
of the large aerosol with the PCASP-100X. This suggests that the elevated CN 
concentrations may be due to a local production mechanism. The reduction of the 
largest aerosol removes a significant surface area for the condensation of 
precursor gases. The concentration of these gases increases until, by the 
process of gas-to-particle conversion, they are converted into fine aerosol 
particles. Between days 218 and 224 the concentration of the finest aerosols are 
out of phase with the concentrations of the largest aerosols; the peaks in 
concentration of one corresponds to the minimums of the other. Although this 
scenario may not be the cause of the observed concentrations, the high 
concentrations of the precursor gases necessary have been recorded in the 
Arctic. The figure above shows the relationship between ice coverage and CCN 
concentration, illustrating the possible production of CCN from precursor gases. 
When the gas supply is limited by ice cover, CCN concentration decreases. 
Regardless of the source, the particles are present and are modifying the 
climate of the remote Arctic.


References

Fukuta, N., and V.K. Saxena (1979) A horizontal thermal gradient cloud 
    condensation nuclei spectrometer. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 18, 1352- 
    1362.

Saxena, V.K., and J.D. Grovenstein (1994) The role of clouds in the enhancement 
    of cloud condensation nuclei concentrations. Atmospheric Research, 31, 71-
    89.

Twomey, S. (1977) The influence of pollution on the shortwave albedo of clouds. 
    Journal of Atmospheric Science, 34, 1149-1152.

Wigley, T.L.M. (1989) Possible climate change due to SO2 derived cloud 
    condensation nuclei. Nature, 339, 365-376. 




__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________




APPENDICES 


PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS

Responsibility  Investigator  Institution          Email Address
--------------  ------------  -------------------  -------------------------
Nuts/O2         James Swift   Scripps Institution  jswift@ucsd.edu
                              of Oceanography
TCO2/TALK/CFCs  Peter Jones   Bedford Institute    p_jones@bionet.bio.dfo.ca
                              of Oceanography



PARTICIPANTS 

USCGC Polar Sea

Kent Berger-North, Biology                     John D. Grovenstein, Atmospheric 
Axys                                           and upper ocean chemistry 
Sidney, British Columbia                       Department of Marine, Earth and 
                                               Atmospheric Sciences 
Hazen W. Bosworth, Sea ice                     North Carolina State University 
U.S. Army Cold Regions Research                Raleigh, North Carolina 
and Engineering Laboratory                     
Hanover, New Hampshire                         Patrick Hart, Marine geology 
                                               U.S. Geological Survey 
Peter C. Brickell, Atmospheric                 Menlo Park, California 
and upper oceanchemistry                     
Air Quality Measurements and Analysis          Daniel Lubin, Atmospheric radiation 
Research Division                              and climate 
Atmospheric Environment Service                California Space Institute 
Downsview, Ontario                             University of California, San Diego 
                                               La Jolla, California 
John P. Christensen, Seafloor geochemistry                     
Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences          Bonnie J. Mace, Biology 
West Boothbay Harbor, Maine                    Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory 
                                               Palisades, New York 
Lisa Clough, Biology                     
Department of Biology                          Steven May, Marine geology 
East Carolina University                       U.S. Geological Survey 
Greenville, North Carolina                     Prescott, Washington 
                    
Charles Geen, Atmospheric and                  Sandy Moore, Biology 
upper oceanchemistry                           College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences 
Bovar-Concord Environmental                    Oregon State University 
Toronto, Ontario                               Corvallis, Oregon 
                    
Michel Gosselin, Biology                       Michael Mullen, Marine geology 
Department of Oceanography                     U.S. Geological Survey 
University of Quebec at Rimouski               Menlo Park, California 
Rimouski, Quebec                     
                                               Mary O'Brien, Biology 
Anthony J. Gow, Sea ice                        Institute of Ocean Sciences 
U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and            Sidney, British Columbia 
Engineering Laboratory                     
Hanover, New Hampshire                         Walter Olson, Marine geology 
                                               U.S. Geological Survey 
Arthur Grantz, Marine geology                  Menlo Park, California 
U.S. Geological Survey                     
Menlo Park, California                         Elizabeth Osborne, Marine geology 
                                               McLean Laboratory 
Kevin O'Toole, Marine geology                  Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 
U.S. Geological Survey                         Woods Hole, Massachusetts
Menlo Park, California                                
                                               Evelyn Sherr, Biology 
Fred Payne, Marine geology                     College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences 
U.S. Geological Survey                         Oregon State University 
Menlo Park, California                         Corvallis, Oregon 
                                               
Larry Phillips, Marine geology                 Nathalie Simard, Biology 
U.S. Geological Survey                         Department of Oceanography 
Menlo Park, California                         University of Quebec at Rimouski 
                                               Rimouski, Quebec 
Erk Reimnitz, Sea ice                      
U.S. Geological Survey                         Delphine Thibault, Biology 
Menlo Park, California                         Department of Oceanography 
                                               University of Quebec at Rimouski 
James Rich, Biology                            Rimouski, Quebec 
Graduate College of Marine Studies         
University of Delaware                         Walter Tucker, Sea ice 
Lewes, Delaware                                U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and 
                                               Engineering Laboratory 
William Robinson, Marine geology               Hanover, New Hampshire 
U.S. Geological Survey              
Menlo Park, California                         Patricia Wheeler, Biology 
                                               College of Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Larry Schultz, Ship technology                 Sciences 
Advanced Marine Enterprises                    Oregon State University 
Arlington, Virginia                            Corvallis, Oregon 
                                                   
Rubin Sheinberg, Ship technology               Robert A. Whritner,  
Naval Engineering Division                     Atmospheric radiation and climate 
U.S. Coast Guard                               Arctic and Antarctic Research Center 
Baltimore, Maryland                            Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
                                               University of California, San Diego 
                                               La Jolla, California 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
                    
Louis S. St-Laurent 
                    
Knut Aagaard, Oceanography                     Janet E. Barwell-Clarke, Oceanography 
Applied Physics Laboratory                     Institute of Ocean Sciences 
University of Washington                       Sidney, British Columbia 
Seattle, Washington                    
                                               Eddy Carmack, Oceanography 
Louise Adamson, Contaminants                   Institute of Ocean Sciences 
Institute of Ocean Sciences                    Sidney, British Columbia 
Sidney, British Columbia                     
                                               Sylvester Drabitt, Documentation 
Ikaksak Amagoalik, Oceanography                Institute of Ocean Sciences 
Institute of Ocean Sciences                    Sidney, British Columbia 
Sidney, British Columbia                     
                                               Brenda Ekwurzel, Oceanography 
Ken Asmus, Sea ice and remote sensing          Lamont-Dougherty Earth Observatory 
Ice Services Branch                            Palisades, New York 
Atmospheric Environment Service                     
Ottawa, Ontario                     

