CRUISE REPORT:  A24
(Updated: 27 NOV 2006)

A.    HIGHLIGHTS 
	
A.1.  WHP Cruise Summary Information

             WOCE section designation  A24
    Expedition designation (EXPOCODE)  316N151_2
                      Chief Scientist  Lynne Talley/SIO
                                Dates  1997.MAY.30 - 1997.JUL.05
                                 Ship  R/V KNORR
                        Ports of call  Ponta Delgada, Azores to 
                                       Halifax, Nova Scotia
                   Number of stations  153
      Stations' geographic boundaries              97° 64.8' N
                                       98° 42.9' W             49° 9.3' W
                                                   01° 38.8' N
         Floats and drifters deployed  12 PALACE floats and 17 RAFOS floats
       Moorings deployed or recovered  1 URI RAFOS Mooring
                                       2 RAFOS sources on initial transit

                              Contributing Authors
                            (in order of appearance)
 F. Delahoyde,  K. Sanborn,  E. Firing,  M. Vollmer,  L. Arlen,  S. Khatiwala

                      Chief Scientist Contact Information
                                   LYNNE TALLEY
                   Scripps Institution of Oceanography • UCSD
             9500 Gilman Dr. • MS 0230 • La Jolla, CA • 92093-0230
        Phone: 858-534-6610 • Fax: 858-534-9820 • email: ltalley@ucsd.edu
                       WWW homepage: http://sam.ucsd.edu



















                       World Ocean Circulation Experiment
                                       A24
                             R/V Knorr Voyage 151/2
                            WHPO Expocode: 316N151/2

                             Final ODF Cruise Report
                                October 18, 2006



                              WOCE A24 Cruise Track

                           Shipboard Technical Support
            (Oceanographic Data Facility/Shipboard Electronics Group)
                       Scripps Institution of Oceanography
                            La Jolla, Ca. 92093-0214











Summary

A hydrographic survey consisting of CTD/rosette sections between the Azores
and Greenland was carried out May to July, 1997.  The R/V Knorr departed
Ponta Delgada, Azores on 30 May 1997.  153 CTD/Rosette stations were
occupied from 30 May through 28 June.  Water samples (up to 31) and CTD
data were collected in most cases to within 10 meters of the bottom, for a
total of 3450 bottles.  Salinity, dissolved oxygen and nutrient samples
were analyzed from every level sampled by the rosette.  The cruise ended in
Halifax, Nova Scotia on 5 July 1997.  1 URI RAFOS Mooring, 12 ALACE floats,
17 Rafos floats, and 45 XBT's were deployed during the cruise. Two RAFOS
moorings were also deployed on the transit from Woods Hole to Ponta
Delgada.











Table 0.0: Scientific Personnel WOCE A24
____________________________________________________________________________
                            Scientific Personnel                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Name          Affiliation                    Duties                  
-------------------  ------------  -----------------------------------------
Talley, Lynne        SIO/PORD      Chief Scientist                          
Arlen, Linda         LDEO          TCO2                                     
Becker, Susan        SIO/STS/ODF   Nutrients                                
Boaz, John           SIO/STS/ODF   Watch Leader/O2/Rosette/Bottle data      
Chen, Shuiming       UH            ADCP/LADCP                               
Costello, Lawrence   WHOI          Mooring, RAFOS Floats, Rosette           
Delahoyde, Frank     SIO/STS/ODF   CTD data Processing                      
Firing, Eric         UH            ADCP/LADCP                               
Galanter, Meredith   UM/RSMAS      Alkalinity                               
Goen, Jamie          UM/RSMAS      Alkalinity                               
Ha Min, Dong         SIO/GRD       CFC                                      
Johnson, Kenneth     BNL           TCO2                                     
Khatiwala, Samar     LDEO          Helium, Tritium, O-18                    
Lavender, Kara       SIO/PORD      CTD Console/Sample Cop/Salinities/Rosette
Mask, Andrea         FSU           CTD Console/Sample Cop/Salinities        
Masten, Douglas      SIO/STS/ODF   Nutrients                                
Mattson, Carl        SIO/STS/ODF   TIC/Watch Leader/ET/Rosette              
Newton, David        SIO/MLRG      CTD Console/Rosette/Sample Cop           
Packard, Greg        WHOI          SSSG Technician                          
Rusk, Steven         SIO/STS/ODF   O2/Rosette                               
Sanborn, Kristin     SIO/STS/ODF   Bottle data/Salinities/Rosette/O2        
Smith, Daniel        LDEO          Helium, Tritium, O-18                    
Van Woy, Frederick   SIO/GRD       CFC                                      
Vollmer, Martin      SIO/GRD       CFC                                      
Wilson, Angela       LDEO          pCO2                                     
____________________________________________________________________________


NARRATIVE

The R/V Knorr left Ponta Delgada, Azores at 11:00 on May 30, 1997 to begin
the one-time WHP survey sections A24 in the subpolar North Atlantic.  These
sections are part of the WOCE Atlantic Climate Change Experiment, and their
purpose is to assist in measuring the upper water transports in the eastern
subpolar gyre, including those which feed the Norwegian Sea and the
Labrador Sea, and to observe the overflows from the Greenland-Iceland-
Norwegian Seas in the Denmark Strait, Iceland Basin and Rockall Trough.
Primary measurement programs included hydrography (CTDO, salinity, oxygen,
nutrients, CFC's, carbon dioxide, helium, tritium), and velocity
(shipmounted ADCP, lowered ADCP, neutrally buoyant floats - ALACE and
RAFOS).  A RAFOS sound source mooring was placed during the Greenland-
Azores leg of the cruise.

A transit leg to the Azores left from Woods Hole, MA on May 15, 1997, with
chief scientist Tom Rossby. Underway to Ponta Delgada, two RAFOS sound
source moorings were deployed, at 47N, 39W and 47N, 31W.

Four sections were completed as part of the main cruise.  After departing
Ponta Delgada, we sailed to Terceira, Azores and began the first section
there, proceeding northeastward towards the Goban Spur.  Upon completion of
the first section, we diverted into the harbor in Cork, Ireland, for an
emergency exchange of crewmembers.  The time associated with this was
approximately 22 hours beyond that which was expected for a direct transit
to the next section.

The first section crossed the Mediterranean Water/Labrador Sea Water mixing
zone obliquely, with large variations between groups of station dominated
by Mediterranean Water and those dominated by Labrador Sea Water.

The second (short) section crossed the southern Rockall Trough, from
Porcupine Bank to the southern end of Rockall Bank.  Due to time
limitations imposed by the emergency trip to Cork, the full set of short
sections occupied near Porcupine Bank in November 1996 were not repeated.
The northernmost section was angled more northwest-southeast than in fall,
1996, in order to reach a portion of Rockall Bank which would still allow a
boundary for the Wyville Thomson overflow, which was found below 1200
meters in the northern part of Rockall Trough.  This strategy was
successful, and overflow water was found on our short section, hugging
Rockall Bank.

The third section crossed the northern part of the subpolar gyre, from the
Hebrides to Rockall Bank, to Hatton Bank, to the Reykjanes Ridge and to
Greenland near Angmassalik.  The eastern end of this section was moved
north from that in November 1996 because the Meteor (chief scientist Walter
Zenk) completed a section identical to the November section in May, 1997,
just weeks before our arrival in the area.  Therefore we chose to cross
Rockall Trough farther north, just north of Anton Dohrn Seamount.  The
relocated section joined the original section in the middle of the Iceland
Basin and then exactly duplicated the November, 1996 section to Greenland.
Ice conditions at Greenland were favorable, and stations were completed
well up onto the deep shelf (average depth 500 meters), although not as far
west as in November, 1996.  This section as a whole clearly delineated the
overflow waters in each of the three troughs - Irminger Basin, Iceland
Basin and Rockally Trough.

After a transit southward to Cape Farewell, Greenland, the fourth section
was completed from Cape Farewell southeastward to the Charlie Gibbs
Fracture Zone (CGFZ), and thence to Terceira.  Time permitted an additional
station in the CGFZ, allowing the cross-channel velocity (LADCP) and
temperature/salinity structure to be delineated and a geostrophic velocity
profile to be computed.  Full water column bottle sampling was not included
on the northern station.  Time permitted additional stations on the
southern end of the section.  The last station was a double cast, with the
first cast being a test of LADCP bottom tracking, and the second cast being
the complete cast with bottle sampling.


PROGRAMS

The principal programs of A24 are shown in Table 0.1. The SIO ODF
hydrographic measurements program is described in detail in this report.


Table 0.1: Principal Programs of WOCE A24
____________________________________________________________________________________
Analysis                    Institution  Principal Investigator                     
--------------------------  -----------  -------------------------------------------
Basic Hydrography (SALNTY,  SIO          Lynne Talley                               
  O2, Nutrients, CTD)                                                                 
CFC                         SIO          Ray Weiss                                  
He/Tr/O-18                  LDEO         Peter Schlosser                            
TCO2                        BNL          Doug Wallace                               
TCO2 (reference samples)    SIO          Charles Keeling                            
Alkalinity                  UH/RSMAS     Frank Millero                              
Transmissometer             TAMU         Wilf Gardner                               
ADCP and LADCP              UH           Eric Firing, Peter Hacker                  
PALACE/SOLO Floats          SIO          Russ Davis                                 
RAFOS Floats                WHOI         Amy Bower, Phil Richardson                 
RAFOS Floats/Moorings       URI          Tom Rossby, Mary Elena Carr and Mike Prater
pCO2                        LDEO         Taro Takahashi, Dave Chipman               
UW pH, TCO2 (Transit only)  WHOI         Catherine Goyet                            
UW pH, TCO2                 BNL          Doug Wallace                               
UW Meteorology/XBTs         WHOI         Barry Walden                               
UW Thermosalinograph        SIO          Lynne Talley                               
UW Sea surface & air gas    SIO          Ray Weiss                                  
  analysis, pCO2, pN2O, 
  pCH4, CH4, CO2, N20                                                                       
____________________________________________________________________________________



DESCRIPTION OF MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND CALIBRATIONS

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. Rosette casts were made to within 10
meters of the bottom.  No major problems were encountered during the
operation.  The resulting data set met and in many cases exceeded WHP
specifications.  The distribution of samples is illustrated in figures
1.0-1.3.


Figure 1.0: Sample distribution, stations 1-34.
Figure 1.1: Sample distribution, stations 35-48.
Figure 1.2: Sample distribution, stations 49-97.
Figure 1.3: Sample distribution, stations 98-153.


2.  WATER SAMPLING PACKAGE

Hydrographic (rosette) casts were performed with a 36-place 10-liter
rosette system consisting of a 36-bottle rosette frame (ODF), a 36-place
pylon (General Oceanics 1016, SBE 32) and 31 10-liter PVC bottles (ODF).
Underwater electronic components consisted of an ODF-modified NBIS Mark III
CTD with dual conductivity and temperature sensors, SeaTech
transmissometer, RDI LADCP, Simrad altimeter and Benthos pinger.  The CTD
was mounted horizontally along the bottom of the rosette frame, with the
transmissometer, dissolved oxygen and SBE 35 PRT sensors deployed
alongside.  The LADCP was mounted vertically, inside the rosette frame
bottle rings. The Simrad altimeter provided distance-above-bottom in the
CTD data stream. The Benthos pinger was monitored during a cast with a
precision depth recorder (PDR) in the ship's laboratory.  The rosette
system was suspended from a new three-conductor 0.322" electro-mechanical
(EM) cable which was installed prior to the ship's departure from Woods
Hole.  Power to the CTD and pylon was provided through the cable from the
ship.  Separate conductors were used for the CTD and pylon signals with the
General Oceanics 1016 pylon (casts 001/01-010/01). A single conductor was
used with the SBE 32 pylon and SBE 33 deck unit (casts 011/01-153/02).

The rosette system was deployed from the starboard side hangar, using an
air-powered cart to move the rosette into the sampling area.  The portside
Markey CTD winch was used throughout the leg.

The deck watch prepared the rosette 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 on station,
time, position and bottom depth were logged and the deployment begun. The
rosette was moved into position under a projecting boom from the rosette
room using an air-powered cart on tracks. Two stabilizing tag lines were
threaded through rings on the frame. CTD sensor covers were removed and the
pinger turned on.  Once the CTD acquisition and control system in the
ship's laboratory had been initiated by the console operator and the CTD
and pylon had passed their diagnostics, the watch leader would verify with
the bridge that deployment could begin. The winch operator would raise the
package and extend the boom over the side of the ship. The package was then
quickly lowered into the water, the tag lines removed and the console and
winch operators notified by radio of the target depth (wire-out).

During each cast, the rosette was lowered to 5-10 meters above the bottom.
Bottles on the rosette were identified with unique serial numbers.  These
numbers corresponded initially to the pylon tripping sequence 1-31, the
first trip closing bottle #1. No bottles were changed during the leg.

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.

At the end of the cast, two tugger lines terminating in large snap hooks
were mounted on poles and used by the deck watch to snag recovery rings on
the rosette frame. The package was then lifted out of the water, the boom
retracted, and the rosette lowered onto the cart. Sensor covers were
replaced, the pinger turned off and the cart and rosette moved into the
rosette room for sampling. A detailed examination of the bottles and
rosette would occur before samples were taken, and any extraordinary
situations or circumstances noted on the sample log for the cast.

Rosette maintenance was performed on a regular basis. O-rings were changed
as necessary and bottle maintenance performed each day to insure proper
closure and sealing. Valves were inspected for leaks and repaired or
replaced.


3.  Underwater Electronics Packages

CTD data were collected with modified NBIS Mark III CTDs (ODF CTD #3, #5).
CTD #3 was used on a single cast (001/01). An unstable PRT temperature
channel was traced to a small leak in the PRT turret and was repaired. CTD
#3 was subsequently maintained as the backup CTD.  CTD #5 was deployed on
all other casts (002/01-153/02).  This instrument provided pressure,
temperature, conductivity and dissolved O2 channels, and additionally
provided redundant PRT temperature and conductivity channels. Other data
channels included elapsed-time, an altimeter, several power supply
voltages, a second dissolved O2 channel and a transmissometer.  The
instrument supplied a standard 17-byte NBIS-format data stream at a data
rate of 20 fps. Modifications to the instrument included revised pressure
and dissolved O2 sensor mountings; ODF-designed sensor interfaces for O2
and the SeaTech transmissometer; implementation of 8-bit and 16-bit
multiplexer channels; an elapsed-time channel; instrument id in the
polarity byte and power supply voltages channels. The instrument sensor
configuration is provided in Table 3.0.


Table 3.0: CTD #5 sensor configuration data.
           ________________________________________________________________________
            Sensor       | Manufacturer        | Serial  | Notes                  
            -------------+---------------------+---------+------------------------
            Pressure     | Paine 211-35-440-05 | 77017   | Primary                
            Temperature  | Rosemount 171BJ     | 15407   | Primary                
            Conductivity | GO 09035-00151      | E197    | Primary                
            Temperature  | Rosemount 171BJ     | 15046   | Secondary              
            Conductivity | GO 09035-00151      | E184    | Secondary              
            Dissolved O2 | SensorMedics        | 6-02-07 | Primary                
            Dissolved O2 | Royce               |         | Secondary, experimental
           ________________________________________________________________________

                
The CTD pressure sensor mounting had been modified to reduce the dynamic
thermal effects on pressure. The sensor was attached to a length of coiled,
oil-filled stainless-steel tubing threaded into the end-cap pressure port.
The transducer was also insulated.  The NBIS temperature compensation
circuit on the pressure interface was disabled; all thermal response
characteristics were modeled and corrected in software.

The SensorMedics 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. A second, experimental O2 sensor (Royce) was also deployed to collect
some comparison data.

A SBE 35 Laboratory-grade reference PRT was employed as an additional
temperature calibration check. This device is internally-recording and
triggered by the SBE 32 pylon confirmation signal, providing a calibration
point for each bottle trip.

Standard CTD maintenance procedures included soaking the conductivity and
O2 sensors in distilled water between casts to maintain sensor stability,
and protecting the CTD from exposure to direct sunlight or wind to maintain
an equilibrated internal temperature.

A General Oceanics 1016 36-place pylon was employed for the first 10 casts,
then was replaced by a SBE 32 36-place pylon and SBE 33 deck unit for the
rest of the cruise. The SBE 32 has the advantage of requiring a single sea
cable conductor for power and signals, in contrast to the 2 required for
the General Oceanics 1016. It also provides for the use of the SBE 35
reference PRT. Both pylons provided generally reliable operation and
positive confirmation of all bottle trip attempts. A software configuration
problem that caused some erroneously reported trip failures was corrected
by station 27.


4.  NAVIGATION AND BATHYMETRY DATA ACQUISITION

Navigation data were acquired from the ship's Trimble Pcode GPS receiver
via RS-232. It was logged automatically at one-minute intervals by one of
the Sun SPARCstations.  Underway bathymetry was acquired from the ship's
SeaBeam system (centerbeam depth) at five-minute intervals, then merged
with the navigation data to provide a time-series of underway position,
course, speed and bathymetry data. These data were used for all station
positions, PDR depths, and for bathymetry on vertical sections [Cart80].


5.  CTD LABORATORY CALIBRATION PROCEDURES

Laboratory calibrations of the CTD pressure and temperature sensors were
used to generate tables of corrections applied by the CTD data acquisition
and processing software at sea.

Pressure and temperature calibrations were performed on CTD #5 at the ODF
Calibration Facility (La Jolla) in April 1997 and July/August 1997, both
before and after WOCE A24.

The CTD pressure transducer (Paine 211-35-440-05 8850 psi, Serial #77017)
was calibrated in a temperature-controlled water bath to a Ruska Model 2400
Piston Gage pressure reference. Calibration curves were measured to two
maximum loading pressures during April/July/August: -2.06/-0.98/-1.17°C
to 6080 db and 28.74/30.66/30.00°C to 1190 db.  Figures 5.0-2 summarize
the laboratory pressure calibrations performed in April, July and August 1997.


Figure 5.0: Pressure calibration for ODF CTD #5, April 1997.
Figure 5.1: Pressure calibration for ODF CTD #5, July 1997.
Figure 5.2: Pressure calibration for ODF CTD #5, August 1997.


CTD PRT temperatures were calibrated to a NBIS ATB-1250 resistance bridge
and Rosemount standard PRT. The primary (Rosemount 171BJ, Serial #15407)
and secondary (Rosemount 171BJ, Serial #15046) CTD temperatures were offset
by 1.5°C to avoid the 0-point discontinuity inherent in the internal
digitizing circuitry.  Figures 5.3-5 summarize the laboratory temperature
calibration performed on the primary PRT in April, July and August 1997.


Figure 5.3: Primary Temperature calibration for ODF CTD #5, April 1997.
Figure 5.4: Primary Temperature calibration for ODF CTD #5, July 1997.
Figure 5.5: Primary Temperature calibration for ODF CTD #5, August 1997.


The calibrations for both Pressure and Temperature were essentially
unchanged between April and July/August 1997.


6.  CTD DATA ACQUISITION, PROCESSING AND CONTROL SYSTEM

The CTD data acquisition, processing  and control system consisted of a Sun
SPARCstation 5 computer workstation, ODF-built CTD deck unit, SBE 33 pylon
deck unit and power supply and a VCR recorder for real-time analog backup
recording of the seacable signal. The Sun system consisted of a color
display with trackball and keyboard (the CTD console), 18 RS-232 ports, 4.5
GB disk and 8-mm cartridge tape.  Two other Sun systems (one SPARC 5, one
SPARC LX) were networked to the data acquisition system, as well as to the
rest of the networked computers aboard the Knorr.  These systems were
available for real-time CTD data display and provided for hydrographic data
management and backup. An HP 1200C color inkjet printer provided hardcopy
from any of the workstations.

The CTD FSK signal from the sea cable 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 confirmation signal was tied
into the CTD data stream through a bi-directional 300 baud serial line,
allowing rosette trips to be initiated and confirmed through the data
acquisition software.  A bitmapped color display provided interactive
graphical display and control of the CTD rosette sampling system, including
displays of real-time raw and processed data, navigation, winch and rosette
trips.