James A. Elliott, Oceanography                 David A. Muus, Oceanography 
Bedford Institute of Oceanography              Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia                         University of California, San Diego 
                                               La Jolla, California 
Katherine Ellis, Contaminants                     
Bedford Institute of Oceanography              Richard Nelson, Contaminants 
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia                         Bedford Institute of Oceanography 
                                               Dartmouth, Nova Scotia 
Sean Farley, Marine mammals                     
Department of Zoology                          Stefan Nitoslawski, Documentation 
Washington State University                    Galafilm, Inc. 
Pullman, Washington                            Montreal, Quebec 
                    
Caren Garrity, Sea ice and remote sensing      David Paton, Contaminants 
Microwave Group-Ottawa River                   Institute of Ocean Sciences 
Dunrobin, Ontario                              Sidney, British Columbia 
                    
Wayne Grady, Documentation                     Rick Pearson, Oceanography 
Macfarlane, Walter and Ross                    Institute of Ocean Sciences 
Toronto, Ontario                               Sidney, British Columbia 
                    
Michael Hingston, Oceanography                 Ron Perkin, Oceanography 
BDR Research Ltd                               Institute of Ocean Sciences 
Bedford Institute of Oceanography              Sidney, British Columbia 
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia                     
                                               Malcolm Ramsay, Marine mammals 
Oolateetah Iqaluk, Oceanography                Department of Biology 
Institute of Ocean Sciences                    University of Saskatchewan 
Sidney, British Columbia                       Saskatoon, Saskatchewan 
                    
Liisa M. Jantunen, Contaminants                Ron Ritch, Ship technology 
Atmospheric Environment Service                A.R. Engineering 
Downsview, Ontario                             Calgary, Alberta 
                    
E. Peter Jones, Oceanography                   James A. Schmitt, Oceanography 
Bedford Institute of Oceanography              Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia                         University of California, San Diego 
                                               La Jolla, California 
Robie Macdonald, Contaminants                     
Institute of Ocean Sciences                    Douglas Sieberg, Oceanography 
Sidney, British Columbia                       Institute of Ocean Sciences 
                                               Sidney, British Columbia 
Fiona McLaughlin, Oceanography/contaminants                     
Institute of Ocean Sciences                    James St. John, Ship technology 
Sidney, British Columbia                       Science and Technology Engineering Corporation 
                                               Columbia, Maryland 
Christopher Measures, Oceanography                     
Department of Oceanography                     James H. Swift, Oceanography 
University of Hawaii                           Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
Honolulu, Hawaii                               University of California, San Diego 
                                               La Jolla, California 
                    
Darren Tuele, Contaminants                     F. Mary Williams, Sea ice 
Institute of Ocean Sciences                    NRC Institute for Marine Dynamics 
Sidney, British Columbia                       St. John's, Newfoundland 
                    
Christopher Walker, Documentation              Frank Zemlyak, Oceanography 
Institute of Ocean Sciences                    Bedford Institute of Oceanography 
Sidney, British Columbia                       Dartmouth, Nova Scotia 

Robert T. Williams, Oceanography 
Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
University of California, San Diego 
La Jolla, California 





                                APPENDIX A

     Arctic 94:  CTD Temperature and Conductivity Corrections Summary

            PRT        ITS-90 Temperature Coefficients    Conductivity Coefficients
 Sta/    Response        corT = t2*T**2 + t1*T + t0           corC = c1*C + c0
 Cast   Time (secs)      t2            t1          t0          c1            c0

001/04      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01571
002/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01581
003/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01591
004/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01602
005/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01612
006/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01623
007/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01633
008/02      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01643
009/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01654
010/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01664

011/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01675
012/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01685
013/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01695
013/02      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01865
014/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01706
015/02      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01716
016/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01727
017/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01737
018/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01747
019/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01758

020/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01768
021/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01779
022/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01789
023/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01799
024/02      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01810
025/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01820
026/04      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01901
027/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01841
028/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01851
029/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01862

030/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01872
031/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01883
032/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01893
033/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01903
034/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01914
035/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.01924
036/01      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.03281
036/02      .35      1.86300e-05  -5.81480e-04  -1.50150   -2.63442e-04   -0.03381
037/01      .3       1.83870e-05  -7.55550e-04  -1.48140   -1.24894e-03    0.04604
038/01      .3       1.83870e-05  -7.55550e-04  -1.48140   -1.24894e-03    0.04377

039/01      .3       1.83870e-05  -7.55550e-04  -1.48140   -1.24894e-03    0.04249






                                APPENDIX B


          Arctic Ocean 94:  CTD Shipboard and Processing Comments

       +-----------------------------------------------------------+
       |           Key to Problem/Comment Abbreviations            |
       +---+-------------------------------------------------------+
       |CO | conductivity offset                                   |
       |RN | radionuclide cast                                     |
       |WS | winch slowdown/stop, potential shift in ctdoxy signal |
       +---+-------------------------------------------------------+


       +-----------------------------------------------------------+
       |           Key to Solution/Action Abbreviations            |
       +---+-------------------------------------------------------+
       |NA | no action taken, used default quality code 2          |
       |NR | cast not processed, not reported with final data      |
       |O9 | blanked out CTD oxygen channel                        |
       |OC | offset conductivity channel to account for            |
       |   | shift/offset                                          |
       |S3 | quality code 3 salinity in .ctd file for pressures    |
       |   | specified                                             |
       |UP | used up-cast data for final pressure-series data      |
       +---+-------------------------------------------------------+



   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   | Cast    Problem/Comment                Solution/Action            |
   +--------+------------------------------+---------------------------+
   | 001/04 |TEST cast; O2 sensor guard on |O9                         |
   |        |during cast                   |                           |
   | 005/01 |WS/1.4 mins. at 174 db        |NA                         |
   | 007/01 |WS/0.9 min. at 251 db         |NA                         |
   | 008/01 |WS/0.8 min. at 303 db         |NA                         |
   | 008/02 |RN                            |NR                         |
   | 009/01 |winch problems: stops/yos     |NA                         |
   |        |WS/1.9 mins. at 386 db, 3+    |                           |
   |        |min. at ~1008 db,             |                           |
   |        |1.8 mins. at 1693 db          |                           |
   | 010/01 |WS/0.6 min. at 1907 db        |NA                         |
   | 011/01 |WS/0.6 min. at 2257 db        |NA                         |
   | 011/02 |RN                            |NR                         |
   | 013/01 |no bottles - pylon deck unit  |NA                         |
   |        |problem                       |                           |
   | 013/02 |replaced pylon deck unit -    |NA                         |
   |        |tripping problems             |                           |
   |        |WS/1.4 mins. at 1163 db       |NA                         |
   | 014/01 |tripping problems             |NA                         |
   | 015/01 |RN                            |NR                         |
   | 015/02 |tripping problems             |NA                         |
   |        |WS/1.3 mins. at 1863 db       |NA                         |
   | 016/01 |repaired original pylon deck  |                           |
   |        |unit back in                  |                           |
   | 017/01 |WS/0.7 min. at 1624 db        |NA                         |
   | 018/01 |trouble with ice touching     |NA                         |
   |        |wire                          |                           |
   | 018/02 |RN                            |NR                         |
   | 018/03 |RN                            |NR                         |
   | 018/04 |RN                            |NR                         |
   | 021/01 |WS/1.8 mins. at 1649 db       |NA                         |
   | 022/01 |WS/1.3 mins. at 720 db        |NA                         |
   | 024/01 |RN                            |NR                         |
   | 026/01 |RN                            |NR                         |
   | 026/02 |RN                            |NR                         |
   | 026/03 |RN                            |NR                         |
   | 026/04 |WS/1+ hour stop at 989 db up  |replaced CTD deck unit     |
   |        |                              |(blown fuse)               |
   +--------+------------------------------+---------------------------+


   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   | Cast    Problem/Comment                Solution/Action            |
   +--------+------------------------------+---------------------------+
   | 027/01 |WS/0.4 min at 3101 db, 0.4    |NA                         |
   |        |min at 3201 db (ship          |                           |
   |        |propulsion problems - stops   |                           |
   |        |to pull A-frame in to avoid   |                           |
   |        |ice)                          |                           |
   | 031/01 |CO 832-918 db down            |UP                         |
   | 033/01 |WS/0.9 min. at 2926 db,0.6    |NA                         |
   |        |min. at 2946 db               |                           |
   | 035/01 |North Pole station            |                           |
   | 035/02 |RN                            |NR                         |
   | 035/03 |RN                            |NR                         |
   | 035/04 |RN                            |NR                         |
   | 036/01 |new CTD termination; top 300  |UP                         |
   |        |db section of down-cast is    |                           |
   |        |bad; probable freezing of     |                           |
   |        |conductivity sensor causing   |                           |
   |        |bogus down-cast salinity      |                           |
   |        |conductivity strange - shape  |S3 3202-3532db             |
   |        |doesn't match bottles or      |                           |
   |        |surrounding casts             |                           |
   | 036/02 |new conductivity sensor       |                           |
   | 037/01 |switch to CTD #1; no 2nd      |                           |
   |        |temperature channel           |                           |
   |        |WS/1.4 mins. at 4054 db; 14.8 |NA                         |
   |        |db yo-yo 3810-3795 db         |                           |
   |        |CO                            |OC +.0035 mmho/cm          |
   |        |                              |3743-3810 db               |
   | 037/02 |RN                            |NR                         |
   | 038/01 |no 2nd temperature channel;   |NA                         |
   |        |sediments dumped from deck    |                           |
   |        |into water at cast start      |                           |
   | 039/01 |Greenland Basin station (only |                           |
   |        |station not done in ice)      |                           |
   |        |up-cast offset from down by   |adjusted cond offset       |
   |        |~0.0012 psu                   |coefficient for down-cast  |
   +--------+------------------------------+---------------------------+






                                APPENDIX C

                 Arctic Ocean 94:  Bottle Quality Comments

Remarks for deleted samples, missing samples, PI data comments, and WOCE
codes other than 2 from AO94/ArcticOcean 94.  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 rereading
of charts (i.e., nutrients).  Comments from the Sample Logs and the results
of ODF's investigations are included in this report.  Units stated in these
comments are degrees Celsius for temperature, Practical Salinity Units for
salinity, and unless otherwise noted, milliliters per liter for oxygen and
micromoles per liter for Silicate, Nitrate, Nitrite, and Phosphate.  The
first number before the comment is the cast number (CASTNO) times 100 plus
the bottle number (SAMPNO).

STATION 001

435            Radionuclides(RN), hydrocarbons(HC) & salinity only.
               Footnote CTD oxygen not reported, oxygen and nutrients not
               drawn.

436            Sample log: "Vent open." Delta-S 0.003 low at 5db. Down T &
               S differ from up T & S.  Other water samples okay for near
               surface.

424            Sample log: "Air leak" Delta-S 0.000 at 10db. No other
               samples drawn.

428            Sample log: "Air leak" Delta-S 0.009 low at 10db. Bottle
               salinity same as other bottle salinities this level.

421-433        Radionuclides(RN), hydrocarbons(HC) & salinity only.
               Footnote CTD oxygen not reported, oxygen and nutrients not
               drawn.

418            Radionuclides(RN), hydrocarbons(HC) & salinity only.  Delta-
               S at 17db is -0.0303, salinity is 32.670.  0.016 difference
               with bottle 19 which was tripped at the same pressure.
               Suspect bottle salinity is acceptable.  Footnote CTD oxygen
               not reported, oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

402-415        Radionuclides(RN), hydrocarbons(HC) & salinity only.
               Footnote CTD oxygen not reported, oxygen and nutrients not
               drawn.

401-436        CTD oxygen processor: "CTD oxygen values totally
               unreasonable, will not be reported." Footnote CTD oxygen not
               reported.

STATION 002

Cast 1         Autosal run has salt box 58 as Station 2 and box K as
               Station 3. Station 3 Sample log has salt box 58 and Station
               2 sample log has no salt box nbr recorded.  Data indicate
               Box 58 is Sta 3 and Box K is Sta 2.  Delta-Ss erratic but
               reasonable per CTD except for 101.  Used Box 58 for Sta 3
               and Box K for Sta 2.
                LNSW lower than DDW on this station, reason unknown, and
               effect unknown. Either F1 factors or B and E base could be
               in error.  Footnote nitrate questionable, samples 1, 4,
               7-9,11.