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 power supply, 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 automatically associated with the beginning of the
cast.  A backup analog recording of the CTD signal was made on a VCR tape,
which 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 cast was initialized 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 or less for this package.  The package then began its
descent, typically starting at 20 meters/minute and building up to 60
meters/minute, 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 watch leader assisted the console operator when the package was ~400
meters above the bottom by monitoring the range to the bottom using the
distance between the rosette's pinger signal and its bottom reflection
displayed on the PDR.  Between 100 and 60 meters above the bottom,
depending on bottom conditions, the altimeter typically began signaling a
bottom return on the console.  The winch, altimeter and PDR displays
allowed the watch leader to refine the target depth relayed to the winch
operator and safely approach to within 10 meters

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.  All tripping attempts were noted on the console log.
The console operator then directed the winch operator to the next bottle
stop.  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.  The sample cop (usually
the console operator) brought the sample log to the rosette room and logged
information for samples drawn.


7.  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 data 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
 • 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 20 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 20 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 between down- and up-casts as well as
adjacent stations.  The dissolved CTD O2 sensor was calibrated to check-
sample data.

A few casts exhibited conductivity offsets due to biological or particulate
artifacts. On some casts, noise in the O2 channel was evident.  Some casts
were subject to noise in the data stream caused by sea cable or slip-ring
problems, or by moisture in interconnect cables 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.

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.  Only station 15 exhibited a notable (-0.022 sigma theta)
density drop during the top 10 db. 18 casts showed a sharply increasing
density gradient (typically +0.1 to +0.25 in sigma theta) in the top few
meters of the water column; however, the gradients for stations 140 and 95
were +0.33 and +0.86.  A time-series data check verified these density
features were probably real: the data were consistent over many frames of
data at the same pressures.  Sometimes the surface densities varied because
of temperature instabilities as large as 0.5°C.

Pressure intervals with no time-series data can optionally be filled by
double-quadratic interpolation/extrapolation.  The only pressure intervals
missing/filled during this leg were at 0-2 db, caused by chopping off
going-in-water transition data during 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.).  It was
necessary to use two up-casts for final WOCE A24 pressure-series CTD data:
stations 1 and 71.

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°C.  The
conductivity channel also can shift by 0.001-0.002 mS/cm as raw data values
change between 32768/32767, 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.  Raw CTD
conductivity traversed 32768/32767 during most A24 casts.  The software was
changed before station 23 was acquired to handle this discontinuity for the
rest of the cruise; stations 1-22 were also re-processed with the updated
software.

Appendix C contains a table of CTD casts requiring special attention.


8.  CTD CALIBRATION PROCEDURES

ODF CTD #3 was used for a single cast (001/01) and developed a turret leak,
which was repaired.  ODF CTD #5 was used for all subsequent casts.

An SBE35 Laboratory-grade reference PRT was deployed on the rosette as a
cross calibration for the primary and secondary PRT temperatures.

CTD conductivity and dissolved O2 were calibrated to in-situ check samples
collected during each rosette cast.


CTD PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE

Pre-cruise calibrations were used to determine shipboard pressure and
temperature corrections for CTD #5.  There were no significant shifts
apparent in the CTD pressure or temperature, based on the primary/secondary
PRT comparisons and the conductivity calibration.

The primary PRT (serial #15407) appeared to hold its calibration relative
to the SBE 35 to within 0.0005 °C. The secondary PRT (serial #15046)
appeared to drift by 0.003 °C over the cruise and had drifted by 0.005°C 
since calibration in April.  Figures 8.0 and 8.1 summarize the comparisons 
between the SBE 35 reference PRT and the primary and secondary PRT temperatures.


Figure 8.0: Comparison between SBE 35 reference and primary PRT temperatures.
Figure 8.1: Comparison between SBE 35 reference and secondary PRT temperatures.


Pre- and post-cruise laboratory calibrations for CTD #5 were compared
during the data finalization process.

CTD #5 pressure shifted 0.5 to 0.6 db between April and July for both cold
and warm calibrations.  The August results were one-third closer to the
April calibration.  Half of the cold-calibration difference, and almost all
of the warm-calibration difference, can be accounted for by differences in
bath temperatures, since there is a notable temperature effect on this
pressure sensor.  This means the pre-/post-cruise pressure shift was -0.3
db or smaller, well within WOCE specifications.  No adjustments were made
to pressure.

Pre-cruise calibrations were within 0.0004°C and halfway between the
two post-cruise calibrations in the 0-3°C range.  The April/July
temperature corrections cross at 5°C; July/August corrections merge
from 16-32 °C.  The maximum difference is 0.0005°C, with the April
correction more negative than both July/August above 5°C.  Pre-cruise
cold data is offset -0.00055°C or less from the August post-cruise
calibration.  Warmer data are within 0.00015°C for all 3 temperature
calibrations.  Nearly all of the CTD temperatures during A24 were below 18°C,
where there is at most a -0.00055°C difference in pre- to post-cruise 
calibration corrections.  The temperatures are well within WOCE specifications 
without further adjustment.


CONDUCTIVITY

The CTD rosette trip pressure and temperature and the bottle salinity were
used 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 3cm conductivity cell employed in the
Mark III.

Conductivity differences were fit to CTD conductivity for each cast, and
the mean of the conductivity correction slopes examined:


Figure 8.2: Conductivity correction slopes, per station.


No significant change in the conductivity correction slope occurred over
the cruise.  Conductivity differences were then fit to CTD conductivity for
all bottles to determine a mean conductivity correction slope:


Figure 8.3: Mean conductivity correction slope, all stations.


Since the mean correction slope did not significantly differ from the mean
of individual slopes, the mean correction slope was applied and individual
correction offsets fit for each cast. The resulting correction was adjusted
for minor non-linearities in conductivity and pressure.

The final form of the applied conductivity correction was:

Gˇcorr =
Gˇraw-9.13543e-11P^2+1.80848e-07P+0.0000147071G^2ˇraw-0.00176569Gˇraw+cˇoffset  (8.0)

where:
    Gˇcorr   = Corrected conductivity (mS/cm);
    Gˇraw    = Raw sensor conductivity;
    P        = Corrected CTD pressure (db); and
    cˇoffset = Coefficient derived from the fit to bottle conductivity.

Deep potential temperature-salinity overlays of successive CTD casts were
then examined for consistency and the corrections fine-tuned.

Conductivity corrections were re-examined post-cruise.  The final
conductivity slope and non-linearity corrections had not been applied to
stations 150-153.  Since no adjustments were made to pressure or
temperature post-cruise, the corrections determined shipboard were used.
However, it was noted that conductivity offsets were not smoothed in groups
of casts.  While the statistical bottle-CTD differences would look quite
good, CTD data can sometimes be shifted further apart on consecutive casts
if there were any problems with drift or standardization when analyzing
bottle salts.

CTD data at trips were re-extracted post-cruise, to generate a more
consistent 2-2.5-second average at trips, like the realtime trip data
(7-second averages were used shipboard for casts reprocessed after a
software improvement).  Conductivity offsets were recalculated for all
casts, but processing time was cut short and they still were not smoothed.
A plot of the offsets vs station number was examined to check casts with
anomalous offsets as compared to nearby casts.  Some of these were manually
adjusted, based on deep theta-S comparisons as well as bottle-CTD
differences (where an occasional larger difference could distort the
automatically generated offset).

There was a consistent -0.001-2 mS/cm shift in the CTD conductivities at
cast bottom that continued during the entire deep upcast, beginning with
stations in the mid-40s.  This persisted to the end of the cruise, and
could affect conductivity offsets (generated by comparing upcast data at
trips with bottle data) used to correct the reported downcast CTD
conductivity.  There was an additional intermittent problem from station
124 onward with low-level (usually -0.001-2 mS/cm, occasionally -0.004
mS/cm) back-and-forth offsetting problems during upcasts, which became
persistent by the early 140s.  These could affect bottle data differences,
but time was not allowed to re-examine these casts more closely.  However,
it was observed on deep theta-S plots that the CTD signal often spiked back
to the downcast values during trips.

Figure 8.4 illustrates the final offsets for CTD conductivity by station,
after applying the linear and non-linear corrections.


Figure 8.4: Final conductivity correction offsets, all stations.


Figures 8.5, 8.6 and 8.7 summarize the residual differences between bottle
and CTD salinities after applying the final conductivity corrections.


Figure 8.5: Salinity residual differences after correction, by pressure.
Figure 8.6: Salinity residual differences after correction, by station.
Figure 8.7: Deep salinity residual differences after correction, by station.


Note that some pressure-related nonlinearity exists after correction.  This
could have been further reduced by increasing the complexity of the
correction.

The CTD conductivity calibration represents a best estimate of the
conductivity field throughout the water column.  3σ from the mean
residual in Figures 8.6 and 8.7, or +/-0.0063 PSU for all salinities and
+/-0.0020 PSU for deep salinities, represents the limit of repeatability of
the bottle salinities, including all sources of variation (e.g., 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 exceed 0.001 PSU. The precision
of the CTD salinities appears to exceed 0.0005 PSU.


CTD DISSOLVED OXYGEN

The CTD dissolved O2 sensor (serial #6-02-07) was used for the entire
cruise. There was an atypically higher noise level in the raw CTD O2 data
for many casts which remains in the final data set.  There were also
numerous problems with a very low signal at the start of many downcasts,
affecting data in the top 50 db (or as much as 500 db in stations in the
70s and 80s).  These low data were offset, when feasible and very shallow,
to bring the CTD O2 into the realm of reality.  Generally, only very
shallow (less than 20 db) data were offset, and any remaining problems were
quality-coded as bad.

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, could cause shifts in the CTD O2 profile as oxygen became
depleted in water near the sensor.  Because of these problems, CTD rosette
trip data cannot be directly calibrated to O2 check samples. Instead, down-
cast CTD O2 data are derived by matching the up-cast rosette trips along
isopycnal surfaces.  The differences between CTD O2 modeled from these
derived values and check samples are then minimized using a non-linear
least-squares fitting procedure.

Down-casts were deemed to be unusable for two casts (stations 1 and 71), so
up-cast CTD O2 data were processed despite the signal drop-offs typically
seen at bottle stops.  There were no bottle oxygens for station 153/1, so
the corrections from station 152 were used to bring the profile as close as
possible to 153/2 results.

Figures 8.8 and 8.9 show the residual differences between the corrected CTD
O2 and the bottle O2 (ml/l) for each station, after the problem surface
areas were offset and/or quality-coded.


Figure 8.8: O2 residual differences after correction, by station.
Figure 8.9: O2 residual differences (>2000db).


Note that the mean of the differences is not zero, because the O2 values
are weighted by pressure before fitting.  The standard deviations of 0.079
ml/l for all oxygens and 0.036 ml/l for deep oxygens are only intended as
metrics of the goodness of the fits.  ODF makes no claims regarding the
precision or accuracy of CTD dissolved O2 data.

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
sensor current, or Oc, gradient is approximated by low-pass filtering 1st-
order Oc differences.  This 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:

                                    ⎛                          dOˇc⎞
                                    ⎜cˇ3*Pˇl+cˇ4Tˇf+cˇ5Tˇs+cˇ6 ----⎟
    Oˇpp=[cˇ1ˇOc+cˇ2]·fˇsat(S,T,P)·e⎝                           dt ⎠  (8.1)
                                     
where:
    Oˇpp         = Dissolved O2 partial-pressure in atmospheres (atm);
    Oˇc          = Sensor current (uamps);
    fˇsat(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 (°C);
    P            = Pressure at O2 response-time (decibars);
    Pl           = Low-pass filtered pressure (decibars);
    Tf           = Fast low-pass filtered temperature (°C);
    Ts           = Slow low-pass filtered temperature (°C);
    dOˇc/dt      = Sensor current gradient (uamps/secs).



9.  BOTTLE SAMPLING

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

 • CFCs;
 • He-3;
 • O2;
 • pCO2;
 • Total CO2;
 • Alkalinity;
 • Tritium;
 • Nutrients;
 • Salinity;
 • O18O16.

Note that some properties were subsampled by cast or by station, so the
actual sequence of samples drawn was modified accordingly.

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

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 together with other diagnostic comments (e.g., "lanyard caught
in lid", "valve left open") that might later prove useful in determining
sample integrity were routinely noted on the sample log.

Drawing oxygen samples also involved taking the sample draw temperature
from the bottle.  The temperature was noted on the sample log and was
sometimes useful in determining leaking or mis-tripped bottles.

Once individual samples had been drawn and properly prepared, they were
distributed to their laboratory for analysis.  Oxygen, nutrients and
salinity analyses were performed on computer-assisted (PC) analytical
equipment networked to Sun SPARCstations for centralized data analysis.
The analyst for a specific property was responsible for insuring that their
results updated the cruise database.


10.  BOTTLE DATA PROCESSING

The first stage of bottle data processing consisted of verifying and
validating individual samples, and checking the sample log (the sample
inventory) for consistency.  Oxygen flask numbers were verified, as each
flask is individually calibrated and significantly affects the calculated
O2 concentration.  At this stage, bottle tripping problems were usually
resolved, sometimes resulting in changes to the pressure, temperature and
other CTD data associated with the bottle.  The rosette bottle number was
the primary identification for all samples taken from the bottle, as well
as for the CTD data associated with the bottle.  All CTD trips were
retained whether confirmed or not so that they could be used to help
resolve bottle tripping problems.

Diagnostic comments from the sample log were then translated into
preliminary WOCE quality codes, together with appropriate comments.  Each
code indicating a potential problem would be investigated.

The next stage of processing would begin after all the samples for a cast
had been accounted for.  All samples for 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.  All
comments from the analysts were examined and turned into appropriate water
sample codes.

The third stage of processing would continue throughout the cruise and
until the data set is judged "final".  Various property-property plots and
vertical sections were examined for both consistency within a cast and
consistency with adjacent stations.  In conjunction with this process the
analysts would review (and sometimes revise) their data as additional
calibration or diagnostic results became available.  Assignment of a WHP
water sample quality code to an anomalous sample value was typically
achieved through consensus.

WHP water bottle quality flags were assigned with the following additional
interpretations:

3  | 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  | 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  | 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.


WHP water sample quality flags were assigned using the following criteria:

1  | The sample for this measurement was drawn from a
   | 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
   | correct, but are open to interpretation.
4  | Bad measurement.  Does 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 cast.
4  | Bad measurement.  The CTD data were determined to be
   | unusable for calculating a salinity.
8  | The CTD salinity was derived from the CTD down cast,
   | matched on an isopycnal surface.

WHP water sample quality flags were assigned to the CTDOXY (CTD oxygen) 
parameter as follows:

2  | Acceptable 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.
9  | Not sampled.  No operational dissolved oxygen sensor
   | was present on this cast.

Note that all CTDOXY values were derived from the down cast data, matched
to the upcast along isopycnal surfaces.

Table 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 10.0: Frequency of WHP quality flag assignments.
            _________________________________________________________
                         Rosette Samples Stations 001-153                
             -------------------------------------------------------
                         Reported           WHP Quality Codes                  
                          Levels    1     2    3    4    5    7    9
             ----------++--------+----------------------------------
             Bottle    ||  3450  |  0  3387    4   56    0    0    3
             CTD Salt  ||  3450  |  0  3440    6    0    0    4    0
             CTD Oxy   ||  3413  |  0  3194  133   86   35    0    2
             Salinity  ||  3438  |  0  3406   12   20    3    0    9
             Oxygen    ||  3434  |  0  3419    3   12    9    0    7
             Silicate  ||  3439  |  0  3431    5    3    3    0    8
             Nitrate   ||  3439  |  0  3436    0    3    3    0    8
             Nitrite   ||  3439  |  0  3436    0    3    3    0    8
             Phosphate ||  3439  |  0  3435    0    4    3    0    8
            _________________________________________________________
            
Additionally, all WHP quality code comments are presented in Appendix D.


11.  SALINITY ANALYSIS

Salinity samples were drawn into 200 ml Kimax high alumina borosilicate
bottles after 3 rinses, and were sealed with custom-made plastic insert
thimbles and Nalgene screw caps.  This assembly provides very low container
dissolution and sample evaporation.  When loose inserts were found, they
were replaced to ensure an airtight seal.  Salinity was determined after a
box of samples had equilibrated to laboratory temperature, usually within
8-12 hours of collection.  The draw time and equilibration time, as well as
per-sample analysis time and temperature were logged.

Two Guildline Autosal Model 8400A salinometers (55-654 and 48-263) located
in a temperature-controlled laboratory were used to measure salinities.
The salinometers were modified by ODF and contained interfaces for
computer-aided measurement.  A computer (PC) prompted the analyst for
control functions (changing sample, flushing) while it made continuous
measurements and logged results.  The salinometer cell was flushed until
successive readings met software criteria for consistency, then two
successive measurements were made and averaged for a final result.

The salinometer was standardized for each cast with IAPSO Standard Seawater
(SSW) Batch P-127, using at least one fresh vial per cast.  The estimated
accuracy of bottle salinities run at sea is usually better than 0.002 PSU
relative to the particular Standard Seawater batch used.  PSS-78 salinity
[UNES81] was then calculated for each sample from the measured conductivity
ratios, and the results merged with the cruise database.

3438 salinity measurements were made and 279 vials of standard water were
used.  Six of the vials were found to be bad.  Salinometer 55-654 was used
throughout this leg.  Salinometer 48-263 was the backup salinometer and was
not used.  The temperature stability of the laboratory used to make the
measurements was very good, ranging from 21.4 to 24.6°C.  The salinometer bath 
temperature was maintained at 24°C.  The salinities were used to calibrate the 
CTD conductivity sensor.


12.  OXYGEN ANALYSIS

Samples were collected for dissolved oxygen analyses soon after the rosette
sampler was brought on board and after CFC and helium were drawn.  Nominal
125 ml 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.  Draw
temperatures are useful in detecting possible bad trips even as samples
were being drawn.  Reagents were added to fix the oxygen before stoppering.
The flasks were shaken twice; immediately after drawing, and then again
after 20 minutes, to assure thorough dispersion of the MnO(OH)2
precipitate.  The samples were analyzed within 4 hours of collection.

Dissolved oxygen analyses were performed with an SIO-designed automated
oxygen titrator using photometric end-point detection based on the
absorption of 365 nm wavelength ultra-violet light.  Thiosulfate was
dispensed by a Dosimat 665 buret driver fitted with a 1.0 ml buret.  ODF
uses 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 error.  Reagent/distilled water blanks were determined to account
for oxidizing or reducing materials in the reagents.  No preservative was
added to the thiosulfate.  The auto-titrator generally performed very well.

The samples were titrated and the data logged by the PC control software.
The data were then used to update the cruise database on the Sun
SPARCstations.

Blanks, and thiosulfate normalities corrected to 20°C, calculated from
each standardization, were plotted versus time, and were reviewed for
possible problems.  New thiosulfate normalities were recalculated after the
blanks had been smoothed.  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 was not available.  Aberrant drawing
temperatures provided an additional flag indicating that a bottle may not
have tripped properly.

Oxygen flasks were calibrated 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.  All volumetric
glassware used in preparing standards is calibrated as well as the 10 ml
Dosimat buret used to dispense standard Iodate solution.

Iodate standards are pre-weighed in ODF's chemistry laboratory to a nominal
weight of 0.44xx grams and the exact normality is calculated at sea.
Potassium Iodate (KIO3) is obtained from Johnson Matthey Chemical Co. and
is reported by the suppliers to be > 99.4% pure.  All other reagents are
"reagent grade" and are tested for levels of oxidizing and reducing
impurities prior to use.

3434 oxygen measurements were made.  There were a few times when the data
acquisition computer (PC) hung up and a sample was lost.  The temperature
stability of the laboratory used for the analyses was fair.  No major
problems were encountered with the analyses.  Fifty-seven pair of replicate
(ie. from the same rosette bottle) oxygen samples drawn. The standard
deviation of the replicates was 0.004 ml/l.  The oxygen data were used to
calibrate the CTD dissolved O2 sensor.