112            Iodine only, No ODF samples.  Footnote CTD oxygen not
               reported, salinity, oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

110            Delta-S at 10db is -0.0589, salinity is 32.135.  Spike in
               CTD uptrace salinity.  Footnote CTD salinity bad, CTD oxygen
               data not reported, oxygen and nutrients not sampled.

109            Delta-S at 10db is -0.0313, salinity is 32.131.  Spike in
               CTD uptrace salinity.  See Cast 1 nitrate comments.
               Footnote CTD salinity bad, CTD oxygen data could not be
               reported because the CTD salinity is bad, nitrate is
               questionable.

105-106        No oxygen or nutrients sampled.  Footnote CTD Oxygen not
               calibrated, oxygen and nutrients not sampled.

102-103        No oxygen or nutrients sampled.  Footnote CTD Oxygen not
               calibrated, oxygen and nutrients not sampled.

101            Delta-S 0.07 low at 49db, 6m above bottom. Autosal run ok
               other than Station mixup. CTD T & S show no change this
               level but salts 102 & 103 from 1m above are 0.5 higher.
               Other water samples show no change. Reason unknown.
               Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, salinity, silicate and
               nitrate questionable.

101-108        Original run offscale on these peaks. Analyst diluted these
               samples with equal volume LNSW and reran them.  Several
               checks on LNSW gives sil = 2.8 uM/l. Reported concentrations
               for these samples calculated by hand.  Overall effect of
               this process will be to reduce expected precision.  Footnote
               silicate questionable, samples 1, 4, 7-8.

101-112        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 003

Cast 1         Autosal run has salt box 58 as Station 2 and box K as
               Station 3. Station 3 Sample log has salt box 58 and Station
               2 sample log has no salt box nbr recorded.  Data indicate
               Box 58 is Sta 3 and Box K is Sta 2.  Delta-Ss erratic, CTD S
               & T spikes. Bottom 2 salts low as on Station 2 bottom salt.

111            Oxygen was not drawn per sampling schedule.  Footnote CTD
               oxygen not calibrated, oxygen not drawn.

108            Oxygen was not drawn per sampling schedule.  Footnote CTD
               oxygen not calibrated, oxygen not drawn.

105            Sample log: "Small air leak." Delta-S 0.05 high, salinity
               0.02 lower than 104 at same level(37db). No oxygen drawn
               this level. Nutrients agree with 104 nutrients.  No freon or
               gas samples were drawn from this bottle.  Will code bottle
               as leaking, if non-ODF samples are acceptable, then ODF
               suggests the bottle is acceptable.  Footnote bottle leaking,
               CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen not drawn.

102            Oxygen was not drawn per sampling schedule.  Footnote CTD
               oxygen not calibrated, oxygen not drawn.  Delta-S at 59db is
               -0.0692, salinity is 32.762.

101-111        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 004

105            Sample log: "Leaking a little" Delta-S 0.008 low at 107db.
               Same scatter as other RN samples drawn this level. No other
               ODF samples drawn.  Will code bottle as leaking, if non-ODF
               samples are acceptable, then ODF suggests the bottle is
               acceptable.  Footnote bottle leaking, CTD oxygen not
               calibrated, oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

103-113        No oxygen or nutrients drawn.  Footnote CTD oxygen not
               calibrated, oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

102            No oxygen drawn.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen
               not drawn.

101-114        All other parameters have unusual slope and high T, S, PO4 &
               SIL values and low O2 values. NO3 values don't change.
               Special nutrient problems this station.  Nutrient data
               processor says reruns confirm bottom NO3s.  PI, Chris
               Measures, says mismatch between PO4 & NO3 typical on shelf.
               Data are acceptable, unless specifically noted.

101-120        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.
               Delta-Ss are erratic, but reasonable per CTD.  Autosal run
               okay.  High gradient, less than 110db, steep slope.
               Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 005

101-123        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

102-113        Sample log: "for radionuclides & salinity only."  Oxygen and
               nutrients were not drawn.  Footnote CTD oxygen not
               calibrated and oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

STATION 006

124            Sample log: "Bottom end cap knocked during recovery" Delta-S
               0.024 high at 26db. High gradient, up not equal down.
               Oxygen & nutrients also look good.  Data are acceptable.

101-112        RN & salinity only.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

101-126        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 007

123-124        NO2 deleted by AA operator, "weird".  Footnote CTD oxygen
               not calibrated, nitrite measurement not received, it will
               not be reported.

110-120        Radionuclides & salinity only.  Delta-Ss erratic at 91db in
               high gradient area.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

101-127        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 008

236            HC & salinity only.  Delta-S at 12db is 0.1413, salinity is
               31.313.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen and
               nutrients not drawn.

234            HC & salinity only.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

232            HC & salinity only.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

230            HC & salinity only.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

228            HC & salinity only.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

225            HC & salinity only.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

223            HC only.  Sample Log: "No water (left for salinity)."
               Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, salinity, oxygen and
               nutrients not drawn.

221            HC & salinity only.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

219            HC & salinity only.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

216            HC & salinity only.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

213            Sample log: "No water in 13, cap hung up on pinger" Footnote
               bottle no samples, CTD oxygen not calibrated.

212            HC & salinity only.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

204            HC & salinity only.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

201-236        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 009

101-133        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

102-103        HC & salinity only.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

STATION 010

101-131        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

102-103        HC & salinity only.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

STATION 011

101-136        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

102            Sample log: "Leaking from bottom end cap after air vent
               opened. Closed vent after salinity drawn."  HC only other
               sample drawn.  Delta-S 0.001 high at 2257db Will code bottle
               as leaking, if non-ODF samples are acceptable, then ODF
               suggests the bottle is acceptable.  Footnote bottle leaking,
               CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

103            HC & salinity only.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

STATION 012

132            Delta-S 3.7 high at 31db. All water samples indicate NB32
               closed at NB12 level, 632db.  Footnote bottle did not trip
               correctly, CTD oxygen not calibrated, all samples bad.
               Delta-S at 31db is 3.6879, salinity is 34.857.

131            Delta-S 0.045 low at 52db. Other water samples okay.  High T
               gradient and S step this level.  Delta-S at 52db is -0.0561,
               salinity is 31.650.

122            Delta-S 0.025 low at 239db. Other water samples okay.  High
               T gradient and S step this level.  Salinity is acceptable.
               Delta-S at 239db is -0.0291, salinity is 34.697.

117            Sample log: "Vent open on 17". Delta-S 0.004 high at 375db.
               Other water samples also look okay.

101-133        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 013

Cast 1         No bottles closed. CTD Deck Unit problem. Replaced deck unit
               and relowered as cast 2.

209            Sample log: "major air leak" Delta-S 0.000 at 907db.  Other
               water samples also look okay.

205            Sample log: "Small drip from bottom end cap."  Delta-S 0.001
               low at 1455db. Other water samples also okay.

201-211        Sample log: "Salt bottle 3 looks odd, draw dupe S into 36"
               Salt bottles in box X had brown algae in many bottles. Drew
               main salts for station 13 in box Y and saved box X draws for
               check.  Box X had also been used on Stations 6/1, 8/2 &
               11/2.  Dupe runs agree well(-0.001 to 0.000) except Box X
               salt bottle 3 is 0.002 low and salt bottle 9 is 0.004 high.
               Delta-Ss on previous stations using these salt bottles okay.
               Salt bottle 9 on 8/3 is 0.003 low, others at or near 0.000.

201-223        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

101-123        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  This is CTD trip information, pressure,
               temperature, CTD conductivity and CTD oxygen. Bottles did
               not trip at these levels.  Footnote bottles not reported,
               CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 014

119            Sample log: "Air leak" Delta-S 0.039 low at 62db.  High CTD
               T, S & O2 gradients. Water samples look okay.  Data are
               acceptable.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.  Delta-S at
               62db is -0.0439, salinity is 33.293.

114            Delta-S 0.110 high at 167db. Calc okay.  16 salt has good
               match with 15 CTD level salt(138b) 15 salt has good match
               with 14 CTD level salt(167b) 14 salt doesn't match any
               level.  Oxygens and nutrients at all 3 levels very similar
               so difficult to use them to sort out trip levels.  Intended
               17 level had no confirm on first trip try, then used
               diagnostics to reset pylon to position 17.  Data fits well
               IF ASSUME 14 closed on way up from 13 level(203db) to
               intended 14 level(167db), then 15 closed at intended 14
               trip, and 16 closed at intended 15 trip(137db). The
               diagnostics "reset" put the trips back in order from 17 on
               up.  Footnote bottle did not trip correctly, CTD oxygen not
               calibrated, all samples bad.  Delta-S at 113db is 0.4936,
               salinity is 34.576.

116            Delta-S 0.228 high at 113db. Calc okay. See 114 note.  Used
               intended 15 CTD trip data(137db) for 16.  Footnote bottle
               did not trip correctly, CTD oxygen not calibrated.

115            Delta-S 0.161 high at 138db. Calc okay. See 114 note.  Used
               intended 14 CTD trip data(167db) for 15.  Footnote bottle
               did not trip correctly, CTD oxygen not calibrated.

101            O2 draw temp lower than expected. Delta-S 4.8 low at 956db.
               All water samples indicate  1 closed near surface.  Footnote
               bottle did not trip correctly, CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               all samples bad.  Delta-S at 956db is -4.8275, salinity is
               30.047.

101-123        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 015

Cast 2         Main Autosal run had drift of -0.00038, deeper samples run
               first. Begin Standard Dial low compared to other runs this
               bath temp, but confirmed with 2nd Wormley vial before
               starting samples. End standard agrees with other standards
               this bath temp.  Recommend do not use Cast 2 bottle
               salinities for CTD adjustments.  Footnote salinity
               questionable.
                Numerous apparent tripping problems this cast. Still using
               spare pylon Deck Unit as on Station 14 and 15/1.  1 & 2
               tripped in air as rosette being lowered.  Brought back on
               board, found trip arm at position 2, recocked, but pylon
               homed to position 2 only. Sent down with trip arm at
               position 2 but had no confirm at first trip attempt. Reset
               to position 1 with diagnostics and next trip attempt
               confirmed.  Footnote bottles 4-7, 11-20, 24-29, and 31 did
               not trip as scheduled.

232            Delta-S 0.010 high at 13db. CTD T & S up differ from down.
               Other water samples look okay for near surface values.
               Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, salinity questionable.

231            Delta-S 0.436 low at 33db. All water samples indicate 31
               closed about 55db, just below 30 at 53db.  CTDO shows no S
               or O2 bump at 33db.  Bottle did not trip at this level.
               This level is included to complete the profile for CTD
               pressure, temperature and salinity and to assist users in
               verifying that the pressure assignment was correct.
               Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled, CTD oxygen not
               calibrated, samples bad.

230            Delta-S 0.016 low at 53db. Other water samples also look
               okay.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, salinity
               questionable.

224            Delta-S 0.052 high at 145db. Salinity doesn't fit any
               tripped level. ASSUME 24 closed between 165db and 145db. See
               225-229.  Bottle did not trip at this level.  This level is
               included to complete the profile for CTD pressure,
               temperature and salinity and to assist users in verifying
               that the pressure assignment was correct.  Footnote bottle
               did not trip as scheduled, CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               samples bad.

225-229        Delta-Ss all high and moving all bottles down one level
               gives slightly low Delta-Ss corresponding to other Delta-Ss.
               229 goes from 0.338 high to 0.020 high in high-gradient area
               and 229 low O2 matches CTDO better at lower level.  Other
               water samples look reasonable at new levels.  Footnote
               bottle did not trip as scheduled, CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               salinity questionable.

223            Delta-S 0.004 low at 165db. Other water samples also look
               okay.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, salinity
               questionable.

222            Delta-S 0.010 low at 185db. Other water samples also look
               okay.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, salinity
               questionable.

221            Delta-S 0.001 low at 215db. Other water samples also look
               okay.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, salinity
               questionable.

290            This is only CTD trip information, pressure, temperature and
               CTD conductivity. Bottle did not trip at this level.  This
               level (245 db), is added to complete the profile.  See
               201-232 CTD Oxygen comment. Footnote bottle not reported,
               CTD oxygen not calibrated, no samples drawn.

212-220        Delta-Ss all high and moving all bottles down one level
               gives slightly low Delta-Ss.  214, 215 & 216 are a toss- up,
               go from slightly high to slightly low after move.  Other
               water samples have very little change these levels.
               Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled, CTD oxygen not
               calibrated, salinity questionable.

210            Delta-S 0.003 low at 964db. Other water samples also look
               okay.  Silicate and PO4 more like 209 at 1116 db.  It
               suggests there may be something questionable at 209, 210,
               and/or 211.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, salinity
               questionable.