13.  NUTRIENT ANALYSIS

Nutrient samples were drawn into 45 ml high density polypropylene, narrow
mouth, screw-capped centrifuge tubes which were rinsed three times before
filling.  The tubes were rinsed with 1.2N HCL before each filling.
Standardizations were performed at the beginning and end of each group of
analyses (one cast, usually 24 samples) with a set of an intermediate
concentration standard prepared in low-nutrient seawater for each run from
secondary standards.  The secondary standards were prepared aboard ship by
dilution from dry, pre-weighed primary standards.  Sets of 6-7 different
concentrations of shipboard standards were analyzed periodically to
determine the deviation from linearity as a function of concentration for
each nutrient.

Nutrient analyses (phosphate, silicate, nitrate and nitrite) were performed
on an ODF-modified 4 channel Technicon AutoAnalyzer II, generally within
one hour of the cast.  Occasionally some samples were refrigerated at 4°C
for a maximum of 4 hours.  The methods used are described by Gordon
et al. [Atla71],  [Hage72],  [Gord92].  The colorimeter output from each of
the four channels were digitized and logged automatically by computer (PC),
then split into absorbence peaks.  Each run was manually verified.

Silicate is analyzed using the technique of Armstrong et al. [Arms67].
Ammonium molybdate is added to a seawater sample to produce silicomolybdic
acid which is then reduced to silicomolybdous acid (a blue compound)
following the addition of stannous chloride.  Tartaric acid is added to
impede PO4 color (interference).  The sample is passed through a 15 mm
flowcell and the absorbence measured at 660nm.  ODF's methodology is known
to be non-linear at high silicate concentrations (>120 uM); a correction
for this non-linearity is applied in ODF's software.  All silicates during
this expedition were in the linear range (<100 uM).

Modifications of the Armstrong et al. [Arms67] techniques for nitrate and
nitrite analysis are also used.  The seawater sample for nitrate analysis
is passed through a cadmium column where the nitrate is reduced to nitrite.
Sulfanilamide is introduced, reacting with the nitrite, then
N-(1-naphthyl)ethylenediamine dihydrochloride which couples to form a red
azo dye.  The reaction product is then passed through a 15 mm flowcell and
the absorbence measured at 540 nm.  The same technique is employed for
nitrite analysis, except the cadmium column is not present, and a 50 mm
flowcell is used.

Phosphate is analyzed using a modification of the Bernhardt and Wilhelms
[Bern67] technique.  An acidic solution of ammonium molybdate is added to
the sample to produce phosphomolybdic acid, then reduced to
phosphomolybdous acid (a blue compound) following the addition of
dihydrazine sulfate.  The reaction product is heated to 58°C to enhance
color development, then passed through a 50 mm flowcell and the absorbence
measured at 820 nm.

Nutrients, reported in micromoles per kilogram, were converted from
micromoles per liter by dividing by sample density calculated at zero
pressure, in-situ salinity, and an assumed laboratory temperature of 25°C.

Na2SiF6, the silicate primary standard, is obtained from Aesar, a division
of Johnson Matthey Chemical Co., and is reported by the supplier to be >98%
pure.  Primary standards for nitrate (KNO3), nitrite (NaNO2), and phosphate
(KH2PO4) are also obtained from Johnson Matthey Chemical Co. and the
supplier reports purities of 99.999%, 97%, and 99.999%, respectively.

3439 nutrient analyses were performed.  No major problems were encountered
with the measurements.  The pump tubing was changed 3 times, and deep
seawater was run as a substandard on each run.  The efficiency of the
cadmium column used for nitrate was monitored throughout the cruise and
ranged from 99.0-100.0%.  The temperature stability of the laboratory used
for the analyses ranged from 21 deg. to 28°C, but was relatively
constant during any one station (+/-1.5°C).


REFERENCES

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).

Cart80.
     Carter, D. J. T., "Computerised Version of Echo-sounding Correction
     Tables (Third Edition)," Marine Information and Advisory Service,
     Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, Wormley, Godalming, Surrey. GU8
     5UB. U.K. (1980).

Culb91.
     Culberson, C. H. and Williams, R. T., et al., "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).

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).



2. SHIPBOARD ADCP AND LADCP

SHIPBOARD ADCP

Upper ocean current measurements were made throughout the cruise using the hull- 
mounted acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) system that is permanently 
installed on the R/V Knorr. The system includes five components:

1) an incoherent (narrow bandwidth, un-coded pulse) 4-beam Doppler sonar 
   operating at 153 kHz (model VM-150 made by RD Instruments), mounted with 
   beams pointing 30 degrees from the vertical and 45 degrees azimuth from the 
   keel; 
2) the ship's main gyro compass, continuously providing ship's heading 
   measurements to the ADCP via a 1:1 synchro; 
3) a Global Positioning System (GPS) attitude sensor (Ashtech model 3DF), which 
   uses a 4-antenna array to provide interferometric measurements of ship's 
   pitch, roll, and heading; 
4) a GPS navigation receiver (Trimble Tasman) providing position fixes using 
   both GPS frequency bands (L1 and L2) and the P and Y codes (military 
   "Precision Positioning Service", or PPS); 
5) an IBM-compatible personal computer running the Data Acquisition Software 
   (DAS) version 2.48 from RD Instruments, augmented by Firing's software 
   interrupt handler ("user exit") program "ue4", C. Flagg's user exit "agcave", 
   and Flagg's TSR watchdog timer program.

The ADCP was configured for 16-m pulse length, 8-m processing bin, and a 4-m 
blanking interval (all distances being projections on the vertical and based on 
a nominal sound speed of 1470 m/s). The transducer depth was 5 m; 60 velocity 
measurements were made at 8-m intervals starting 21 m below the surface. About 
240 pings were sent in each 5-minute averaging interval. For each ping, 
velocities relative to the transducer were rotated to a geographical coordinate 
system using the gyro compass heading, but assuming pitch and roll to be zero. 
The single-ping velocities were then vector-averaged over the 5-minute ensemble. 
The ensemble- averaging was done separately for the vertical average from bins 2 
through 10 and for the deviation of each bin from this vertical subset; the two 
parts were then added back together and stored. The conversion from Doppler 
shift to velocity was done using sound-speed calculated from the temperature 
measured by a sensor in the transducer, assuming a constant salinity of 35 psu. 
When a velocity estimate in one of the four beams was missing, velocity was 
calculated from the remaining three beams.

In regions of shallow water, the ADCP was configured to track the bottom with 
one bottom-tracking ping for each water-tracking ping. This was effective to 
depths of 600 m or more. From the time the ship left Woods Hole to the last 
station of the present cruise, approximately 100 hours of underway bottom 
tracking data were collected. This is significant for the calibration 
calculations discussed below.

The user exit program integrated the GPS position and attitude information into 
the ADCP data stream. Position fixes were recorded at the start and end of each 
ADCP averaging interval (5-minute ensemble). Attitude from the 3DF was sampled 
at each ping and edited within each ensemble. The mean, standard deviation, 
minimum, and maximum values of pitch, roll, and compass heading error were 
calculated and recorded. The compass error is the quantity of primary interest: 
for each ping, the compass reading used by the ADCP was subtracted from the most 
recent 3DF heading (updated once per second), and this difference was taken as 
the time-variable compass error plus some constant misalignment of the 3DF 
antenna array. The 3DF attitude information was not used for the real-time 
vector-averaging of velocity because it is not quite reliable enough; dropouts 
and outliers do occur.

Velocity, position, and attitude measurements were post-processed using the 
University of Hawaii CODAS software package, generally as described by Firing in 
WHP Office Report WHPO 91-1, WOCE report 68/91. The essential modification since 
then is the rotation of the velocity measurements relative to the ship to 
correct for the gyro compass error as measured by the 3DF. After this 
correction, and a small but varying sound speed correction (not yet made at the 
time of this writing), standard water and bottom tracking calibration methods 
(Joyce, 1989; Pollard and Read, 1989) should yield two constants: a velocity 
scale factor, and a horizontal angular offset between the transducer and the 3DF 
antenna array. The angular offset is particularly important; an error of 0.1 
degree leads to a cross- track bias of 1 cm/s for a ship speed of 11 kts. For 
the onboard data processing, these calibration factors were calculated based on 
bottom tracking from the transit from Woods Hole prior to the cruise and the 
transits to and from Cork. Water track calibration calculations based on the 
entire cruise (all stations--water track calibration requires ship 
accelerations, such as stops for stations) indicate an overall error of only 
0.05 degree relative to the preliminary calibration. At present this small 
correction has not been applied. Closer inspection of all available calibration 
information indicates that the "constant" factors are measurably not constant. 
The angle offset factor may vary within a range of up to plus or minus 0.2 
degrees. A possible cause is under investigation; it is not clear whether it 
will be possible to reduce this uncertainty in the present or future data sets.

The quality of the shipboard ADCP data set from this cruise is exceptionally 
good. No instrument problems were detected; weather was mostly good and never 
very bad; there was an abundance of acoustic targets on the entire cruise track. 
The depth range was typically 400 m or more, sometimes a full 500 m, and only 
occasionally less than 300 m. There were no known compass failures and no long 
dropouts of 3DF data.

The upper ocean velocity field during the cruise is summarized in a map of 
shipboard ADCP velocity vectors averaged from 100 to 300 m (Figure 2.0); 
vertical shear was weak on most of the cruise track, so this layer average is 
representative. The overall impression is of weak currents--usually under 50 
cm/s, and mostly in the form of ubiquitous small-scale squirts and eddies. The 
contribution from tides and near-inertial motions has not yet been estimated 
quantitatively, but I believe it is a small part of what we see in Figure 2.0. 
The East Greenland Current stands out as a narrow jet flowing southwestward 
along the Greenland coast, particularly off Cape Farewell. On the northern 
crossing, however, it appears to have been highly convergent in the cross-track 
direction. The eddy field was relatively strong in the Rockall Trough and in the 
Iceland and Irminger basins on the section from Scotland to Greenland. Currents 
were mostly weak on the section from the Azores to Ireland on leg 1, and between 
the sub-polar front (about 50°N) and the East Greenland Current on leg 4. At 
and south of the sub-polar front the currents are stronger, but much of the 
pattern is not easy to interpret. There seem to be four main zones of eastward 
flow north of 40°N, some of them very narrow. There is a major southward 
component in the sub-polar front and at other spots between there and the 
Azores.


Figure 2.0: A24 Shipboard ADCP velocity vectors.


LOWERED ADCP

To measure velocity throughout the water column at each station, a self-
contained ADCP was mounted on the rosette; this is referred to as the lowered 
ADCP (LADCP). The LADCP includes a magnetic compass and a tilt sensor, so the 
velocity profiles can be rotated into the local east-north-up coordinate system. 
Because the motion of the rosette over the ground is not measured, the LADCP 
measurements of current relative to the instrument cannot be used directly to 
infer the current over the ground. Instead, the single- ping velocity profiles 
are differentiated vertically to remove the package motion (which changes only 
slightly between the time a ping is transmitted and the time the back-scattered 
return is received). The vertical shear estimates from all pings are then 
interpolated and averaged on a single uniform depth grid covering the whole 
water column. This full-depth shear profile is integrated vertically to yield a 
velocity profile with an unknown constant of integration; and the constant is 
calculated from the known displacement of the instrument between beginning and 
end of the cast, together with the shape of the relative velocity profile and 
the measured current past the instrument as a function of time during the cast. 
The method is explained in detail by Fischer and Visbeck (1993).

The instrument used on this cruise was a new 150-kHz coded pulse ("Broadband") 
profiler made by RD Instruments (a specially modified Phase-III DR-BBADCP), with 
four beams angled 30 degrees from the vertical. All but four of the 154 profiles 
were made with the following instrument parameters: blanking interval, pulse 
length, and processing bin length were all set to 16 m (projected on the 
vertical). Sixteen depth bins were recorded. Pings were transmitted alternately 
at 1 and 1.5 or 1.6 second intervals. Data from each ping was recorded 
individually, with no averaging. Ambiguity resolution mode 1 (no automatic 
resolution) was used, with an ambiguity interval of either 3 m/s or 3.6 m/s--the 
smaller value was used when weather was exceptionally calm. Medium bandwidth was 
selected. Three-beam velocity solutions were not used, and solutions with an 
error velocity exceeding 15 cm/s were rejected. Bin-mapping based on tilt was 
selected.

Immediately after each station the data were dumped from the LADCP to a PC via a 
serial line (RS-422), and transferred to a Sun workstation for archiving and 
processing. The profile was processed using the University of Hawaii system, a 
mixture of C, Matlab, and Perl programs. Velocity and shear data are 
automatically edited based on several criteria including correlation magnitude 
(typically 70- count minimum), error velocity (10 cm/s maximum), deviation of 
vertical velocity in a given bin from its vertical average (5 cm/s maximum), and 
deviation of individual shear estimates from a mean shear profile (3.5 standard 
deviations). These parameters are subject to change in later processing, but the 
values quoted seemed reasonable and adequate for the present data set. 
Additional editing is done on the upcast: the top two depth bins are rejected if 
the current, profiler vertical velocity, and profiler orientation are such that 
one beam may be intersecting the profiler's wake. Depth bins subject to 
contamination from the side-lobe return from the bottom, or from the return of 
the previous ping from the bottom, are also automatically rejected. Critical to 
this part of the editing is accurate knowledge of the depth of the bottom and 
the depth of the profiler. Therefore we have an automated routine for matching 
the time series of vertical velocity measured by the LADCP with the time series 
of vertical velocity calculated from the CTD pressure record, and then assigning 
the corresponding CTD-derived depths to the LADCP. With these instrument depths 
in the LADCP database, another program scans the LADCP back-scatter amplitude 
profiles in the near-bottom region; the LADCP depth plus the vertical range to 
the amplitude maximum is the bottom depth. With a high quality and continuous 
CTD time series available from ODF immediately after each cast, we were able to 
complete the LADCP processing about 20 minutes after the end of the data 
transfer.

Accurate position fixes at the start and end of the LADCP profile are essential 
to the calculation of absolute velocities. We log the PPS GPS fixes at the full 
1 Hz sampling rate. The processing software accesses these files and extracts 
the subsets needed for each profile. Magnetic variation is needed to calculate 
true direction from the compass readings; we calculate the variation from a 
standard model of the earth's magnetic field. To date we have not, however, 
performed any calibration of the compass in the instrument, but have taken the 
compass headings at face value.

As with the shipboard ADCP, and for the same reasons, the LADCP quality on this 
cruise is excellent. Package motion was moderate and scattering levels were 
good, particularly at the higher latitudes. The only instrument problem was a 
bizarre incident early in the cruise: at stations 2 and 3 the program usually 
used to communicate with the LADCP (BBSC) gradually ceased working with it. (It 
turns out that a similar problem was encountered by Doug Wilson at about the 
same time. As of this writing, no one understands what happened, given that both 
failures occurred with profiler/PC/program combinations that had been working 
normally.) A simpler alternative program (BBTALK) was completely unaffected, and 
was used for the remainder of the cruise. In the scramble to switch to BBTALK 
for station 4, the setup commands were entered by hand and something seems not 
to have been right-the profiler returned garbage during about the first third of 
the cast, then inexplicably started recording normal-looking profiles. The 
result is that profile 4 is incomplete at best, and probably will be neglected 
henceforth.

A map of LADCP current vectors averaged over the full depth range of the profile 
(Figure 2.1) shows some characteristics of the currents as observed on this 
cruise. As in the shipboard ADCP data, the East Greenland Current stands out as 
a prominent feature amid the welter of eddies. The barotropic component of the 
eddy field is weakest on the Azores-Ireland section and strongest on the 
Scotland-Greenland section, where vertically averaged velocities of 10 cm/s or 
more are common. The eddy field is not well resolved by the station spacing; the 
velocity profiles typically change radically from one station to the next. The 
tidal fraction of the velocity field measured by the LADCP has not yet been 
estimated, but is not expected to dominate the observations in any of the more 
energetic regions.


REFERENCES

Fischer, J., and M. Visbeck, 1993. Deep velocity profiling with self-contained 
    ADCPs. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 10, 764-773.

Joyce, T. M., 1989. On in situ "calibration" of shipboard ADCPs. J. Atmos. 
    Oceanic Technol., 6, 169-172.

Pollard, R., and J. Read, 1989. A method for calibrating shipmounted Acoustic 
    Doppler Profilers, and the limitations of gyro compasses. J. Atmos. Oceanic 
    Technol., 6, 859-865


Figure 2.1: A24 Map of LADCP current vectors.


3. CFC-11 and CFC-12

SAMPLE COLLECTION

Water samples were collected using 10 liter Niskin bottles which were cleaned 
for CFC analysis. All O- rings of the Niskin bottles (end cap O-rings and spigot 
O- rings) were baked in a vacuum oven to remove CFCs. CFC samples were drawn 
from 10 to 31 Niskin bottles per station, depending on bottom depth or station 
spacing. 100 ml precision groundglass syringes with Luer-lock fittings were used 
to draw water samples from the Niskin bottles. Vacuum-baked syringe valves were 
used, and were replaced whenever there was a suspicion of contamination or 
leakage. In general, sampling for CFC analysis was done at every station 
alternating fulldepth sampling and partial-depth sampling depending on the 
measurement progress of the previous station's samples. The partial depth 
sampling was planned according to the CFCs results readily available from 
previous stations as well as from the CTD profiles. A total of 2085 water 
samples from 132 CTD stations were measured, including approx. 70 duplicate 
pairs used to estimate measurement precisions. The shipboard CFC values will be 
finalized after a few minor blank corrections and a stripper efficiency 
correction for CFC-11 in the lab. Typical stripping efficiency of CFC-11 in 
various water temperature during this cruise is approx. 99.3%.

Air samples were collected by Air Cadet pump through intake lines of 3/8" OD 
Decabon tubing from inlets at the bow and stern of the vessel. The bow side air 
intake was mostly used during this cruise. 107 air samples were measured to 
estimate current atmospheric CFC concentrations and to calculate the surface 
water CFC saturation conditions. Three or four replicate air samples were 
measured at each location to obtain reliable numbers.


EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUE

The chlorofluorocarbons CFC-11 and CFC-12 were measured by an ECD-GC (electron 
capture detector equipped gas chromatograph system), as described by Bullister 
and Weiss (1988), with slight modifications. Gas samples, dry air or standard 
gas, were injected onto a cold trap (-30°C) for concentration. Approximately 30 
cc of seawater from collected samples was introduced into a glass stripping 
chamber where the dissolved gases were purged with purified gas, and the evolved 
CFCs were concentrated using the same cold trap. The trap was subsequently 
isolated and heated (100°C), so that the evolved CFCs could be transferred into 
a pre-column (15 cm of Porasil-C) and then a chromatographic separating column 
(3 m of Porasil C) held at 70°C in the GC oven. The ECD was operated at 250°C. 
The analysis of all water samples was completed within 3 to 7 hours of the water 
coming on board. Typical standard gas and water sample chromatograms are shown 
in Figures* 1a and 1b. The data acquisition, peak integration and calculation 
were carried out by a Sun Microsystems computer with an HP35900 chromatographic 
interface.


CALIBRATION

The CFC-11 and CFC-12 analyses were calibrated over the concentration range of 
the samples, using calibration curves made by injections of fixed volumes of 
standard gas filled to various pressures as measured by a precision quartz 
pressure transducer (Paro-scientific 740). Using polynomial curves fitted to the 
calibration points, the corrected peak areas were converted into molar 
concentrations. The standard gas was prepared at the Scripps Institution of 
Oceanography (SIO) and was calibrated on the SIO 1993 scale.