211            Delta-S 0.007 high at intended level 822db. All water
               samples same at 10 at level below 964db.  Footnote bottle
               did not trip as scheduled, CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               salinity questionable.

209            Sample log: "Air leak, lanyard okay." Delta-S 0.003 low at
               1115db. Other water samples reasonable.  Footnote CTD oxygen
               not calibrated, salinity questionable.

208            Delta-S 0.002 high at 1267db. Other water samples also look
               okay.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, salinity
               questionable.

297            See 290 comment.  This level (1419 db), is added to complete
               the profile.  See 201-232 CTD Oxygen comment. Footnote
               bottle not reported, CTD oxygen not calibrated, no samples
               drawn.

207            Delta-S 0.010 high at 1419db but is 0.000 at intended 6
               level 1571db. Other water samples look reasonable at either
               level.  Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled, CTD
               oxygen not calibrated, salinity questionable.

205-206        Delta-S 0.004 low at 1697db. Oxygen and nutrients have same
               value as 6 at level above, while 6 salinity is 0.009 higher
               than 5 salinity whereas CTD trace indicates 6 salinity
               should be lower. Both runs for 6 salinity took more than 2
               tries suggesting possible problem.  Footnote bottle did not
               trip as scheduled, CTD oxygen not calibrated, salinity
               questionable.

294            See 290 comment.  This level (1799 db), is added to complete
               the profile.  See 201-232 CTD Oxygen comment. Footnote
               bottle not reported, CTD oxygen not calibrated, no samples
               drawn.

201            Delta-S 0.001 high at 1865db(bottom trip level) using bottle
               salt calculated assuming high drift is linear.  Other water
               samples also indicate 1 closed at bottom.  Footnote CTD
               oxygen not calibrated, salinity questionable.

201-232        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

202            Delta-S 0.002 low at 1865db. Other water samples also
               indicate 2 closed at bottom.  Footnote CTD oxygen not
               calibrated, salinity questionable.

203            Delta-S 0.002 low at 1865db. Other water samples also
               indicate 3 closed at bottom.  Footnote CTD oxygen not
               calibrated, salinity questionable.

204            Delta-S 0.002 high at 1799db. Other water samples same as
               bottom samples from 1-3.  Delta-S 0.004 low at 1865db. In
               view of salinity problems assume 4 closed at bottom when 3
               tripped & no sample at 1799db as confirmed trip was for
               closed  4.  Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled, CTD
               oxygen not calibrated, salinity questionable.

STATION 016

112            Sample log: "Souvenir samples for crew. No samples.
               Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, salinity, oxygen and
               nutrients not drawn.

113            Sample log: "Souvenir samples for crew. No samples.
               Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, salinity, oxygen and
               nutrients not drawn.

101            Sample log: "vent open (wide open). Spigot very loose."
               Delta-S 0.002 at salinity max, 1063db. Other water samples
               also okay.  Salinity slightly high.  Footnote bottle
               leaking, CTD oxygen not calibrated, and salinity bad.

101-126        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 017

134            Seabird CTD on 34. No samples.

131            Sample log: "Salt 31 bottle chipped". Used salt btl 10 per
               sample log, salt btl 31 on salinity data sheet.  Autosal
               operator says should be 10.  Delta-S agrees with the other
               four Delta-Ss this level (162db) high gradient.  Footnote
               CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

132            Salts & RN only drawn.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

124-128        Salts & RN only drawn.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

116-120        Salts & RN only drawn.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

103            CTD Processor indicated that salinity was high.  Salinity is
               within specs of the measurement.  Salinity is acceptable.
               Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

101            CTD Processor indicated that salinity may be high.  Salinity
               is within specs of the measurement.  Salinity is acceptable.
               Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

101-136        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 018

101            Sample log: "spigot loose" Delta-S 0.001 high at 2695db.
               Other water samples also look okay.  Footnote CTD oxygen not
               calibrated.

101-136        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 019

119            Oxygen sample lost due titration operator error.  Footnote
               CTD Oxygen not calibrated, oxygen lost.

101-130        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 020

101-127        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 021

122            Computer crashed at overtitrate option "Illegal function
               call" First titration overshot with no up slope on screen.
               Oxygen lost.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen
               lost.

101-133        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

102-103        Toxiphene only. No ODF samples.  Footnote CTD oxygen not
               calibrated, salinity, oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

STATION 022

119            Stopper 1069 on flask 1293 this sample. Used 1293 for calc.
               Flasks volumes for 1069 & 1293 very similar. O2 values 0.01
               different in area of little or no O2 change.  Footnote CTD
               oxygen not calibrated, oxygen questionable.

118            Stopper 1293 on flask 1069 this sample. Used 1069 for calc.
               Flasks volumes for 1069 & 1293 very similar. O2 values 0.01
               different in area of little or no O2 change.  Footnote CTD
               oxygen not calibrated, oxygen questionable.

109            Silicate looks low on this sample, possibly 110 as well.
               This is the way it is on the chart, no calc errors.
               Silicate is acceptable.

101-133        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 023

131-134        Sample log: "no samples on 31-34" Levels not reported.

135            Sample log: "test on new spring for TM & CFC.  Footnote CTD
               oxygen not calibrated.

110            Sample log: "Air leak" Delta-S 0.000 at 911db. Other water
               samples also look okay.  Data are acceptable.  Footnote CTD
               oxygen not calibrated.

101-136        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 024

223            Oxygen printout: "overshoot, op error, lost" Footnote CTD
               oxygen not calibrated, oxygen lost.

210            Sample log: "Accidentally discarded salinity 10, no sample"
               Only RN and salinity sampled.  Footnote CTD oxygen not
               calibrated, salinity lost, oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

211-213        Only RN and salinity sampled.  Footnote CTD oxygen not
               calibrated, oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

201-236        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 025

130-131        RN & salinity only.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

119            RN & salinity only.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

120            Sample log: "Vent open (wide)." Delta-S 0.001 low at 305db.
               RN only other sample.  Will code bottle as leaking, if non-
               ODF samples are acceptable, then ODF suggests the bottle is
               acceptable.  Footnote bottle leaking, CTD oxygen not
               calibrated, oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

108            Sample log: "Air leak, vent closed" Delta-S 0.000 at 1726db.
               Other water samples also look okay.  Footnote CTD oxygen not
               calibrated.

101-136        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 026

415            CTD data taken about 45 minutes after tripping bottle.
               However, variability between down and up traces very small
               so no real problem expected.  May be slightly degraded.
               Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled, only code that is
               close to situation, CTD oxygen not calibrated..  Delta-S
               0.005 high at 660db. Autosal run okay.  CTD T&S inversion.

414            CTD data taken from down trace after checking up and down
               consistency at bottles 13, 15, and 16.  Data should be good
               to 5 db, and 0.003 in T and C.  Footnote bottle did not trip
               as scheduled, only code that is close to situation, CTD
               oxygen not calibrated..

409            Sample log: "Air leak" Delta-S 0.001 low at 1828db after
               salinity bottle order problem adjusted. Other water samples
               also look okay.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

407-413        Apparent trip problem from bottle 13 to deeper depths, but
               salinity operator reported realizing that bottle 13 was
               being analyzed while doing bottle 12.  Suspect that this had
               been in progress for several bottles, but where it started
               is not certain. Not important as isohaline below bottle 6.
               Other properties verify a salinity problem rather than
               tripping.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, salinity
               questionable.

401-436        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 027

132            Oxygen sample lost, Titration system problem. PC stopped but
               Dosimat kept on dosing.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen lost.

119            Sample log: "Air leak, air vent okay. no obvious problem
               with cap." Delta-S 0.001 at 395db. Other water samples also
               look okay.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

116            Sample log: "NB16 lanyard around top end cap NB15. No air
               leak 16 after lanyard freed." Delta-S 0.001 low at 632db.
               Other water samples also look okay.  Data are acceptable.
               Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

115            Sample log: "Air leak. NB16 lanyard around top end cap NB15.
               Delta-S 0.000 at 800db. Other water samples also look okay.
               Data are acceptable.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

101-136        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 028

101-136        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 029

123            Dosimat kept dosing when PC stopped at speed 4 before window
               opened.  Powered off Dosimat when refilling at 1 ml. Added 5
               ml KIO3, restarted o2.exe, and retitrated.  Over shot end
               point so used overtitrate option, adding 1 more ml KIO3.
               Resulting raw titer after OT calculation was 0.04381.
               Subtracting 0.1(raw std - blank)*5ml from total thio,
               1.04381 gives raw titer 0.76316 which calculates to 6.863
               ml/L at 305db. Sample 124 at 279db is 6.859 and sample 122
               at 354db is 6.873 in area of fairly smooth gradient.  Used
               6.863 ml/L for this sample.  Footnote CTD oxygen not
               calibrated, oxygen questionable.

117            Delta-S 0.657 low at 606db.  0.005 higher than Sta 27,
               sample 317. Assume salt bottle mistakenly turned upright and
               no salt drawn from NB 17 this cast.  Footnote CTD oxygen not
               calibrated, salinity lost.

109            Sample log: "leaking up top with vent closed" Delta-S 0.004
               high at 2028db. Autosal run okay.  Sample below (108) is
               0.001 low at 2283db. If salt bottles were swapped, during
               run or draw, both Delta-Ss would look better. Day watch says
               didn't take two salt bottles at a time to fill, so possibly
               109 salt is only problem. Other water samples okay.  Delta-S
               at 2028db is 0.0034, salinity is 34.954.  Footnote CTD
               oxygen not calibrated, salinity questionable.

108            Delta-S at 2283db is -0.003, salinity is 34.951.  See 109
               salinity comment.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               salinity questionable.

101-136        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 030

190            This is only CTD trip information, pressure, temperature and
               CTD conductivity. Bottle did not trip at this level, and
               this level is just to complete the profile.  See 101-130 CTD
               Oxygen comment. Footnote bottle is not reported, CTD oxygen
               not calibrated.

101-130        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

120            O2, CFCs show this NB closed at bottom.  Delta-S 0.303 high
               at 120db. Salinity & nutrients also same as bottom values.
               At reassigned bottom depth, data are acceptable.  Footnote
               bottle did not trip correctly, CTD oxygen not calibrated.
               Delta-S at 184db is 0.3028, salinity is 34.950.

STATION 031

124-131        No samples, levels are not reported.

122            Delta-S 0.087 low at 67db. CTD T spike on up trace.  Salt is
               okay, CTD T may be wrong.  Recheck CTD T.  CTD Processor:
               "Agree with quality comment that CTD spike, and CTD salinity
               bad."  Footnote CTD salinity bad, CTD oxygen data not be
               reported.

101-136        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 032

122-130        No samples taken, levels are not reported.

109            Sample log: "Air leak" Delta-S 0.000 at 608db.  Other water
               samples also okay.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

101-136        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 033

109            Sample log: "Air leak" Delta-S 0.000 at 1572db.  Other water
               samples also okay.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

108            Sample log: "Air leak" Delta-S 0.000 at 1775db.  Other water
               samples also okay.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

107            Sample log: "Drips from bottom end cap after air vent
               opened."  Delta-S 0.000 at 1979db.  Other water samples also
               okay.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

101-136        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 034

119            Samp[e log: "Air leak" Delta-S 0.002 low at 607db.  Other
               water samples also okay.  Footnote CTD oxygen not
               calibrated.

109            Sample log: "Air leak" Delta-S 0.001 high at 2230db.  Other
               water samples also okay.  Footnote CTD oxygen not
               calibrated.

103            Sample log: "Bottom lid leak." Delta-S 0.000 at 3609db.
               Other water samples also okay.  Data are acceptable.
               Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

101-136        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 035

133-134        Bad NO2 peaks, Air?, No rerun. No NO2 values.  Footnote
               nitrate lost.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, nitrate
               lost.

109            Sample log: "Air Leak" Delta-S 0.000 at 2544db. Nutrients
               also okay. O2 may be slightly high (.002 ml/L) but was was
               drawn late after helium.  Footnote CTD oxygen not
               calibrated.

101-136        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 036

Cast 2         PO4 end DW is very strange, tailing off slowly.  Leaves cast
               2 PO4's not matching cast 1 (deep).  PO4 are acceptable.
               Corrections were applied and PO4 data are acceptable.  SiO3
               Cast 1 and 2 not matching up.  Run together, but not in
               usual order (Deep run first, then shallow).  Footnote
               silicate questionable.

229            O2 Not drawn due HCH samples.  Footnote CTD oxygen not
               calibrated, oxygen not drawn, silicate questionable.

220            Salinity and O2 not drawn due HCH samples.  Footnote CTD
               oxygen not calibrated, salinity and oxygen not drawn,
               silicate questionable.

216            O2 drawn after 4L HCH sample. Value appears 0.006 high at
               203db.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen
               questionable, silicate questionable.