PRELIMINARY RESULTS

CFC-11 and CFC-12 were near saturation in surface waters, and deep and bottom 
waters of the North Atlantic Ocean basins are in general well ventilated unlike 
the Indian or Pacific Ocean where deep basins are mostly filled with low CFC or 
CFC- free waters. The lowest CFC content water was observed in the North-Eastern 
Atlantic Basin in the LEG-1 (Azores to Ireland) toward the north below 3000-4000 
m (CFC- 11: less than 0.04 pmol/kg). Typical CFCs profiles from different basins 
are shown in Figures* 2a, 2b and 2c to show dynamic and spatially heterogeneous 
features of the North Atlantic Ocean. Well known bottom and deep water features 
such as overflow waters and the Labrador Sea Water were clearly resolved by CFCs 
distributions. High CFC-content Denmark Strait Overflow Water (DSOW) was 
observed in the Irminger Basin (LEG-3) and on the Eirik Ridge south of Greenland 
(LEG-4). The other high CFC-content overflow water, Iceland-Scotland Overflow 
Water (ISOW), was observed on the eastern flank of the Reykjanes Ridge in the 
Iceland Basin and on the western side of the ridge in the Irminger Basin (LEG-
3). The low salinity, high CFC and high oxygen content Labrador Sea Water (LSW) 
was observed at about 1500-2000 m depth range in nearly every survey section. 
The CFC concentration of the LSW core layer was highest (CFC-11: ^-4 pmol/kg) on 
the Eirik Ridge, Greenland (LEG-4) and in the Irminger Basin, and progressively 
became lower toward the west and south. The CFC-11 concentration of the LSW core 
layer observed in the North- Eastern Atlantic Basin (LEG-1) was as low as 1.5-
2.0 pmol/kg. The mid-depth low CFCs, low oxygen and high salinity water 
originated from the Mediterranean Sea was observed in the Azores-Ireland (LEG-1) 
section, in the southern Rockall Trough (LEG-2) section, and the southern part 
of the Greenland-Azores (LEG-4) section at approx. 1000 m depth. Thick and 
relatively homogeneous Subpolar Mode Water with high CFC concentration was well 
developed in the upper few hundred meters in the northern part of the survey 
area. The highest CFC concentration surface water was generally found in the 
Eastern Greenland Current area. Near 0 C cold surface water near the 
Angmassalik, Greenland (LEG-3) showed the highest CFC concentration (CFC- 11: as 
high as 6.83 pmol/kg). The CFC-11 contour sections from the four legs of this 
expedition in the subpolar North Atlantic Ocean are shown in Figures* 3a-d.


REFERENCE

Bullister, J. L., and R. F. Weiss. 1988. Determination of CCl3F and CCl2F2 in 
    seawater and air. Deep-Sea Research, 35: 839-853.


4. HELIUM, TRITIUM AND 18O

SAMPLE COLLECTION

Water samples for later analysis of helium, tritium and 18O were collected from 
10 litre Niskin bottles. The strategy was to sample the entire water column with 
emphasis on Labrador Sea Water and the Overflow waters. In particular, we 
extensively sampled the east Greenland Shelf and Slope.

607 Helium samples, 596 Tritium samples, and 367 18O samples were collected at 
43, 42 and 37 stations respectively. Since samples for 18O measurement will also 
be drawn from the tritium samples, the total number of samples available for 18O 
analysis is 963. Water samples for Helium analysis were collected in stainless 
steel cylinders with rotating plug valves on both ends. The cylinder was 
attached to the spigot on the Niskin by tygon tubing. When not in use, the 
tubing was kept soaked in a bucket of seawater to keep it conditioned. Tritium 
samples were collected in 1 litre glass bottles. The bottle caps were then 
secured using insulation tape.

18O samples were collected in 30 ml glass bottles. Bottle caps were secured 
similarly.


EQUIPMENT

Samples collected in the cylinders were processed on board for Helium. This was 
done using the "at sea extraction system" provided by W.J. Jenkins of the WHOI 
Helium Isotope Lab (Jenkins, 1992). The extracted Helium was collected in 30 ml 
glass bulbs, which were subsequently flame-sealed. All samples will be analysed 
mass-spectrometrically at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Helium and 
Tritium samples will be analyzed in the Noble Gas Lab using techniques described 
in Bayer (1989). 18O samples will be analyzed in the Stable Isotope Lab.


REFERENCES

Bayer, R., Schlosser, P., Bonisch, G., Rupp, H., Zaucker, F., and Zimmek, G., 
    1989. Performance and blank components of a mass spectrometric system for 
    routine measurement of helium isotope and tritium by the 3He ingrowth 
    method. Sitzungsberichte der heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, 
    Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Klasse.

Jenkins, W. J., 1992. ASEX User's Manual: Documentation on procedures, software 
    and hardware for the At Sea Extraction System, version 2.0. Woods Hole 
    Oceanographic Institution.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________




 CARBON DIOXIDE, HYDROGRAPHIC, AND CHEMICAL DATA OBTAINED DURING THE R/V KNORR
             CRUISES IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN ON WOCE SECTIONS
                    AR24 (NOVEMBER 2 - DECEMBER 5, 1996) AND
                 A24, A20, AND A22(MAY 30 - SEPTEMBER 3, 1997)

                                Contributed by
   Kenneth M. Johnson,1      Robert M. Key,2           Frank J. Millero,3
   Christopher L. Sabine,4   Douglas W. R. Wallace,5   Christopher D. Winn,6
   Linda Arlen,7             Kenneth Erickson,8        Karsten Friis,5
   Meridith Galanter,3       Jamie Goen,3              Richard Rotter,2
   Carrie Thomas,2           Richard Wilke,8           Taro Takahashi,9  and    
   Stewart C. Sutherland9

     1 Department of Applied Science, 
       Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, U.S.A.
       Retired, now at P.O. Box 483, Wyoming, RI, U.S.A.
     2 Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, U.S.A.
     3 Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, 
       University of Miami, Miami, FL, U.S.A.
     4 Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
     5 Institute for Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany
     6 Hawaii Pacific University, Kaneohe, HI, U.S.A.
     7 James J. Howard Laboratory, NOAA, Sandy Hook, NJ, U.S.A.
     8 Department of Applied Science, Brookhaven National Laboratory, 
       Upton, NY, U.S.A.
     9 Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, NY, U.S.A.

Prepared by 
   Alexander Kozyr
   Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
   Oak Ridge National Laboratory
   Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S.A.

Date Published: September 2003

Prepared for the
   Climate Change Research Division
   Office of Biological and Environmental Research
   U.S. Department of Energy

Prepared by the
   Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
   OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
   Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6335

     Budget Activity Numbers:           KP 12 04 01 0  and  KP 12 02 03 0
     managed by UT-BATTELLE, LLC        for the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
     under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725   ORNL/CDIAC-143            NDP-082



ACRONYMS

ACCE      Atlantic Circulation and           NDP    numeric data package
          Climate Change Experiment          NOAA   National Oceanic and 
A/D       analog-to-digital                         Atmospheric Administration
ADCP      acoustic Doppler current           nm     nautical mile
          profiler                           NSF    National Science Foundation
ALACE     autonomous Lagrangian              ODF    Ocean Data Facility
          circulation explorer               ODV    Ocean Data View
BOD       biological oxygen demand           ORNL   Oak Ridge National Laboratory
BNL       Brookhaven National Laboratory     OSU    Oregon State University
14C       radiocarbon                        PC     personal computer
CALFAC    calibration factor                 PDF    Portable Document Format
CDIAC     Carbon Dioxide Information         PI     principal investigator
          Analysis Center                    PU     Princeton University
CFC       chlorofluorocarbon                 QA     quality assurance
CMDL      Climate Monitoring and             QC     quality control
          Diagnostics Laboratory             R/V    research vessel
CO2       carbon dioxide                     RSMAS  Rosenstiel School of Marine 
CTD       conductivity, temperature, and            and Atmospheric Sciences
          depth sensor                       SIO    Scripps Institution of 
CRM       certified reference material              Oceanography
DOE       U.S. Department of Energy          SOMMA  single-operator multipara- 
emf       electro-magnetic fields                   meter metabolic analyzer
EXPOCODE  expedition code                    SSW    standard seawater
FTP       file transfer protocol             TALK   total alkalinity
GMT       Greenwich mean time                TCO2   total carbon dioxide
GPS       global positioning system          TD     to-deliver
IAPSO     International Association for the  UH     University of Hawaii
          Physical Sciences of the Ocean     UM     University of Miami
I/O       input-output                       UW     University of Washington
IR        infrared                           VFC    voltage to frequency converter
JGOFS     Joint Global Ocean Flux Study      WHOI   Woods Hole Oceanographic 
kn        knots                                     Institution
LADCP     lowered ADCP                       WHPO   WOCE Hydrographic Program 
LDEO      Lamont-Doherty Earth                      Office
          Observatory                        WOCE   World Ocean Circulation 
MATS      Miami University alkalinity               Experiment
          titration systems                  WHP    WOCE Hydrographic Program
NBIS      Neil Brown Instrument system




                                     ABSTRACT

Johnson K., R. Key, F. Millero, C. Sabine, D. Wallace, C. Winn, L. Arlen, K. 
    Erickson, K. Friis, M. Galanter, J. Goen, R. Rotter, C. Thomas, R. Wilke, 
    T. Takahashi, and S. Sutherland. 2003. Carbon Dioxide, Hydrographic, and 
    Chemical Data Obtained During the R/V Knorr Cruises in the North Atlantic 
    Ocean on WOCE Sections AR24 (November 2-December 5, 1996) and A24, A20, and 
    A22 (May 30-September 3, 1997) A. Kozyr (ed.) ORNL/CDIAC-143, NDP-082. 
    Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 
    U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 41 pp.  

This documentation describes the procedures and methods used to measure total 
carbon dioxide (TCO2) total alkalinity (TALK), and partial pressure of CO2 
(pCO2) at hydrographic stations on the North Atlantic Ocean sections AR24, A24, 
A20, and A22 during the R/V Knorr Cruises 147-2, 151-2, 151-3, and 151-4 in 
1996 and 1997. Conducted as part of the World Ocean Circulation Experiment 
(WOCE), the expeditions began at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, on October 24, 
1996, and ended at Woods Hole on September 3, 1997. Instructions for accessing 
the data are provided.  

A total of 5,614 water samples were analyzed for discrete TCO2 using two 
single-operator multiparameter metabolic analyzers (SOMMAs) coupled to a 
coulometer for extracting and detecting CO2. The overall accuracy of the TCO2 
determination was ± 1.59 µmol/kg. The TALK was determined in a total of 6,088 
discrete samples on all sections by potentiometric titration using an automated 
titration system developed at the University of Miami. The accuracy of the TALK 
determination was ± 3 µmol/kg. A total of 2,465 discrete water samples were 
collected for determination of pCO2 in seawater on sections A24, A20, and A22. 
The pCO2 was measured by means of an equilibrator-IR system by scientists from 
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. The precision of the measurements was 
estimated to be about ± 0.15%, based on the reproducibility of the replicate 
equilibrations on a single hydrographic station. 

The North Atlantic data set is available as a numeric data package (NDP) from 
the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. The NDP consists of 12 ASCII 
data files, one Ocean Data View-formatted data file, a NDP-082 ASCII text file, 
a NDP-082 PDF file, and this printed documentation, which describes the 
contents and format of all files, as well as the procedures and methods used to 
obtain the data.  

Keywords: carbon dioxide; TCO2; total alkalinity; partial pressure of CO2; 
          coulometry; gas chromatography; World Ocean Circulation Experiment; 
          North Atlantic Ocean; hydrographic measurements; carbon cycle.




1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION  

The World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) Hydrographic Program (WHP) was a 
major component of the World Climate Research Program. The primary WOCE goal 
was to understand the general circulation of the global ocean well enough to be 
able to model its present state and predict its evolution in relation to long-
term changes in the atmosphere. The impetus for the carbon system measurements 
arose from concern over the rising atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide 
(CO2). Increasing atmospheric CO2 may intensify the earths natural greenhouse 
effect and alter the global climate. 

Although CO2-related measurements [total CO2 (TCO2), total alkalinity (TALK), 
partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2), and pH] were not an official WOCE measurements, 
a coordinated effort to make the carbon measurements was supported as a core 
component of the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS). This effort received 
support in the United States from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National 
Science Foundation (NSF) for WOCE cruises through 1998 to measure the global 
spatial and temporal distributions of CO2 and related parameters. Goals were to 
estimate the meridional transport of inorganic carbon in a manner analogous to 
the oceanic heat transport (Bryden and Hall 1980; Brewer, Goyet, and Drysen 
1989; Holfort et al. 1998; Roemmich and Wunsch 1985), and to build a data base 
suitable for carbon-cycle modeling and the estimation of anthropogenic CO2 
increase in the oceans. The CO2 survey took advantage of the sampling 
opportunities provided by the WOCE cruises during this period, and the final 
data set was expected to cover on the order of 23,000 stations. Wallace (2002) 
recently reviewed the goals, conduct, and initial findings of the survey. 

This report discusses the results of the research vessel (R/V) Knorr expedition 
along the WOCE Sections AR24, A24, A20, and A22 [cruises 147-2, 151-2, 151-3, 
and 151-4, respectively (Fig. 1)]. The latter three cruises not only were part 
of WOCE but also were a component of the Atlantic Circulation and Climate 
Change Experiment (ACCE). The ACCE was intended to improve the understanding of 
the entrainment and transformation of warm saline subtropical water into the 
subpolar North Atlantic waters, with special emphasis on sampling the North 
Atlantic Current region. This region plays an important role in the exchange of 
CO2 between the subtropical and subpolar gyres. The exchange between these 
gyres affects the magnitude and direction of air-sea CO2 exchange in the North 
Atlantic and is therefore an important factor in the global carbon cycle. By 
1997 the goal of high-quality measurements of chemical and physical parameters 
had been completed in all of the major oceans except the North Atlantic. Hence 
the cruises documented here also represent the concluding phase of the DOE-
sponsored Global CO2 Survey. 

The expedition (section AR24) started at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA, on 
October 24, 1996, with a transit to the Azores; the station work began on 
November 2, 1996. The 1997 cruises started from Ponta Delgada, Azores, on May 
30, 1997, and ended in Woods Hole on September 3, 1997, after stops in Halifax, 
N.S., Canada, and Port of Spain, Trinidad. The large-scale three-dimensional 
distribution of temperature, salinity, and chemical constituents, including the 
carbonate system parameters measured on these cruises (TCO2, and TALK on the 
AR24 section and TCO2, TALK, and pCO2 on A24, A20, and A22 sections), will be 
plotted using the data from these sections. Knowledge of these parameters and 
their initial conditions will enable researchers to determine heat and water 
transport, as well as carbon transport, which will contribute to the 
understanding of processes affecting climate change. The sections described in 
this report include WOCE Section A22, the only Caribbean transect of the WOCE 
program. In addition, the stations occupied on these cruises repeated some 
sections sampled in previous years during the International Geophysical Year 
during the 1950s. They also included measurements from the eastern subpolar gyre 
of source and overflow waters from the Labrador, Norwegian, Greenland, and 
Iceland Seas. They give good coverage of boundary currents, particularly the 
Deep Western Boundary Current; and repeating AR24 and A24 provides some insight 
into seasonal variation in the North Atlantic.

This data documentation is the result of the cooperative efforts of chemical 
oceanographers from Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), the University of 
Hawaii (UH), Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO), and the University of 
Miamis Rosenstiel School of Atmospheric and Marine Science (RSMAS), U.S.A. The 
work aboard the R/V Knorr was supported by the U. S. Department of Energy under 
contract DE-ACO2-76CH00016 and DE-FG02-93ER61540. The authors are also 
especially grateful to the Sonderforschungsbereich 460 at the University of 
Kiel (Dr. F. Schott, Leader), funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, 
for their support and assistance in completing the written documentation. 


3.2.  Total CO2 Measurements

As on previous cruises, TCO2 was determined using automated dynamic headspace 
sample processors (SOMMA) with coulometric detection of the CO2 extracted 
from acidified samples. A description of the SOMMA-Coulometry System and its 
calibration can be found in Johnson et al., (1987), Johnson and Wallace, 
(1992), and Johnson et al., (1993). A schematic diagram of the SOMMA 
analytical sequence may be found in earlier cruise reports (see Johnson et 
al. 1995;,1996), and further details concerning the coulometric titration can 
be found in Huffman (1977) and Johnson, King, and Sieburth (1985). The 
methods used for discrete TCO2 on WOCE sections have been extensively dealt 
with in previous reports (Johnson et al., 1998a) and only need onlyto be 
briefly summarized. 

The AR24 section required modification of the usual sampling procedures. As 
noted in Section 3.1.2 above, 4-L sampling bottles were employed on the 
rosette, which limitinged the amount of sample available for the carbonate 
system analysts to one 500-mL bottle. Hence, the TCO2 coulometric titration 
analysis had to be completed before the partially empty 500-mL bottle was 
passed to the TALK group for the potentiometric alkalinity titration. There 
was enough sample to complete both measurements, but not enough time or 
sample for TCO2 replicate analyses from the same 500-mL sample bottle. The 4-
L sampling bottles also made it impossible to draw duplicate samples from the 
same sampling bottle. Without duplicate samples from the hydrographic 
stations, standard measures of sample precision (DOE, 1994; Johnson, et al., 
1998b) could not be completed on the AR24 section. Samples were poisoned with 
100 µL of a 50% solution of HgCl2, and analyzed for TCO2 within 24 hours of 
collection (DOE, 1994).

For sections A24, A20, A224, single or duplicate samples were collected in 
300-mL biological oxygen demand (BOD) bottles, poisoned with 100 µL of a 50% 
solution of HgCl2, and analyzed for TCO2 within 24 hours of collection, 
according to standard operating procedures (DOE, 1994). The samples were 
stored in a dark refrigerator at 46°C until approximately 12 hours before 
analysis, when they were removed and placed in a temperature bath at 18-20°C 
and thermally equilibrated. The SOMMA sample pipette and sample bath were 
also kept at approximately 20°C. Duplicate samples were usually collected on 
each cast at the surface and from the bottom waters. For some casts, three 
sets of duplicates were taken. The duplicates were analyzed within the run of 
cast samples from which they originated souch that the time elapsed between 
duplicate analyses was 3-12 hours. As per standard operating procedure (DOE 
1994), Certified Reference Material (CRM) was routinely analyzed according to 
DOE (1994) guidelines. The CRM was supplied by Dr. Andrew Dickson of the SIO, 
and for the North Atlantic cruises, batches 33, 36, and 37 were used. The 
certified values for these batches were: TCO2 = 2009.85 µmol/kg @ salinity = 
33.781 for batch 33; TCO2 = 2050.21 µmol/kg @ salinity = 35.368 for batch 36; 
and TCO2 = 2044.15 µmol/kg @ salinity = 34.983 for batch 37. The CRM TCO2 
concentration was determined by vacuum-extraction/manometry in the laboratory 
of C. D. Keeling at SIO. 

An accurately known volume of seawater was injected from an automated to-
deliver (TD) pipette into a stripping chamber. Following acidification, the 
resultant CO2 from continuous gas extraction was dried, and coulometrically 
titrated on a model 5011 UIC Ccoulometer with a maximum titration current of 
50 mA in the counts mode (the number of pulses or counts generated by the 
coulometers VFC during the titration was displayed). In the coulometer cell, 
the acid (hydroxyethylcarbamic acid) formed from the reaction of CO2 and 
ethanolamine is titrated coulometrically (electrolytic generation of OH-) 
with photometric endpoint detection. The product of the time and the current 
passed through the cell during the titration (charge in coulombs) is related 
by Faradays constant to the number of moles of OH- generated and thus to the 
moles of CO2 whichthat reacted with ethanolamine to form the acid. The age of 
each titration cell is logged from its birth (time that electrical current is 
applied to the cell) until its death (time when the current is turned off). 
The age is measured in minutes from birth (chronological age) and in mgC 
titrated since birth (carbon age). 

Each system was controlled with an IBM -compatible PC equipped with two RS232 
serial ports (coulometer and barometer), a 24-line digital input/output card 
(solid state relays and valves), and an analog -to -digital (A/D) card 
(temperature, conductivity, and pressure sensors). Real Time Devices (located 
in State College, PA 16803) manufactured the cards. The SOMMA temperature 
sensors (model LM34CH, National Semiconductor, Santa Clara, CA) with a 
voltage output of 10 mV/F were calibrated against thermistors certified to 
0.02°F prior to the cruise using a certified mercury thermometer. These 
sensors monitored the temperature of SOMMA components, including the pipette, 
gas sample loops, and the coulometer cell. The SOMMA software was written in 
GWBASIC Version 3.20 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA), and the instruments were 
driven from an options menu appearing on the PC monitor. With the coulometers 
operated in the counts mode, conversions and calculations were made using the 
SOMMA software rather than the programs and the constants hardwired into the 
coulometer circuitry. 