213            O2 drawn after 4L HCH sample. Value appears 0.006 high at
               254db.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen
               questionable, silicate questionable.

211            O2 drawn after 4L HCH sample. Value appears 0.01 high at
               304db.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen
               questionable, silicate questionable.

207            O2 drawn after 4L HCH sample. Value appears 0.01 high at
               506db.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen
               questionable, silicate questionable.

203            O2 drawn after 4L HCH sample.  Value appears 0.016 high at
               760db.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen
               questionable, silicate questionable.

201-236        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  CTD conductivity offset continued. Found
               electrode peeling off ceramic prior Station 37.  Bottle
               salinity is acceptable.  See Cast 2 SiO3 comments.  Footnote
               CTD oxygen not calibrated, silicate questionable..

136            HCH & salinity only.  See 101-136 CTD oxygen comments.
               Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen and nutrients not
               drawn.

133-135        See 101 SiO3 comments.  See 101-136 CTD oxygen comments.
               Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, silicate questionable.

123-132        RN & salinity only.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

127            Delta-S 0.02 high at 1522db. Autosal run okay. RN only other
               sample. Same value as bottom sample but also 0.004 higher
               than last cast this salinity bottle used. May have been
               mistakenly turned upright with no salinity sample from NB27
               this cast. Thus uncertain whether RN sample okay.  Footnote
               CTD oxygen not calibrated, salinity lost, oxygen and
               nutrients not drawn.

121-122        See 101 SiO3 comments.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               silicate questionable.

120            HCH & salinity only.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

116-119        See 101 SiO3 comments.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               silicate questionable.

105            See 101 SiO3 comments.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               silicate questionable.

106-114        RN & salinity only.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated,
               oxygen and nutrients not drawn.

109            Sample log: "Air leak"  Delta-S 0.000 at 3053db. RN only
               other sample.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen
               and nutrients not drawn.

115            Delta-S 0.003 high at 3053db. RN only other sample. No
               notes.  Autosal run okay.  Footnote CTD oxygen not
               calibrated, salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients not
               drawn.

103-104        Footnote CTD salinity bad, CTD oxygen not reported, silicate
               questionable.

101            Silicates had a problem at end, ingesting a big slug of air,
               so that end F1 and base are a bit uncertain.  Deep values
               appear too high relative to other stations and other
               properties on this station, but no way to recalc.  Delta-S
               at 3533db is 0.0066, salinity is 34.939.  See 101-104 CTD
               salinity comment.  Footnote CTD salinity bad, CTD oxygen
               data could not be reported, silicate questionable.

101-104        CTD Processor: "Using the UP cast for final pressure-
               sequenced CTD data for this cast and noticed there appears
               to be a drift in conductivity over the bottom 300 db; the
               down cast is not any better."  Footnote CTD salinity bad,
               CTD oxygen not reported.

101-136        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.  CTD
               conductivity offset. Found electrode peeling off ceramic
               prior Station 37.  Bottle salinity is acceptable.

102            HCH & salinity only.  Delta-S at 3533db is 0.0056, salinity
               is 34.938.  See 101-104 CTD salinity comment.  Footnote CTD
               salinity bad, CTD oxygen data not reported, oxygen and
               nutrients not drawn.

STATION 037

120            No water for salinity after HC drawn.

116            No water for salinity after HC drawn.

109            Sample log: "Air leak" Delta-S 0.000 at 2236db. Other water
               samples look okay except oxygen possibly 0.002 ml/L high.
               Bottle is acceptable, oxygen is reasonable.

101-136        New CTD (Nbr 1) used in place of CTD 6 starting this cast.
               CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 038

121            Sample log: "Leaking on bottom" Delta-S 0.001 high at 358db.
               Other water samples also okay. O2 max, but adjacent levels
               agree.  Bottle is acceptable.

109            Sample log: "Air leak" Delta-S 0.000 at 2135db. Other water
               samples also okay.

101-136        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.

STATION 039

133            No oxygen drawn due HCH or HC samples.  See 101-136 CTD
               oxygen comments.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen
               not drawn.

127-128        No oxygen drawn due HCH or HC samples.  See 101-136 CTD
               oxygen comments.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen
               not drawn.

122-124        No oxygen drawn due HCH or HC samples.  See 101-136 CTD
               oxygen comments.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen
               not drawn.

120            No oxygen drawn due HCH or HC samples.  See 101-136 CTD
               oxygen comments.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen
               not drawn.

114            No oxygen drawn due HCH or HC samples.  See 101-136 CTD
               oxygen comments.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen
               not drawn.

112            No oxygen drawn due HCH or HC samples.  See 101-136 CTD
               oxygen comments.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen
               not drawn.

107            No oxygen drawn due HCH or HC samples.  See 101-136 CTD
               oxygen comments.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen
               not drawn.

105            Delta-S 0.002 low at 2953db. Autosal run okay. Other water
               samples okay. Same value as NB 4 at level below. Possibly
               dupe draw or run.  See 101-136 CTD oxygen comments.
               Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, salinity questionable.

104            No oxygen drawn due HCH or HC samples.  See 101-136 CTD
               oxygen comments.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen
               not drawn.

102            No oxygen drawn due HCH or HC samples.  See 101-136 CTD
               oxygen comments.  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated, oxygen
               not drawn.

101-136        CTD Oxygen processor: "CTD oxygens for AO94 will not be
               calibrated because the O2 sensor was obviously
               malfunctioning."  Footnote CTD oxygen not calibrated.




__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________




CCHDO DATA PROCESSING NOTES

Date        Contact  Data Type      Action
----------  -------  -------------  ---------------------------------------------
2007-06-07  Key,     ALKALI/TCARBN  Submitted Complete BTL file w/ new CO2 params
            Attached please find the updated cruise file the 1994 St Laurent data. 
            Old TCO2 values have been replaced with values you sent earlier today. 
            After replacement I did primary QC on the new TCO2 values. Please note 
            in the README file (attached) that I still need information for the TCO2 
            and Alk values (was Jones reallly the PI?, CRM?, method?). Also note 
            that I have updated the name (from 18SNA094 to 18SNA199407. This name 
            does not include the sailing day since it is unknown. Also the "SNA" in 
            the name is someone's guess since this vessel does not have an official 
            code (that I could find).

            Alex and CCHDO:
            These files are replacements for ones sent with the Jan. CARINA 
            distribution. File name change and new TCO2 values in the data file.