The SOMMA-coulometry systems were calibrated with pure CO2 (calibration gas) 
using hardware consisting of an 8-port gas sampling valve (GSV) with two 
sample loops of known volume [determined gravimetrically by the method of 
Wilke, Wallace, and Johnson et al., (1993)] connected to the calibration gas 
through an isolation valve; with the vent side of the GSV was plumbed to a 
barometer. When a gas loop was filled with CO2 at known temperature and 
pressure, the mass (moles) of CO2 contained therein was calculated, and the 
ratio of the calculated mass to that determined coulometrically iwas the 
calibration factor (CALFAC); the CALFAC which was used to correct the 
subsequent sample titrations for small departures from 100% recoveries (DOE, 
1994). The standard operating procedure was to make gas calibrations daily 
for each newly prepared titration cell ([normally, one cell per day and three 
sequential calibrations per cell at a carbon age of 39 mgC (mean age @ 6 
mgC), with the result of the third calibration taken as the CALFAC if it was 
consistent with the second, (i.e., agreement to ± 0.1% or better)]. Daily gas 
calibrations were made on both systems throughout the cruises. 

The "to-deliver" volume (Vcal) of the sample pipettes was determined 
(calibrated) gravimetrically prior to the cruise to ± 0.02% or better in 
October of 1996. The calibration was checked periodically during all cruises 
by collecting aliquots of deionized water dispensed from the pipette into 
pre-weighed serum bottles. The serum bottles were crimp-sealed and weighed 
immediately during the on-shore laboratory calibrations, or returned to shore 
where they were reweighed on a model R300S balance (Sartorius, Gttingen, 
Germany) balance as soon as possible. The apparent weight (g) of water 
collected (Wair) was corrected to the mass in vacuum (Mvac) with the to-
deliver volume being Mvac divided by the density of the calibration fluid at 
the calibration temperature. After the AR24 section in 1996, the system 
pipettes were dismounted and replaced with chemically cleaned pipettes in 
March, 1997. For the 1997 sections, the calibration volumes (Vcal) at the 
calibration temperature (tcal) of the sample pipettes were redetermined to ± 
0.01% from a set of calibration samples taken on July 3, 1997, on aboard the 
Knorr at the completion of section A24 and were weighed on September 17. The 
TCO2 pipette volumes for the four North Atlantic sections are summarized in 
Table 2.  


Table 2: The "to-deliver" pipette volume (Vcal) and calibration temperature 
         (tcal) for the discrete SOMMA-Coulometer Systems (S/N 004 and 030) 
         used on WOCE Section AR24 (1996) and Sections A24, A20, and A22 (1997)

         ______________________________________________________
               Section         System S/N  Vcal (mL)  tcal (C)
          -------------------  ----------  ---------  --------
                  AR24 (1996)      004      21.8927   19.91
           A24/A20/A22 (1997)      004      21.2630   19.19
                  AR24 (1996)      030      21.3733   20.91
           A24/A20/A22 (1997)      030      25.8544   19.52
         ______________________________________________________
    

The sample volume (Vt) at the pipette temperature was calculated from the 
expression:    
                        Vt = Vcal [1 + av (t - tcal)]
    
where av is the coefficient of volumetric expansion for pyrex-type glass (1 X 
10^-5/°C), and t is the temperature of the pipette at the time of a 
measurement. The mean pipette temperature on the AR24 section in 1996 was 
20.32 ± 0.51°C (n = 948), and on the 1997 North Atlantic Sections it was 
19.55 ± 0.52°C (n = 4666). 

The factory-calibrated coulometers were electronically calibrated 
independently in the laboratory before the cruise as described in Johnson et 
al. (1993, 1996) and DOE (1994), and the terms INTec and SLOPEec were 
obtained and entered into the software for each system. The micromoles of 
carbon titrated (M), whether extracted from water samples or the gas loops, 
was: 
          M = [Counts/4824.45-(Blank X Tt )-(INTec X Ti)]/SLOPEec

where 4824.45 (counts/µmol) is a scaling factor obtained from the factory 
calibration; Tt wais the length of the titration in minutes; Blank is the 
system blank in µmol/min; INTec is the intercept from electronic calibration 
in µmol/min; Ti is the time in minutes during the titration where current 
flow was continuous; and SLOPEec is the slope from electronic calibration. 
Note that the slope obtained from the electronic calibration procedure 
applied for the entire length of the titration, but the intercept correction 
applied only for the period of continuous current flow (usually 34 min) 
because the intercept can only be calculated only from calibrated levels of 
current flowing continuously. 

Unfortunately, the coulometer system 030, which was electronically calibrated 
prior to the AR24 cruise and again in March 1997, had to be replaced at the 
start of section A24 in May 1997. However, the replacement coulometer (S/N 
CBE-9010-V) was calibrated at the factory on March 20, 1997. Hence we assumed 
that the replacement coulometer was properly calibrated, and we entered the 
default calibration coefficients into the software (SLOPEec = 1.0 and INTec = 
0.0). The system 004 was also recalibrated in March 1997 following the AR24 
cruise with nearly identical results to those obtained in October 1996, and 
it was not recalibrated during the 1997 WOCE sections. The electronic 
calibration coefficients, along with the mean gas calibration factors 
determined for the North Atlantic section discrete TCO2 coulometers, are 
given in Table 3.

Table 3 illustrates an advantage of the independent laboratory electronic 
calibration procedure. The mean CALFAC for systems 004 and 030 using the 
laboratory-determined electronic calibration coefficients was approximately 
1.0036 (or 99.64% recovery of the theoretical mass of CO2 calibration gas 
measured coulometrically) vs 1.0053 (99.47% recovery) for the factory-
calibrated coulometer. Hence, a small percentage (0.17%) of the less than 
100% recovery for known masses of CO2 coulometrically titrated can be 
explained by a factory-calibration procedure whichthat is apparently slightly 
less accurate than the laboratory calibration. This difference has been 
consistent throughout the CO2 survey. 


Table 3: The electronic calibration and the mean gas calibration coefficients 
         for the discrete TCO2 systems on WOCE Section AR24 (1996) and 
         Sections A24, A20, and A22 (1997)

         __________________________________________________________________________
          Section      System  SLOPE    INT(ec)    CALFAC(n)    St. dev.  Rel. st.
                        S/N    (ec)     µmol/min                          dev. (%)
          -----------  ------ --------  --------  ------------  --------  --------
          AR24          004   0.999372  0.002528  1.003892(9)   0.000650   0.06
          A20/A22/A24   004   0.998905  0.001466  1.003361(63)  0.000740   0.07
          AR24          030   0.999306  0.003550  1.003780(26)  0.000497   0.05
          A20/A22/A24   030*  1.000000  0.000000  1.005344(59)  0.001369   0.13
          ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          *Factory-calibrated coulometer installed at the beginning of the A24 
           section in May 1997.
         __________________________________________________________________________
  

For water samples, the discrete TCO2 concentration in µmol/kg was calculated 
from:
                    TCO2 = M X CALFAC X [1/(Vt X P)] X dHg

where P is the density of sea water in g/mL at the measurement temperature 
and sample salinity calculated from the equation of state given by Millero 
and Poisson (1981), and dHg is the correction for sample dilution with 
bichloride solution (for the AR24 section in 1996 dHg = 1.0002 and for the 
1997 sections dHg = 1.000333). 

One of the SOMMA-Coulometry Systems (S/N 004) was equipped with a conductance 
cell (Model SBE-4, Sea-Bird Electronics, Inc., Bellevue, WA) for the 
determination of salinity measurement as described by Johnson et al. (1993). 
Whenever possible SOMMA and CTD salinity were compared to identify mistrips 
or other anomalies, but the bottle salinity (furnished by the chief 
scientist) was used to calculate TCO2. 

Quality control-quality assurance (QC-QA) was assessed from the results of 
the 275 CRM analyses made using systems 004 and 030 during the four North 
Atlantic sections. These data are summarized in Table 4, and the temporal 
distribution of the differences is plotted in Fig. 2 for section AR24 (1996) 
and in Fig. 3 for sections A24, A20, and A24 (1997). 


Table 4: The mean analytical difference (?TCO2 = measured ? certified) and 
         the standard deviation of the differences between measured and 
         certified TCO2 on WOCE Sections AR24, A24, A20, and A22
    
         _______________________________________________
          Section     System   ∆ TCO2     St. dev.   n
                       S/N    (µmol/kg)  (µmol/kg)
          ----------  ------  ---------  ---------  ---
            AR24       004      1.42       2.10      16
            AR24       030      1.54       1.88      49
          Mean/total            1.51       1.92      65
            A24        004      0.04       1.10      49
            A20        004      0.23       1.20      42
            A22        004      0.06       0.69      17
          Mean/total            0.10       1.08     108
            A24        030      0.79       1.00      48
            A20        030      0.44       1.43      35
            A22        030      0.26       1.22      19
          Mean/total            0.57       1.21     102
          Overall mean/total    0.61       1.47     275
         _______________________________________________
 

The overall accuracy of the CRM analyses was better than 1 µmol/kg on both 
systems for the four North Atlantic sections, with a combined overall mean 
difference of + 0.61 µmol/kg (n = 275). However, Table 4 shows that on the 
AR24 section (1996), the mean difference and the standard deviation of the 
differences were noticeably larger for both systems compared towith the 1997 
sections (A24/A20/A22). This may be due in part to mechanical problems 
experienced by the AR24 measurement group, operator procedures, and possibly 
the relatively short time available to service and re-calibrate the systems 
prior to the AR24 section. The latter was brought about by the fact that the 
system 004 had been used in the Indian Ocean from 1994-1996, and was only 
returned to BNL for service, repair, and re-calibration in the fall of 1996. 
System 030, which was a newly built system returned to the laboratory after a 
test cruise in the North Atlantic, also was not returned until the summer of 
1996. For the 1997 sections, both systems were available in the laboratory 
for servicing from January through May of 1997. Indeed, the 1997 WOCE 
sections represented the only opportunity during the CO2 survey for the BNL 
measurement group to thoroughly service and test the systems, reagents, and 
analytical gases in the laboratory with real samples and CRM prior to 
shipment. As a result, the accuracy and precision of the CRM analyses made in 
1997 (see Table 4) probably represents the highest quality possible for these 
systems under field conditions. 

All CRM analyses made on the discrete systems (004 and 030) during the 1997 
sections are reported in Table 4. However, for section AR24, two CRM analyses 
were classified as outliers and dropped from the data set. These were CRM No. 
206 run on system 030 on November 23 (difference = + 10.17 µmol/kg) at a cell 
carbon age of 39.5 mgC, and CRM No. 600 on system 030 on November 28 
(difference = + 7.99 µmol/kg) at a carbon age of 35.7 mgC. One CRM analysis 
(CRM No. 352) run on system 004 on December 1 is not included in the data set 
because the titration did not attain an endpoint.   

The second phase of the QC-QA procedure was an assessment of precision. As 
described in the text, duplicate samples could not be taken during the AR24 
section in 1996. Hence the only estimate of AR24 sample precision was the 
standard deviation of the differences between the measured and certified TCO2 on 
both systems (see Table 4). Because differences from both systems have been 
combined, the CRM measurements are analogous to the sample duplicates analyzed 
on each system and should reflect both random and systemic error (bias). The 
decrease in precision for the CRM analyzed on the AR24 section in 1996 (± 1.92 
µmol/kg) compared towith the CRM analyzed in 1997 (± 1.20 µmol/kg) was 
consistent with the problems described for the 1996 leg. The good agreement in 
TCO2 between systems in 1996 (see Table 4) suggests that the analyzingsis of 
duplicate seawater samples on each system, as was the casedone in 1997, might 
have yielded a higher precision than the precision of the CRM differences. 
Nevertheless, without sample duplicates, the AR24 sample precision must be based 
on the CRM analyses. Hence the precision of the TCO2 determination for the AR24 
section in 1996 was ± 1.92 µmol/kg (n = 65). Because procedures and performance 
varied from 1996 to 1997, separate estimates of sample precision were required 
for each year; and the data for 1997 are given in Table 5.

By 1997 the deployment of two independent SOMMA systems side-by-side was 
routine, and the conventions employed for the estimation of precision in the 
earlier WOCE data reports are retained in Table 5. For sections A24, A20, and 
A22 in 1997, the single-system precision was determined from samples with 
duplicates analyzed on the same system (either 004 or 030). The sample 
precision was calculated using duplicates that were analyzed on both systems 
(004 and 030).


Table 5: Precision of the discrete TCO2 analyses on WOCE Sections A24, A20, and A22

         ___________________________________________________________________
          Section | Mean absolute difference | Pooled standard deviation
                  |--------------------------|-----------|-----------------
                  |    σbs    | ± St. |  K   |   Sp^2    |  K  |  n  | d.f.
                  | (µmol/kg) |  dev. |      | (µmol/kg) |     |     |     
          --------|--------------------------------------------------------
                  |                Single-system precision
          --------|--------------------------------------------------------
            A24   |   1.08    | 1.01  | 175  |   1.04    | 175 | 350 | 175
            A20   |   0.95    | 1.14  |  84  |   1.04    |  84 | 168 |  84
            A22   |   0.99    | 0.93  |  71  |   0.96    |  71 | 142 |  71
          --------|--------------------------------------------------------
                  |                   Sample precision
          --------|--------------------------------------------------------
            All   |   1.76    | 1.41  |  56  |   1.59    |  61 | 122 |  61
         ___________________________________________________________________


Single-system and sample precision have been separately assessed in Table 5 as:

 • "between-sample" precision (σbs), which is the mean absolute difference 
   between duplicates (n=2) drawn from the same Niskin bottle; and
 • the pooled standard deviation (Sp^2) calculated according to Youden (1951), 
   where K was the number of samples with duplicates analyzed, n was the total
   number of replicates analyzed from K samples, and n - K was the degrees of 
   freedom (d.f.).

Single-system precision provided a measure of drift in system response during 
a sequence of sample analyses. This is because the time elapsed between 
duplicate analyses on the same system using the same coulometer cell was 
deliberately kept at from 3 to 12 hours on the assumption that drift or change 
in response would be reflected in the single-system precision by an increase 
in the imprecision of the duplicate analyses. Sample precision, on the other 
hand, was measured because TCO2 measurements were made on two separate systems 
and an estimate of overall sample precision for the section (s), independent 
of which analytical system was used, was required. Sample precision is the 
most conservative estimate of precision, incorporating several sources of 
random or systematic (bias) error.

As on other sections in the Atlantic Ocean (e.g., A8 and A10) where SOMMA-
Ccoulometer systems have been run in parallel, the sample precision was 
slightly less precise than the single-system precision. This indicated that 
changes in system response during the coulometer cell lifetime in 1997 were 
clearly within the precision of the method (± 1.59 µmol/kg), while the slight 
but consistent decrease in sample precision compared towith single-system 
precision was probably due at least in part to a small bias between the 004 
and 030 systems. Although the precision was equivalent for both systems, 
system 030 gave on average slightly higher results than system 004. For 
example, the mean ∆TCO2 for system 004 CRM was +0.10 µmol/kg, but it was +0.57 
µmol/kg for system 030 CRM (see Table 4); while the mean of the seawater 
samples (n = 56, Table 5) analyzed on 030 was +1.17 µmol/kg higher than the 
mean for the same samples analyzed on system 004. Hence the uniformly 
excellent single-system precisions for 1997 can not be used for sample 
precision, and analyzing duplicate replicates on each system remains the 
definitive measure of the overall precision of the 1997 data set and the TCO2 
calibration procedures. The two discrete systems should give the same result 
for the same sample, and the extent to which they differ is a measure of the 
overall precision of the data set obtained with two independent systems. For 
TCO2 on the 1997 North Atlantic WOCE sections, the precision of the TCO2 
determination was ± 1.59 µmol/kg (K= 56). 

The North Atlantic sample precision for all four sections in 1996 and 1997 (± 
1.92 and ± 1.59 µmol/kg, respectively) is in good agreement with the published 
and unpublished sample precision for other WOCE sections where systems were 
run in parallel: AE1, 1991 (± 1.65 µmol/kg); P6, 1992 (± 1.65 µmol/kg); A10, 
1993 (± 1.92 µmol/kg); A8, 1994 (± 1.17 µmol/kg); Indian Ocean, 1995 (± 1.20 
µmol/kg). During the 1997 North Atlantic sections, a limited number of 
duplicate samples (K = 6) were analyzed from two different Niskin bottles 
closed at the same depth, and the mean absolute difference and standard 
deviation was 0.77 ± 0.50 µmol/kg, which was consistent with earlier findings 
(e.g., Johnson et al., 1998a,; Johnson et al. 2001) that there were likely no 
significant analytical effects due to gas exchange with the overlying 
headspace of the Niskin bottles during sampling. 

Tables 4 and 5 show an internally consistent data set of high quality with 
excellent accuracy (< or = 2.0 µmol/kg), high single-system precision (< or = 
± 1.0 µmol/kg), and a slightly higher imprecision for the sample precisions (± 
1.59 - 1.92 µmol/kg). Based on these data, the TCO2 data clearly meet survey 
criteriaon for accuracy (< or = 4.0 µmol/kg) and precision, and as with 
previous data submissions, no correction for instrumental bias or CRM 
analytical differences has been applied to the TCO2 data. 


3.3.  Total Alkalinity Measurements

TALK and pH, were measured using an automated potentiometric titration system 
developed at the University of Miami (hereafter designated as MATS). The MATS 
is described by Millero et al. (1993a). It consisted of two parts: a Metrohm 
model 665 Dosimat titrator and a pH meter (Orion, Model 720A) which are 
interfaced with a PC. A water-jacketed, fixed -volume (~200 mL), closed 
Plexiglass sample cell, of greater volume than but otherwise similar to those 
used by Bradshaw and Brewer (1988), was used to increase the precision of the 
measurements. The cell, titrant burette, and sample cell were theromstatted at 
25 ± 0.05°C using a constant temperature bath (Neslab, Model RTE 221). A Lab 
Windows/CVI program was used to run the titrators, record the volume of 
titrant added, and to record the measured electromagnetic frequency (emf) of 
the electrodes through RS232 serial interfaces. The electrodes for measuring 
the emf during the titration consisted of a ROSS glass pH electrode (Orion, 
Model 810100) and a double-junction Ag/AgCl reference electrode (Orion, Model 
900200). 

Seawater samples were titrated by adding enough HCl to exceed the carbonic 
acid end point of the titration. During a typical titration, the electro-
magnetic frequency (emf) readings were recorded until stable (± 0.05 mV). 
Normally, at this point, a fixed volume of acid would be added,; however, the 
MATS were designed to add enough acid to increase the voltage by a pre-
assigned increment (13 mV). This was done to give an even distribution of data 
points over the course of a full titration, which consists of 25 data points 
and takes about 20 minutes. With two systems, approximately 7 hours was 
required to run a 31-bottle station cast. As noted in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 
above, a 4-L Niskin sampling bottles were employed on the rosette, which 
limited the amount of sample available for the carbonate system analysts to 
one 500-mL bottle. Hence there was not enough sample to complete duplicate 
alkalinity analyses from the same bottle or to draw duplicate samples from the 
same sampling bottle. 

The titrant (acid) used throughout the cruises was prepared, standardized, and 
stored in 500-mL borosilicate glass bottles for use in the field. A single 55-
gallon batch of 0.25-m HCl acid was prepared by dilution of concentrated HCl 
(AR Select  Mallinckrodt). The acid was prepared in 0.45 m NaCl to yield a 
total ionic strength similar to that of seawater salinity 35.0 (I = ~ 0.7 M). 
The acid was standardized by coulometry (Taylor and Smith, 1959; Marinenko and 
Taylor, 1968). The acid molality was also checked by titration on seawaters 
with known alkalinities, and sub samples were sent to the laboratory of A. 
Dickson at SIO for an independent laboratory determination of the molality. 
The calibrated molality of the acid used for the North Atlantic WOCE Sections 
was 0.24892 ± 0.00003 m HCl. 

The consistency of the method was checked for each cast using low -nutrient 
surface seawater, and the accuracy of the method was checked by analyzing CRM 
Batches 33 (1996), 36, and 37 (1997) and comparing the analyzed values with 
the certified TALK in the same manoner as for TCO2 (see also Section 3.2 for 
batch data). The mean differences between at-sea measurements and the 
certified TALK values are given in Table 6. The TALK of each batch was also 
determined in the laboratory by weight titrations, which were found to agree 
with the certified values to ± 2 µmol/kg. In addition, the pH of the CRM 
batches was also determined in the laboratory spectrophotometrically according 
to the methods of Clayton and Byrne (1993) prior to the cruise. The at-sea 
titration pH measurements were also compared towith the pre-cruise 
spectrophotometric values, and and the reader is referred to Millero et al. 
(1999) for further details. 


Table 6: The mean analytical difference between analyzed and certified TALK 
         for the MATS on WOCE Section AR24 (1996), and Sections A24, A20, and 
         A22 (1997)
                                  
         __________________________________________________________
                                  CRM TALK  Measured TALK   ∆TALK
          Section   Cells     n   µmol/kg      µmol/kg     µmol/kg
          ------  ---------  ---  --------  -------------  -------
           AR24   2, 19, 17   59   2234.9      2233.3       -1.6
           A24    2, 18, 12  148   2283.9      2283.3       -0.6
           A20    2, 18, 12   96   2314.1      2217.1        3.0
           A22    2, 12       65   2314.1      2215.4        1.3
         __________________________________________________________


The mean differences between the at -sea measurements and the certified TALK 
were within 3.0µmol/kg (Table 6). Hence the measured and certified TALK were 
in good agreement. For pH and TCO2, the corresponding results were 0.021 and 9 
µmol/kg, respectively, with the larger deviation in pH attributable to the 
non-Nernstian behavior of the electrodes near a pH of 8 (Millero et al., 
1993b).
 
The at -sea sample alkalinity titrations were corrected using the results for 
the CRM. For TALK, the CALFAC used to correct the at sea measurements was:

              CALFAC = CRM (certified value)/(at- sea value),

and for pH the CALFAC was:

                       pH = pH (CRM)/pH (at-sea).

Duplicate samples were usually taken for each station in the same manner as 
for TCO2 (surface and deep) and analyzed to determine and monitor the 
precision of the MATS. The average difference between replicates was ± 1.0, 
±1.1, and ± 1.1 µmol/kg for sections A24, A20, and A22, respectively, which 
demonstrated the high precision of the MATS throughout the study. A 
preliminary description of the major trends in the data and the behavior of 
alkalinity over time in the North Atlantic is given by Millero et al. (1999).   


3.4.  Discrete pCO2 Measurements

The discrete measurements of pCO2 were performed by the LDEO group on three of 
four sections of the North Atlantic survey. During the WOCE sections A24, A20, 
and A22, a total of 2,465 samples were analyzed onboard the R/V Knorr (1,103, 
595, and 767 samples respectively). On the earlier WOCE section AR24, discrete 
pCO2 was not measured.

An automated equilibrator-infrared (IR) gas analyzer system was used during 
the expedition for the determination of partial pressure of CO2 in the 
seawater samples. Its design is similar to that described by Chipman et al., 
Marra, and Takahashi (1993) with the exception that the gas chromatograph was 
replaced with an infraredIR gas analyzer. The equilibrator-IR system is shown 
schematically in Fig. 4.  

The system consists of a circulation pump plumbed to re-circulate air in a 
closed system through porous plastic gas dispersers immersed in a 250 -mL 
seawater sample. The seawater sample is contained in a 250-mL Pyrex reagent 
bottle with a standard taper-ground glass stopper whichthat serves as an 
equilibration vessel. A Pyrex extension tube (~ 20 mL), thatwhich has a standard 
taper-ground glass male-joint to form an air-tight seal with the reagent bottle, 
is connected to the mouth of the reagent bottle to provide an extra headspace 
forto preventing seawater from entering the gas circulation line. Four sets of 
flasks and circulation pumps are used so that four water samples can be 
processed concurrently. Because the partial pressure of CO2 is sensitive to 
temperature, the equilibration flasks are kept immersed in a water bath 
maintained at 20°C. The temperature at which the water sample is equilibrated 
with circulating gas is measured with a precision of ± 0.01°C and is recorded. 

An electrically driven Valco 10-port valve (the equilibrator selection valve 
in Fig. 4) is used to isolate each of the equilibrators during the initial 
equilibration. Manually operated 2-way and 3-way Whitey valves allow the 
headspace in each equilibrator to be filled with a calibration gas of known 
CO2 concentration, creating a known initial condition for the headspace (about 
40 mL) before equilibration. The equilibrator is open to the laboratory air 
through isolation coils attached to the low-pressure side of the equilibrator, 
keeping the total pressure of equilibration the same as the ambient 
atmospheric pressure. The atmospheric pressure is measured with a high-
precision electronic barometer with an accuracy of better than 0.05%, and is 
recorded. It takes about 20 minutes for each water sample to be thermally 
equilibrated with the constant-temperature water bath, and the headspace gas 
is re-circulated through the water sample throughout the period to iensure CO2 
equilibration. 

An electrically driven Valco 6-port valve (the sample selection valve in Fig. 
4) is connected to the equilibrator election valve and to the calibration gas 
selection valve. This allows toselection of the gas sample to be analyzed for 
CO2: the equilibrated sample gas or one of the four calibration gases. A 2-way 
normally-closed Skinner solenoid valve on the output of the calibration gas 
selection valve controls the flow of the calibration gases to the sample 
selection valve. It also providesd a necessary second means of stopping the 
flow of the calibration gases to prevent their accidental loss in case of a 
control malfunction. The concentration of CO2 in the gas equilibrated with the 
seawater sample is determined using IR gas analyzer (LICOR Model 6125) in a 
flow-through mode. A 0.5-mL aliquot of equilibrated headspace gas, 
representing less than 1% of the circulating gas, is isolated using a gas 
pipette (attached to the sampling valve in Fig. 4), and swept with CO2-free 
air (or pure nitrogen gas) flowing at a constant rate of about 50 mL/min. For 
low-pCO2 samples, a 1-mL gas pipette (attached to the sampling valve) is used. 
The sample gas is passed through a permeation drying tube for the removal of 
water vapor, and injected into the infraredIR gas analyzer cell (about 7 mL in 
volume) filled previously with CO2-free air. The displaced CO2-free air is 
discharged out of the cell into the laboratory. The small volume of the gas 
sample iensures that all of the CO2 from the gas pipette areis found in the 
analyzer cell at the same time, so that the peak height is proportional to the 
amount of CO2 present in the gas pipette. Drying of the sample gas avoids the 
effects of pressure-broadening of the CO2 absorption spectra and of dilution 
caused by water vapor. The amount of CO2 in the sampling pipette is a function 
of the loop volume, temperature, and pressure. The temperature is held 
constant and measured, and the pressure of the sample gas is same as the 
barometric pressure, which is measured with an accuracy of better than 0.05%. 
The peak height, which represents the number of moles of CO2 in the sample 
gas, is calibrated every 1.5 hours using a quadratic equation fitted to three 
calibration gas mixtures (366.52, 788.8 and 1211.4 ppm mole fraction in dry 
air).

The analytical procedure begins with water samples being drawn from the 10-L 
Niskin bottles off a rosette directly into 250-mL Pyrex reagent bottles. These 
served as both sample containers and equilibration vessels. The samples were 
immediately inoculated with 100 µL of 50% saturated mercuric chloride 
solution, sealed airtight with ground glass stoppers to prevent biological 
modification of the pCO2, and stored in the dark until analysis. Measurements 
were normally performed within 24 hours of sampling. A headspace of 3 to 5 mL 
was left above the water to allow for thermal expansion during storage. Prior 
to analysis, the sample flasks were brought to the water bath temperature of 
20°C in the constant -temperature bath. The equilibrator headspace, including 
the extension tube and the gas circulation tubings, wasere filled with a 
calibration gas of known CO2 concentration. The gas in the equilibrators, and 
in the tubing that connects them to the gas pipette loop, was re circulated 
continuously for about 20 minutes through a gas disperser immersed in the 
water. This provided a large surface area for gas exchange between the sample 
water and circulating gas, and equilibrium for CO2 was attained in 15 minutes. 
The temperature of the bath water was assumed to be that forf the sample 
water, and was measured at the time of equilibration with a precision of 
±0.01°C using a thermometer calibrated against a NIST-certified thermometer. 
This temperature is reported in the data tables as TEMP_PCO2 and showed no 
variation at a limit of ±0.01°C.

The equilibrated air samples awere saturated with water vapor at the 
temperature of equilibration and had the same pCO2 as the water. By injecting 
the air aliquot into the infraredIR analyzer after the water vapor iswas 
removed, the concentration of CO2 was measured. Therefore, the effect of water 
vapor must be taken into consideration for computing pCO2 as follows: 

     pCO2 (µatm) = [Cmeas (ppm)] X [total press. of equilibration (atm)
                         - water vapor press. (atm)]

where Cmeas is the mole fraction concentration of CO2 in dried equilibrated 
air. The total pressure of equilibrated air is measured by having the 
headspace in the equilibrator flask always at atmospheric pressure. The latter 
was measured with an electronic barometer at the time each equilibrated air 
sample iwas injected into the IR analyzer for CO2 determination. The water 
vapor pressure was computed at the equilibration temperature, and salinity of 
the seawater. Cmeas was determined by using a quadratic equation fit to three 
of the calibration gas mixtures.

The concentrations for standard gases used are traceable to the WMO reference 
scale through analysis in the laboratories of C. D. Keeling of SIO (La Jolla, 
California) and of Pieter P. Tans of NOAA/CMDL (Boulder, Colorado). The values 
of the standard gas mixtures used during this cruise were: 366.52 ppm CO2, 
788.0 ppm CO2, and 1211.4 ppm CO2.

Corrections were made to account for the change in pCO2 of the sample water 
due to the transfer of CO2 between the water and circulating air during 
equilibration. We know the pCO2 in equilibrated, perturbed water and the TCO2 
by coulometry before the equilibration. We can also calculate the change in 
TCO2 in the water based on the change in pCO2 between the post-equilibrium 
value and the known concentration in the pre-equilibrium condition. With the 
pre-equilibrium TCO2 plus the perturbation in TCO2 during equilibration, the 
post-equilibrium TCO2 value was obtained. Using the post-equilibrium TCO2 and 
measured pCO2 values, TALK at the end of the equilibration was calculated, 
knowingbased ousing the temperature, salinity, phosphate, and silicate data. 
Since the perturbation does NOT change the TALK, the pre-equilibrium pCO2 from 
the pre-equilibrium TCO2 was calculated, the calculated TALK, and the 
temperature, salinity, etc., were calculated. This is the value that was 
reported as pCO2, the pre-equilibrium calculated value. The magnitude of this 
correction is generally less than 2 µatm. Details of the computational scheme 
are presented in a DOE technical report by Takahashi, et al. (1998). 

The pCO2 values reported in this data set are expressed as micro-atmospheres 
at the temperature of equilibration. The precision of the pCO2 measurement for 
a single hydrographic station was estimated to be about ±0.15% based on the 
reproducibility of replicate equilibrations. The station-to-station 
reproducibility was estimated to be about ±0.5%.


4. DATA CHECKS AND PROCESSING PERFORMED BY CDIAC

An important part of the numeric data packaging process at the Carbon Dioxide 
Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) involves the quality assurance (QA) of 
data before distribution. Data received at CDIAC are rarely in a condition 
that would permit immediate distribution, regardless of the source. To 
guarantee data of the highest possible quality, CDIAC conducts extensive QA 
reviews that involve examining the data for completeness, reasonableness, and 
accuracy. The QA process is a critical component in the value-added concept of 
supplying accurate, usable data for researchers. 

The following information summarizes the data processing and QA checks 
performed by CDIAC on the data obtained during the R/V Knorr cruise along WOCE 
Sections AR24, A24, A20, and A22 in the North Atlantic Ocean.

 • The final carbon-related data were provided to CDIAC by the ocean carbon 
   measurement PIprincipal investigators listed in  Section 2. The final 
   hydrographic and chemical measurements and the station  information files 
   were provided by the WOCE  Hydrographic Program Office (WHPO) after 
   quality evaluation. A FORTRAN 90 retrieval code was written and used to 
   merge  and reformat all data files.

 • Every measured parameter for each station was plotted vs depth (pressure) 
   to identify questionable data points using the  Ocean Data View (ODV) 
   software (Schlitzer 2001) Station Mode (Fig. 5).

 • Section plots for every parameter were generated using ODVs Section Mode 
   in order to map a general distribution of each  property along all North 
   Atlantic Ocean sections (Fig. 6).

 • To identify noisy data and possible systematic, methodological errors, 
   property-property plots were generated (Fig. 7)  for all parameters, 
   carefully examined, and compared with plots from previous expeditions in 
   the North Atlantic.

 • All variables were checked for values exceeding physical limits, such as 
   sampling depth values that are greater than the  given bottom depths.

 • Dates, times, and coordinates were checked for bogus values (e.g., values 
   of MONTH < 1 or > 12; DAY < 1 or > 31;  YEAR < 1996 or > 1997; TIME < 0000 
   or > 2400; LATITUDE < 7.000 or > 67.000; LONGITUDE < -68.000 or > -8.000. 

 • Station locations (latitudes and longitudes) and sampling times were 
   examined for consistency with map and cruise  information supplied by 
   PIprincipal investigators.

 • The designation for missing values, given as -9.0 in the original files, 
   was changed to -999.9 for the consistency  with other oceanographic data 
   sets.


5. HOW TO OBTAIN THE DATA AND DOCUMENTATION (frrom CDIAC)

This data base (NDP-082) is available free of charge from CDIAC. The complete 
documentation and data can be obtained from the CDIAC oceanographic Web site 
(http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/doc.html), through CDIAC's online ordering system 
(http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/how_order.html), or by contacting CDIAC (see below). 

The data are also available from CDIACs anonymous file transfer protocol (FTP) 
area via the Internet. Please note that, to access these files, your computer 
needs tomust have FTP software loaded on it (this is built in to most newer 
operating systems). Use the following commands to obtain the data base. 

                   ftp cdiac.ornl.gov or >ftp 160.91.18.18
                   Login: anonymous or ftp
                   Password: your e-mail address
                   ftp> cd pub/ndp082/
                   ftp> dir
                   ftp> mget (files)
                   ftp> quit
    
Contact information:

                   Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
                   Oak Ridge National Laboratory
                   P.O. Box 2008
                   Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6335
                   U.S.A.
                   
                   Telephone:  (865) 574-3645     
                   Telefax:    (865) 574-2232 
                   E-mail:     cdiac@ornl.gov 
                   Internet:   http://cdiac.ornl.gov/


6. REFERENCES


Armstrong, F. A. J., C. R. Stearns, and J. D. H. Strickland. 1967. The 
    measurement of upwelling and subsequent biological processes by means of 
    the Technicon AutoAnalyzer and associated equipment. Deep-Sea Research 
    14:381-9.

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

Bernhardt, H. and A. Wilhelms. 1967. The continuous determination of low-
    level iron, soluble phosphate and total phosphate with the AutoAnalyzer. 
    Technicon Symposia 1:385-9.

Bradshaw, A. L. and P. G. Brewer. 1988. High-precision measurements of 
    alkalinity and total carbon dioxide in seawater by potentiometric 
    titration: 1. Presence of unknown protolyte (s). Marine Chemistry 
    28:69-86.

Brewer, P. G., C. Goyet, and D. Dyrssen. 1989. Carbon dioxide transport by 
    ocean currents at 25° N latitude in the Atlantic Ocean. Science 
    246:477-79.

Bryden, H. L., and M. M. Hall. 1980. Heat transport by ocean currents across 
    25° N latitude in the North Atlantic Ocean. Science 207:884.

Carpenter, J. H. 1965. The Chesapeake Bay Institute technique for the Winkler 
    dissolved oxygen method. Limnology and Oceanography 10:141-3.

Chipman, D. W., J. Marra, and T. Takahashi. 1993. Primary production at 47° N 
    and 20° W in the North Atlantic Ocean: A comparison between the 14C 
    incubation method and the mixed layer carbon budget. Deep-Sea Research 
    40:151-69.

Clayton, T. and R. H. Byrne. 1993. Calibration of m-cresol purple on the 
    total hydrogen ion concentration scale and its application to CO2-system 
    characteristics in seawater. Deep-Sea Research 40:2115-29.

Culberson, C. H., G. Knapp, M. Stalcup, R. T. Williams, and F. Zemlyak. 1991. 
    A Comparison of Methods for the Determination of Dissolved Oxygen in 
    Seawater. WHP Office Report, WHPO 91-2. WOCE Hydrographic Program Office, 
    Woods Hole, Mass. U.S.A.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1994. Handbook of Methods for the Analysis 
    of the Various Parameters of the Carbon Dioxide System in Seawater. 
    Version 2.0. ORNL/CDIAC-74. A.G.Dickson and C. Goyet (eds.). Carbon 
    Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak 
    Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A. 

Gordon, L. I., J. C. Jennings, Jr., A. A. Ross, and J. M. Krest. 1992. A 
    Suggested Protocol for Continuous Flow Automated Analysis of Seawater 
    Nutrients (Phosphate, Nitrate, Nitrite and Silicic Acid) in the WOCE 
    Hydrographic Program and the Joint Global Ocean Fluxes Study. Grp. Tech. 
    Rpt. 92-1. Chemical Oceanography Group, Oregon State University, College 
    of Oceanography, Oregon, U.S.A.

Gordon, L. I., J. C. Jennings, Jr., A. A. Ross, and J. M. Krest. 1994. A 
    Suggested Protocol for Continuous Flow Automated Analysis of Seawater 
    Nutrients (Phosphate, Nitrate, Nitrite Aand Silicic Acid) in the WOCE 
    Hydrographic Program and the Joint Global Ocean Fluxes Study. In WOCE 
    Operations Manual. WHP Office Report WHPO 91-1. WOCE Report No. 68/91. 
    Revision 1. Woods Hole, Mass., U.S.A.

Hager, S. W., E. L. Atlas, L. I. Gordon, A. W. Mantyla, and P. K. Park. 1972. 
    A comparison at sea of manual and autoanalyzer analyses of phosphate, 
    nitrate, and silicate. Limnology and Oceanography 17:931-7.

Holfort, J., K. M. Johnson, B. Schneider, G. Siedler, and D. W. R. Wallace. 
    1998. Meridional transport of dissolved inorganic carbon in the South 
    Atlantic Ocean. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 12:479-499.

Huffman, E. W. D., Jr. 1977. Performance of a new automatic carbon dioxide 
    coulometer. Microchemical Journal 22:567-73.

Johnson, K. M., A. E. King, and J. McN. Sieburth. 1985. Coulometric TCO2 
    analyses for marine studies: An introduction. Marine Chemistry 16:61-82.

Johnson, K. M., P. J. Williams, and L. Brandstroem, and J. McN. Sieburth. 
    1987. Coulometric TCO2 analysis for marine studies:  Automation and 
    calibration. Marine Chemistry 21:117-33.

Johnson, K. M., and D. W. R. Wallace. 1992. The Single-operator 
    Multiparameter Metabolic Analyzer for Total Carbon Dioxide with 
    Coulometric Detection. DOE Research Summary No. 19. Carbon Dioxide 
    Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, 
    Tenn., U.S.A.

Johnson, K. M., K. D. Wills, D. B. Butler, W. K. Johnson, and C. S. Wong. 
    1993. Coulometric total carbon dioxide analysis for marine studies: 
    Maximizing the performance of an automated gas extraction system and 
    coulometric detector. Marine Chemistry 44:167-87.

Johnson, K. M., D. W. R. Wallace, R. J. Wilke, and C. Goyet. 1995. Carbon 
    Dioxide, Hydrographic, and Chemical Data Obtained During the R/V Meteor 
    Cruise 15/3 in the South Atlantic Ocean (WOCE Section A9, February-March 
    1991). ORNL/CDIAC-82, NDP-051. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis 
    Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.

Johnson, K. M., B. Schneider, L. Mintrop, and D. W. R. Wallace. 1996. Carbon 
    Dioxide, Hydrographic, and Chemical Data Obtained During the R/V Meteor 
    Cruise 18/1 in the North Atlantic Ocean (WOCE Section A1E, September 
    1991). NDP-056. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), Oak 
    Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.

Johnson, K. M., B. Schneider, L. Mintrop, and D. W. R. Wallace. 1998a. Carbon 
    Dioxide, Hydrographic, and Chemical Data Obtained During the R/V Meteor 
    Cruise 22/5 in the South Atlantic Ocean (WOCE Section A10, December 1992-
    January 1993). ORNL/CDIAC-113, NDP-066. Carbon Dioxide Information 
    Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn. 49 pp.

Johnson, K. M., A. G. Dickson, G. Eischeid, C. Goyet, P. R. Guenther, R. M. 
    Key, F. J. Millero, D. Purkerson, C. L. Sabine, R. G. Schotle, D. W. R. 
    Wallace, R. J. Wilke, and  C. D. Winn. 1998b. Coulometric total carbon 
    dioxide analysis for marine studies: Assessment of the quality of total 
    inorganic carbon measurements made during the U.S. Indian Ocean CO2 
    Survey 1994-1996. Marine Chemistry 63:21-37.

Johnson, K. M., M. Haines, R. M. Key, C. Neill, B. Tilbrook, R. Wilke, and 
    D.W.R. Wallace. 2001. Carbon Dioxide, Hydrographic, and Chemical Data 
    Obtained During the R/V Knorr Cruises 138-3, -4, and -5 in the South 
    Pacific Ocean (WOCE Sections P6E, P6C, and P6W, May 2 - July 30, 1992). 
    ORNL/CDIAC-132, NDP-077. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak 
    Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn. 53 pp.

Knapp, G. P., M. C. Stalcup, and R. J. Stanley. 1990. Automated Oxygen and 
    Salinity Determination. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Technical 
    Report No. WHOI-90-35. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, 
    Mass., U.S.A.

Marinenko, G. and J. K. Taylor. 1968. Electrochemical equivalents of benzoic 
    and oxalic acid. Analytical Chemistry 40:1645-51. 

Millard, R. C. and K. Yang. 1993. CTD Calibration and Processing Methods Used 
    at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Woods Hole Oceanographic 
    Institution Technical Report. WHOI 93-44. Woods Hole Oceanographic 
    Institution, Woods Hole, Mass., U.S.A.

Millero, F. J., and A. Poisson. 1981. International one-atmosphere equation 
    of state for seawater. Deep-Sea Research 28:625-29.

Millero, F. J., J. Z. Zhang, S. Fiol, S. Sotolongo, R. Roy, K. Lee, and S. 
    Mane. 1993a. The use of buffers to measure the pH of seawater. Marine 
    Chemistry 44:143-152.

Millero, F. J., J. Z. Zhang, K. Lee, and D. M. Campbell. 1993b. Titration 
    alkalinity of seawater. Marine Chemistry 44:153-156.

Millero, F. J., F. Huang, M. Galanter, J. Goen, C. Sabine, C. Thomas, and R. 
    Rotter. 1999. The Total Alkalinity of North Atlantic Waters. University 
    of Miami Technical Report, No. RSMAS-99-002. University of Miami, Miami, 
    Florida.

Roemmich, D., and C. Wunsch. 1985. Two transatlantic sections: Meridional 
    circulation and heat flux in the subtropical North Atlantic Ocean. Deep-
    Sea Research 32:619-64.

Schlitzer, R. 2001. Ocean Data View. http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/GEO/ODV. 
    Online publication. Alfred-Wegener-Institute for Polar and Marine 
    Research. Bremerhaven, Germany.

Strickland, J. D. H. and T. R. Parsons. 1972. The Practical Handbook of 
    Seawater Analysis. Bulletin 167, Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 
    310 pp. 

Takahashi, T., D. W. Chipman, S. Rubin, J. Goddard, and S. C. Sutherland. 
    1998. Measurements of the Total CO2 Concentration and Partial Pressure of 
    CO2 in Seawater during WOCE Expeditions P-16, P-17 and P-19 in the South 
    Pacific Ocean, October, 1992 - April, 1993. Final Technical Report of 
    Grant No. DE-FGO2-93ER61539 to U. S. Department of Energy, Lamont-Doherty 
    Earth Observatory, Palisades, N.Y. 10964, pp. 124.

Taylor, J. K. and S. W. Smith. 1959. Precise coulometric titration of acids 
    and bases. Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards 
    63A:153-9.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). 
    1981. Background papers and supporting data on the practical salinity 
    scale, 1978. UNESCO Technical Papers in Marine Science 37:144.

Wallace, D. W. R. 2002. Storage and transport of excess CO2 in the oceans: 
    The JGOFS/WOCE Gglobal CO2 survey. In J. Church, G. Siedler, and J. Gould 
    (eds.). Ocean Circulation and Climate, Academic Press, 489-521.

Wilke, R. J., D. W. R. Wallace, and K. M. Johnson. 1993. A water-based, 
    gravimetric method for the determination of gas sample loop volume. 
    Analiytical Chemistry 65:2403-2406

Youden, W. J. 1951. Statistical Methods for Chemists. Wiley, New York.   





___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________






                                            APPENDIX A
                 WOCE97-A24:  CTD TEMPERATURE AND CONDUCTIVITY CORRECTIONS SUMMARY
                         PRT Response Time used for all casts:  0.34 secs

      ITS-90 Temperature Coefficients                  Conductivity Coefficients
 Sta/   corT = t2*T**2 + t1*T + t0        corC = cp2*corP**2 + cp1*corP + c2*C**2 + c1*C + c0
 Cast     t2          t1        t0        cp2          cp1           c2           c1         c0

001/01 1.2241e-05 -7.5330e-04 -1.5033  0.00000e+00  0.00000e+00  0.00000e+00 -3.74944e-03  0.09374
002/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03246
003/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03350
004/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03398
005/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03393
006/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03495
007/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03454
008/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03381
009/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03426
010/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03409

011/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03534
012/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03542
013/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03552
014/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03613
015/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03570
016/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03531
017/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03564
018/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03558
019/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03547
020/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03619

021/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03677
022/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03638
023/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03634
024/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03698
025/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03716
026/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03785
027/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03693
028/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03707
029/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03691
030/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03714

031/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03736
032/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03726
033/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03785
034/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03829
035/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03694
036/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03794
037/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03734
038/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03805
039/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03811
040/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03819


      ITS-90 Temperature Coefficients                  Conductivity Coefficients
 Sta/   corT = t2*T**2 + t1*T + t0        corC = cp2*corP**2 + cp1*corP + c2*C**2 + c1*C + c0
 Cast     t2          t1        t0        cp2          cp1           c2           c1         c0

041/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03809
042/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03900
043/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04006
044/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03933
045/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03992
046/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03974
047/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03902
048/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03975
049/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03847
050/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04019

051/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03999
052/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04016
053/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03875
054/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03911
055/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04046
056/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03975
057/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04061
058/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03984
059/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03995
060/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04087

061/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04034
062/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04061
063/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04042
064/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03841
065/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03977
066/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03971
067/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03935
068/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03997
069/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04048
070/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03903

071/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04090
072/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04110
073/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04050
074/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04004
075/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04144
076/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03950
077/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04104
078/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04151
079/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04096
080/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04193


      ITS-90 Temperature Coefficients                  Conductivity Coefficients
 Sta/   corT = t2*T**2 + t1*T + t0        corC = cp2*corP**2 + cp1*corP + c2*C**2 + c1*C + c0
 Cast     t2          t1        t0        cp2          cp1           c2           c1         c0

081/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04070
082/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04040
083/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04025
084/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04090
085/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04025
086/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04049
087/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03971
088/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03990
089/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03934
090/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04007

091/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04039
092/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04100
093/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04146
094/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04187
095/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04197
096/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04209
097/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04146
098/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04079
099/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04060
100/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03966

101/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04027
102/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03936
103/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03857
104/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03918
105/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03871
106/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03992
107/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03938
108/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03872
109/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03922
110/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03903

111/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04009
112/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03918
113/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03814
114/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03874
115/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03901
116/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03797
117/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03837
118/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03879
119/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03859
120/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04025


      ITS-90 Temperature Coefficients                  Conductivity Coefficients
 Sta/   corT = t2*T**2 + t1*T + t0        corC = cp2*corP**2 + cp1*corP + c2*C**2 + c1*C + c0
 Cast     t2          t1        t0        cp2          cp1           c2           c1         c0

121/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03937
122/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03872
123/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03836
124/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03916
125/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03978
126/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03979
127/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04023
128/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.03985
129/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04156
130/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04107

131/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04132
132/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04115
133/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04072
134/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04123
135/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04130
136/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04162
137/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04227
138/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04041
139/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04121
140/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04196

141/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04179
142/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04180
143/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04120
144/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04098
145/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04038
146/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04059
147/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04237
148/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04111
149/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04157
150/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04163

151/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04213
152/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04280
153/01 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04221
153/02 1.6032e-05 -3.6366e-04 -1.4962 -9.13543e-11  1.80848e-07  1.47071e-05 -1.76569e-03  0.04220




                                        APPENDIX B
                      SUMMARY OF WOCE97-A24 CTD OXYGEN TIME CONSTANTS
                                (time constants in seconds)

                         |        Temperature        | Pressure | O2 Gradient
              Station    | Fast(TauTf) | Slow(TauTs) |  (Taup)  |   (Tauog)  
              -----------+-------------+-------------+----------+------------
              061        |    10.0     |    400.0    |   16.0   |    16.0    
              All Others |    32.0     |    515.0    |    6.0   |    16.0    

        Note: used station 61 shipboard corrections as better fit for very shallow cast.

               WOCE97-A24: Conversion Equation Coefficients for CTD Oxygen
                                 (refer to Equation 8.4.0)

 Sta/     OcSlope        Offset       Plcoeff       Tfcoeff       Tscoeff     dOc/dtcoeff
 Cast       (c1)          (c2)          (c3)          (c4)          (c5)          (c6)
------   -----------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
001/01   1.59155e-04   1.80606e-01  -1.67936e-05  -2.42667e-02  -1.05835e-03  -2.04542e-04
002/01   3.29530e-04  -1.69661e-01   1.06956e-05  -3.94112e-03  -5.56021e-02  -5.59454e-04
003/01   2.20195e-04   2.67266e-01  -8.59507e-06   2.27063e-02  -6.71860e-02  -1.14262e-04
004/01   2.08158e-04   4.58399e-02   9.28639e-05  -1.09227e-02  -3.01051e-02  -6.54384e-04
005/01   2.03459e-04   1.25688e-01   6.74639e-05  -1.17646e-03  -3.93739e-02  -3.67590e-04
006/01   2.03284e-04   9.99630e-02   7.91762e-05   1.98649e-03  -4.11089e-02  -4.26553e-04
007/01   1.99903e-04   3.86616e-02   1.11502e-04  -2.43107e-03  -3.41172e-02  -6.34835e-04
008/01   1.96544e-04   2.41953e-02   1.21763e-04   4.07521e-03  -3.71913e-02  -1.62776e-04
009/01   2.15291e-04  -5.36765e-02   1.40467e-04   2.21202e-03  -3.85272e-02  -1.81221e-04
010/01   2.09784e-04   3.41741e-02   1.02138e-04  -3.54145e-03  -3.65743e-02  -3.96415e-04

011/01   2.22733e-04  -8.70568e-03   1.07363e-04   1.37323e-02  -5.09050e-02  -2.43484e-04
012/01   2.10327e-04  -6.71762e-02   1.44093e-04  -4.03790e-03  -3.26629e-02  -2.73662e-04
013/01   2.35427e-04   1.54534e-01   1.14679e-05   1.00860e-02  -6.24270e-02  -6.75866e-04
014/01   2.20314e-04   1.07755e-01   4.26790e-05   1.54560e-03  -4.91234e-02  -5.99597e-04
015/01   2.15297e-04   1.26329e-02   9.02960e-05   1.27057e-02  -5.16387e-02  -1.12151e-04
016/01   1.84136e-04   9.49351e-02   8.66736e-05  -7.04758e-03  -3.23125e-02  -4.95509e-04
017/01   1.89372e-04  -4.13260e-02   1.42300e-04  -2.24965e-03  -3.12172e-02  -9.46711e-04
018/01   1.73978e-04  -2.15571e-03   1.39843e-04  -1.17417e-02  -2.26272e-02   7.38213e-07
019/01   1.62492e-04   1.08743e-01   9.42972e-05  -1.19787e-02  -2.53778e-02  -2.46025e-06
020/01   1.74190e-04   1.83679e-02   1.17258e-04  -7.37559e-04  -3.51708e-02   1.39682e-06

021/01   1.70363e-04  -3.33210e-02   1.46005e-04   3.67402e-03  -3.64047e-02  -2.15345e-04
022/01   1.67833e-04   8.20616e-03   1.27974e-04  -5.82974e-03  -3.13278e-02   7.37800e-08
023/01   1.69521e-04   2.52103e-02   1.16119e-04  -1.22881e-02  -2.90536e-02   2.61161e-07
024/01   1.67831e-04  -1.59422e-02   1.35863e-04  -1.43772e-02  -2.31590e-02  -1.15078e-06
025/01   9.74036e-04   2.74161e-02   1.38260e-04   1.13660e-02  -3.74159e-02   1.35937e-04
026/01   1.57765e-04  -1.96677e-03   1.38479e-04  -1.43833e-02  -2.08002e-02  -2.74488e-04
027/01   1.56240e-04   6.41501e-02   1.08874e-04  -6.80935e-03  -3.09823e-02  -3.38017e-04
028/01   1.56613e-04   6.57770e-02   1.07595e-04  -1.28844e-02  -2.47557e-02  -1.70818e-04
029/01   1.54641e-04  -3.41163e-02   1.61835e-04  -1.40613e-02  -1.86196e-02  -7.93446e-04
030/01   1.57645e-04   6.78776e-02   1.02978e-04  -1.60396e-02  -2.24801e-02  -3.64876e-04


 Sta/     OcSlope        Offset       Plcoeff       Tfcoeff       Tscoeff     dOc/dtcoeff
 Cast       (c1)          (c2)          (c3)          (c4)          (c5)          (c6)
------   -----------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
031/01   1.80078e-04   1.43807e-01   3.31975e-05  -1.54686e-02  -3.48746e-02  -3.79686e-04
032/01   2.62701e-04  -1.39345e-01   1.26039e-04   3.96602e-02  -1.02436e-01  -5.00108e-04
033/01   8.53791e-05   5.02634e-02   2.72122e-04  -4.76358e-03   8.91434e-03  -6.56397e-05
034/01   6.32460e-05   2.53628e-01   3.17185e-04   3.19715e-02  -2.44634e-02  -2.38888e-05
035/01   5.13115e-05   8.11760e-01  -8.77855e-05   1.68051e-02  -3.86008e-02  -2.41569e-05
036/01   5.32958e-05   1.06826e-01   1.99469e-04  -5.10487e-02   8.01151e-02   2.39381e-04
037/01   1.47180e-04  -1.11558e-01   1.93362e-04  -3.30723e-02   4.26096e-03  -4.77214e-04
038/01   1.78402e-04  -1.24014e-02   8.22548e-05  -1.21045e-02  -3.59573e-02  -3.22818e-04
039/01   1.73511e-04   4.02025e-02   7.37872e-05  -3.07540e-03  -4.37149e-02  -3.48811e-04
040/01   1.68455e-04   2.76831e-02   9.01043e-05   5.98810e-03  -4.80168e-02  -5.06492e-04

041/01   1.48302e-04   5.80631e-01  -8.09000e-05  -1.70292e-02  -4.98590e-02   3.73003e-05
042/01   1.81649e-04   1.33321e-01   2.47216e-05  -7.70114e-03  -4.89017e-02   1.82620e-07
043/01   1.84280e-04  -1.17431e-01   1.29382e-04  -1.47953e-04  -4.26872e-02  -6.14003e-04
044/01   2.22596e-04   2.39913e-01  -5.66631e-05   8.65999e-03  -8.09534e-02  -2.77091e-04
045/01   1.99890e-04   5.97511e-01  -1.19629e-04   1.53675e-02  -9.40520e-02   1.76438e-04
046/01   1.64375e-04   3.21820e-01  -8.95318e-06   4.01608e-03  -6.19019e-02   5.16775e-05
047/01   1.38712e-04   2.13737e-01   3.29168e-05  -1.09980e-02  -2.88248e-02   1.66050e-06
048/01   1.16646e-04  -1.55556e-01   3.06793e-04  -4.93577e-02   4.06853e-02   1.55321e-06
049/01   6.51004e-05   5.38463e-01   3.64842e-04   2.65331e-02  -4.62661e-02  -2.45320e-08
050/01   1.46803e-05   5.79445e-01   8.78170e-05   4.76692e-02  -1.86353e-02   3.20479e-05

051/01   2.21550e-04  -2.22787e-01   1.10075e-04  -2.91259e-02  -3.17552e-02  -2.69001e-04
052/01   1.57911e-04   2.31671e-01   2.76457e-05   3.74426e-03  -5.24188e-02  -1.97205e-06
053/01   1.90199e-04   1.75495e-01  -6.83434e-07  -1.69616e-02  -4.47097e-02  -4.31444e-05
054/01   1.53884e-04   2.49577e-01   1.94185e-05  -6.65853e-03  -4.20702e-02   2.18828e-06
055/01   1.47946e-04   2.66047e-01   3.09519e-05   3.94468e-03  -5.01139e-02  -3.03193e-06
056/01   2.00052e-04   1.70718e-01  -3.34300e-05  -2.16987e-02  -4.63603e-02  -5.84131e-04
057/01   1.40257e-04  -9.24808e-02   2.22813e-04  -7.96132e-03  -1.76007e-02   1.83640e-05
058/01   3.62386e-04   3.91253e-01  -9.58735e-05   2.79407e-02  -1.49356e-01  -4.02783e-04
059/01   3.18965e-04   1.77058e+00  -2.65215e-04   3.88343e-02  -1.77461e-01  -1.47914e-04
060/01   4.75255e-06   4.67242e-01   1.35183e-04   2.99944e-02   3.18173e-02   5.25432e-07

061/01   1.17016e-05   3.68093e-01   7.83863e-05   7.42281e-02   6.24189e-04  -3.19465e-06
062/01  -2.11599e-05   9.10071e-01  -3.08415e-04   1.02234e-01  -6.04671e-02  -9.69222e-07
063/01   3.05587e-04   6.13982e+00  -4.56691e-04   1.78191e-02  -2.25350e-01   4.93646e-06
064/01   9.44448e-05  -4.21474e-04   1.78401e-04  -3.35232e-02   4.15171e-02  -3.55106e-04
065/01   2.55248e-04   2.22077e-01  -2.46706e-05   7.30396e-03  -1.00220e-01  -3.47292e-04
066/01   5.78257e-05   1.74586e-01   2.09361e-04   5.03461e-02  -1.87118e-02  -3.07015e-04
067/01   1.35920e-04  -5.80805e-02   2.29970e-04  -1.08813e-03  -2.30935e-02  -3.17104e-04
068/01   1.65333e-04   2.09512e-01   2.83571e-05   4.00289e-03  -5.82649e-02  -1.94853e-05
069/01   1.62541e-04   7.82076e-02   7.92763e-05   5.65559e-03  -5.01923e-02  -1.99766e-04
070/01   1.54127e-04   2.33048e-02   1.22218e-04  -1.48401e-02  -2.42903e-02  -1.70699e-05


 Sta/     OcSlope        Offset       Plcoeff       Tfcoeff       Tscoeff     dOc/dtcoeff
 Cast       (c1)          (c2)          (c3)          (c4)          (c5)          (c6)
------   -----------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
071/01   1.55263e-04   7.45321e-02   8.48367e-05  -1.54318e-02  -2.47681e-02  -1.95415e-04
072/01   1.52123e-04   1.26169e-01   7.52181e-05   9.65746e-03  -4.85348e-02   1.06806e-05
073/01   1.64175e-04   3.48164e-02   1.07172e-04  -1.60265e-02  -3.54140e-02   6.89268e-04
074/01   1.58162e-04   1.01610e-01   8.62109e-05  -1.56577e-02  -3.66920e-02  -1.29237e-04
075/01   1.68999e-04   8.84703e-02   6.46341e-05  -2.35657e-03  -5.01491e-02   1.44827e-05
076/01   1.79874e-04   1.72598e-01   1.64208e-05   3.69450e-03  -6.52063e-02  -3.19630e-04
077/01   1.29119e-04   3.08484e-02   1.75418e-04  -1.15002e-02  -1.24011e-02   7.04111e-06
078/01   1.13134e-04  -6.55551e-02   2.95307e-04  -2.14336e-02   1.96644e-02  -4.37889e-05
079/01   4.58113e-05   2.70100e-01   1.80287e-04  -4.36710e-03   4.28503e-02   6.69965e-04
080/01   7.57419e-05   1.08042e-01   2.62841e-04  -1.97040e-02   3.92492e-02  -7.86440e-05

081/01   3.27396e-05   9.15137e-01  -5.30475e-05   1.10495e-01  -1.21634e-01   9.35778e-04
082/01   1.38660e-04   1.97146e-01   8.11011e-05  -1.90118e-02  -3.27376e-02   5.05819e-06
083/01   1.48679e-04   1.27713e-01   7.88931e-05   1.69040e-02  -5.91502e-02   1.65829e-04
084/01   1.96761e-04  -1.96238e-01   1.32466e-04   7.59467e-02  -1.09398e-01  -9.54481e-04
085/01   1.62806e-04  -1.72652e-02   1.21975e-04   6.72395e-03  -4.87194e-02  -9.51015e-04
086/01   1.72915e-04  -6.16161e-02   1.33338e-04   3.09092e-03  -5.55399e-02  -1.26539e-03
087/01   1.56336e-04   1.85493e-01   8.25054e-05   1.38158e-03  -7.60130e-02   8.99418e-05
088/01   1.58864e-04   1.40157e-01   7.76994e-05  -3.02280e-03  -5.80744e-02   1.84770e-04
089/01   1.20414e-04   2.58597e-01   8.06108e-05   7.62351e-03  -4.33346e-02  -3.19876e-05
090/01   2.00251e-04   3.67408e-01  -6.61006e-05   1.41834e-02  -1.17829e-01  -2.08241e-03

091/01   1.43998e-04   1.94743e-01   5.24192e-05  -2.45385e-02  -2.89370e-02  -6.62329e-06
092/01   1.61620e-04   9.76973e-01  -1.91280e-04  -1.79680e-03  -1.17447e-01   2.98634e-05
093/01  -1.65003e-04   3.91744e+00  -2.48761e-04   2.21957e-01  -3.39978e-01  -3.57263e-06
094/01   1.08367e-04   1.69701e-01   4.16802e-04   1.02182e-02  -6.67263e-02   1.81922e-05
095/01   7.51653e-05   3.67382e-01   1.98314e-05  -5.29865e-03   2.66220e-02   8.79974e-06
096/01   1.24127e-04  -1.93243e-01   2.23659e-04   7.88128e-03   6.54977e-02   1.09028e-06
097/01   5.47117e-05   5.58920e-01   2.93238e-04  -1.09596e-03  -5.03112e-02   9.70853e-05
098/01   3.12625e-05   8.53141e-01  -3.34854e-04   3.84201e-02  -5.98532e-02  -1.56960e-06
099/01   3.37798e-05   3.46385e-01  -9.00466e-05   3.21554e-02   7.81963e-02  -3.68971e-06
100/01   4.26540e-05   8.66048e-01  -1.15063e-05   4.42543e-02  -8.38593e-02  -6.46673e-07

101/01   9.07370e-05   3.33641e-01   9.67244e-05   1.08855e-02  -2.71796e-02  -3.23032e-04
102/01   1.84932e-04   1.15484e-03   9.66055e-05  -3.20852e-02  -4.74004e-02  -8.84131e-04
103/01   1.56815e-04   1.47773e-01   9.24281e-05   1.00206e-02  -7.79217e-02  -3.74967e-04
104/01   1.23664e-04   2.98271e-01   7.13968e-05   1.78710e-03  -5.32447e-02   1.77077e-04
105/01   1.28922e-04   2.60560e-01   8.13513e-05   5.77435e-04  -5.69865e-02   2.73079e-06
106/01   1.42386e-04   1.10183e-01   1.12841e-04  -2.10571e-02  -2.71002e-02  -5.97384e-04
107/01   1.32868e-04   1.54122e-01   1.06468e-04   5.98032e-03  -4.10264e-02  -2.72775e-04
108/01   1.34774e-04   1.80867e-01   9.61094e-05   8.09162e-03  -4.99175e-02  -5.56872e-06
109/01   1.42966e-04   1.77125e-01   9.63899e-05  -2.35271e-02  -3.55805e-02  -1.44229e-04
110/01   1.45825e-04   1.19449e-01   1.02176e-04  -9.05651e-03  -3.75279e-02   6.51619e-07


 Sta/     OcSlope        Offset       Plcoeff       Tfcoeff       Tscoeff     dOc/dtcoeff
 Cast       (c1)          (c2)          (c3)          (c4)          (c5)          (c6)
------   -----------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
111/01   1.61166e-04   3.22019e-02   1.17763e-04  -1.16368e-02  -3.75473e-02  -1.09855e-06
112/01   1.46859e-04   1.92283e-01   6.97896e-05   1.02282e-03  -5.14137e-02   2.27189e-05
113/01   1.46172e-04   1.92891e-01   7.60365e-05  -4.92483e-03  -4.35036e-02  -7.33963e-07
114/01   1.42122e-04   1.53444e-01   9.24123e-05  -4.79629e-03  -3.40317e-02  -6.45711e-06
115/01   1.45679e-04   5.95846e-02   1.43276e-04  -1.94852e-02  -1.60951e-02   7.68975e-07
116/01   1.48160e-04   1.64595e-01   9.12673e-05  -9.60357e-03  -3.69956e-02  -7.10422e-04
117/01   1.66033e-04  -2.76941e-02   1.63852e-04  -2.67531e-02  -1.76373e-02  -1.92720e-04
118/01   1.68243e-04   4.37283e-02   1.18478e-04  -2.01420e-02  -2.90367e-02  -7.80007e-07
119/01   1.32027e-04   2.32281e-01   8.25727e-05  -1.56361e-03  -3.44465e-02   5.64620e-06
120/01   1.24547e-04   2.70178e-01   7.46909e-05   7.03492e-03  -3.91348e-02  -5.67454e-04

121/01   1.54770e-04   1.42463e-01   9.35302e-05  -6.01811e-03  -3.69751e-02   1.91892e-06
122/01   1.57475e-04   1.89691e-01   8.13860e-05  -1.42671e-03  -4.65195e-02  -4.70624e-07
123/01   8.93644e-05   5.79771e-01   2.11988e-05   1.45019e-02  -4.53449e-02   3.18052e-04
124/01   1.21482e-04   4.36304e-01   3.26018e-05   2.32352e-02  -5.36848e-02  -3.28635e-06
125/01   1.47437e-04   3.32449e-01   5.40093e-05   7.30531e-03  -4.91376e-02   3.54980e-06
126/01   2.01320e-04   6.17173e-02   9.08394e-05   2.07185e-03  -4.55805e-02   2.69658e-06
127/01   1.82328e-04   1.05672e-01   8.35850e-05  -2.64706e-03  -3.82617e-02  -2.80159e-04
128/01   1.98000e-04   1.25553e-01   6.65753e-05  -3.84737e-03  -4.88685e-02   1.20005e-05
129/01   1.72876e-04   1.36979e-01   7.86024e-05  -8.53686e-03  -3.66286e-02  -1.60125e-04
130/01   1.67146e-04   8.16034e-02   9.74321e-05  -3.80420e-04  -3.66838e-02  -2.07910e-04

131/01   1.52707e-04   1.59369e-01   8.09513e-05  -1.55165e-03  -3.50838e-02  -8.11806e-07
132/01   1.66998e-04   1.17860e-01   7.96167e-05  -4.29171e-03  -3.69767e-02   8.47650e-07
133/01   1.73625e-04   3.55268e-02   1.03040e-04  -8.85905e-03  -3.16113e-02   1.33115e-06
134/01   1.48204e-04   2.52858e-01   4.86067e-05   1.72511e-03  -3.81002e-02  -6.53886e-06
135/01   1.92096e-04  -2.74505e-02   1.27536e-04  -1.09422e-02  -2.95040e-02  -1.78041e-04
136/01   1.94472e-04   4.13933e-03   1.12769e-04  -7.62069e-03  -3.14675e-02   1.43475e-07
137/01   2.17106e-04  -3.01978e-02   1.12942e-04  -4.50373e-03  -4.02500e-02   4.96301e-06
138/01   2.22311e-04  -5.00321e-02   9.76468e-05  -1.58724e-02  -3.02823e-02  -4.36295e-06
139/01   1.52422e-04   2.02737e-02   1.97108e-04  -1.97796e-02  -1.13464e-02   1.36054e-04
140/01   1.46617e-04  -3.19478e-03   2.16811e-04  -2.17866e-02  -5.33996e-03   1.31272e-05

141/01   2.37081e-04   1.55902e-01  -3.40032e-05   1.13998e-02  -6.07683e-02  -6.54744e-07
142/01   1.98213e-04  -4.97505e-02   1.08182e-04  -8.69091e-03  -2.86842e-02  -1.41580e-06
143/01   2.17161e-04  -3.33819e-02   6.98944e-05  -1.13934e-02  -3.28713e-02  -5.48273e-04
144/01   2.33652e-04   2.05512e-04   4.31696e-05  -3.03195e-03  -4.66079e-02  -9.74762e-05
145/01   2.09580e-04   7.65830e-02   4.24723e-05  -3.11430e-03  -4.12493e-02  -1.52486e-04
146/01   2.17548e-04   7.38263e-02   5.38163e-05   3.85039e-03  -4.89278e-02  -1.12781e-06
147/01   1.77841e-04  -1.04150e-01   1.99303e-04  -4.48221e-02   4.56913e-03  -2.28104e-04
148/01   2.00754e-04   1.39430e-01   2.36437e-05   6.89890e-03  -4.75024e-02  -1.89062e-04
149/01   2.35974e-04   1.21863e-02   2.76438e-05  -1.12256e-03  -4.67145e-02  -3.54931e-04
150/01   1.97150e-04   6.36631e-02   6.66619e-05  -8.44385e-03  -3.31962e-02   9.23139e-07

151/01   4.53928e-04   1.72824e-01  -2.87270e-04  -1.44757e-03  -8.07508e-02  -4.24021e-06
152/01   1.99191e-04  -5.74273e-02   9.76922e-05  -2.54269e-02  -1.61357e-02  -9.68688e-06
153/01   1.99191e-04  -5.74273e-02   9.76922e-05  -2.54269e-02  -1.61357e-02  -9.68688e-06
153/02   9.61249e-05   6.94877e-02   3.30551e-04   1.43364e-02  -1.59927e-02   4.32862e-06



                                                     APPENDIX C
                                     TABULATION OF WOCE97-A24 PROBLEM CTD CASTS

Cast       Problems                                                 Solutions                                   
---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
<001/01- | Conductivity discontinuity at                          | Software changed to detect/fix,             
022/01>  | raw value 32767/32768                                  | first 22 casts re-averaged.                 
001/01   | CTD #3 temp offsets (water in turret).                 | Switch to CTD #5 for rest of cruise.        
001/01   | Temperature drift on down cast.                        | Use upcast.                                 
004/01   | 10.5-min. winch stop for maintenance at                | Offset raw CTDO from stop to bottom.        
         | 2374-2384db downcast, CTDO signal drifted/dropped.     | Filtered near/after stop.                   
005/01   | -0.015 sigma theta drop 1134-1190db                    | No action, down+up CTD features in T/C/S/O2 
005/01   | Acquisition crashed on upcast, restarted.              | CTD time offset to match.                   
011/01   | Switched to SBE32 pylon.  Bottles tripped              | Fixed CTD trip info.                        
         | out-of-order after pylon reset.                        |                                             
013/01   | CTDO spiking/drift near bottom.                        | Filtered.                                   
014/01   | Installed SBE35 T sensor prior to cast.                |                                             
014/01   | Deck Unit blew fuse at 1836db upcast                   | Stopped for repairs at 1800db               
015/01   | -0.022 sigma theta inversion top 10db                  | No action, S stable and T rising.           
018/01   | -0.10 sigma theta drop 16-22db                         | No action, down+up CTD features in T/C/S/O2 
019/01   | Deck Unit blew fuse at 1720db downcast, not            | First + repeat downcasts spliced at 1668db  
         | noticed until 2100+db.  Power restored, returned from  | where TC matched best and after CTDO had    
         | 2486db to 1514db, then continued down (30 mins.        | time to adjust after reversing direction.   
         | time elapsed).  Fuse blew again at 4740db upcast.      |                                             
019/01   | CTDO spiking/drift near bottom.                        | Filtered.                                   
020/01   | -0.025 sigma theta drop 1020-1044db                    | No action, down+up CTD features in T/C/S/O2 
020/01   | -0.03 sigma theta inversion 1262-1402db                | No action, down+up CTD features in T/C/S/O2 
025/01   | CTDO sensor cover left on.                             | CTDO signal useless, not reported.          
027/01   | SBE32 pylon triggered time spikes in CTD               | Time source changed in software.            
         | signal and false-confirms at multiple trips.           |                                             
028/01   | CTDO spike near 3100db downcast.                       | Filtered.                                   
038/01   | -0.87PSU Salinity spike 20-28db.                       | Filtered.                                   
         | Small-scale salinity spiking throughout cast.          |                                             
040/01   | -0.39PSU Salinity spike at 74-78db downcast.           | Filtered.                                   
040/01   | Cast touched bottom, cond. spiking.                    | Press-sequencing cut off just above spikes. 
053/01   | CTDO spiking/drift near bottom.                        | Filtered.                                   
055/01   | -1.0PSU Salinity spike 6-11db downcast.                | Filtered.                                   
068/01   | CTDO signal very low at surface.                       | No action. Code bad.                        
069/01   | CTDO signal very low at surface.                       | No action. Code bad.                        
070/01   | CTDO signal very low at surface.                       | No action. Code bad.                        
071/01   | Cond. dropout 30-75m downcast, T+C problems            | Use upcast.                                 
         | top 300db: inversions do not look real.                |                                             
071/01   | Time spike/jump 446db upcast                           | Shift time back to improve CTDO fit.        
071/01   | -.30PSU Salinity spike 4-6db upcast, just before trip. | Filtered.                                   
072/01   | CTDO signal very low at surface.                       | Filtered to improve CTDO fit.               
073/01   | CTDO signal very low at surface.                       | No action. Code bad.                        
074/01   | CTDO signal very low at surface.                       | No action. Code bad.                        
076/01   | CTDO signal very low at surface.                       | Filtered to improve CTDO fit.               
076/01   | CTDO spiking/drift near bottom.                        | Filtered.                                   
079/01   | CTDO signal very low at surface.                       | Filtered to improve CTDO fit.               
081/01   | CTDO signal very low at surface.                       | Filtered to improve CTDO fit.               


Cast       Problems                                                 Solutions                                   
---------+--------------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
082/01   | CTDO signal very low at surface.                       | Filtered to improve CTDO fit.               
082/01   | -0.08PSU Salinity spike 1000-1002db downcast.          | Filtered.                                   
083/01   | CTDO signal low, top 40-50db.                          | Filtered to improve CTDO fit.               
083/01   | Time spike/jump 24db downcast                          | Shift time back to improve CTDO fit.        
086/01   | CTDO signal very low at surface.                       | No action. Code bad.                        
086/01   | Salinity spiking on upcast at                          | Filtered.                                   
         | 4 deepest rosette trips.                               |                                             
088/01   | Transmissometer signal intermittent.                   | Washed prior to cast                        
089/01   | Discovered W. Gardner's transmissometer log.           | Switched to instrument #266AD (from #265AD).
089/01   | CTDO signal very low top 12db.                         | Filtered to improve CTDO fit.               
090/01   | CTDO signal very low top 140db.                        | No action. Code bad.                        
090/01   | Salinity spiking on upcast at rosette trips.           | Filtered.                                   
095/01   | CTDO signal very low at surface.                       | Filtered to improve CTDO fit.               
096/01   | CTDO spiking/drift near bottom.                        | Filtered.                                   
097/01   | -0.02 sigma theta inversion at 6db                     | No action, down+up CTD features in T/C/S/O2 
097/01   | +0.02 sigma theta rise 128-156db                       | No action, down+up CTD features in T/C/S/O2 
109/01   | CTDO signal very low at surface.                       | No action. Code bad.                        
111/01   | CTDO spiking/drift near bottom.                        | Filtered.                                   
118/01   | CTDO spiking/drift near bottom.                        | Filtered.                                   
123/01   | CTDO spiking/drift near bottom.                        | Filtered.                                   
<124/01- | Intermittent cond offsetting on upcasts.               | Shift calibration as needed.                
152/01>  |                                                        |                                             
128/01   | CTDO signal very low at surface.                       | Filtered to improve CTDO fit.               
132/01   | -0.38PSU Salinity spike 567-570db downcast.            | Filtered.                                   
133/01   | -0.01 sigma theta drop 18-20db                         | No action, down+up CTD features in T/C/S/O2 
141/01   | CTDO signal very low at surface.                       | Filtered to improve CTDO fit.               
145/01   | CTDO signal very low at surface.                       | Filtered to improve CTDO fit.               
147/01   | CTDO signal very low at surface.                       | No action. Code bad.                        
147/01   | -0.08PSU Salinity spike 608-610db downcast.            | Filtered.                                   
153/01   | Special cast for LADCP bottom tracking test,           |                                             
         | minimal sampling: only 4 btls                          |                                             
153/01   | No bottle data for CTDO fit                            | Used sta.152 corrections for                
         |                                                        | fit closest to cast 2 CTD/bottles.          




                                 APPENDIX D
                           BOTTLE QUALITY COMMENTS

All data comments per PI's request from WOCE A24 ACCE.  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, and Phos-
phate.  The first number before the comment is the cast number (CASTNO)
times 100 plus the bottle number (BTLNBR).

STATION 001

    Cast 1     Salinity samples are all from rerunning the samples.  An
               error was made in transferring the data. No printouts were
               made of the data before the transfer.  NO3 appeared low,
               shallow, when plotted vs. pressure.  Bottom NO3 appeared
               high, O2 high compared with adjoining stations. No analyti-
               cal problem found. N:P ratio acceptable.

      107      Salinity is low compared to CTD.  No analytical problem
               found.  Salinity is acceptable.

      106      Sample Log: "Leak from bottom end cap."  Oxygen as well as
               other samples are acceptable.  Salinity was lost, see Cast 1
               salinity comment.

      104      Salinity was lost, see Cast 1 salinity comment.  Pressure is
               808db.

      103      Sample Log: "Bottom endcap leak when vent cracked."  Oxygen
               is high.  Other samples appear to be acceptable.  Footnote
               O2 bad.  Pressure is 908db.

      102      Salinity is high compared to CTD.  No analytical problem
               found.  Salinity is acceptable.

      101      Salinity is high compared to CTD.  No analytical problem
               found.  Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 002

    Cast 1     Console Ops: "Changed to CTD 5, because of prim temp offset
               on sta 001."  Salinity file was lost during computer trans-
               fer.  Fortunately, a duplicate set of salinity samples were
               drawn and eventually run. The data that is reported is the
               second drawn samples.

      124      Oxygen: "Flask 1453 may have a calibration problem."  Oxygen
               data is acceptable.

      114      Salinity is high, nutrients are low, oxygen appears to be
               okay.  Footnote bottle leaking, samples bad.

      107      Oxygen: "Flask 1408 may have a calibration problem."  Oxygen
               is acceptable.

      103      Sample Log: "Bottom cap leaking."  Oxygen is low. Other data
               are acceptable.  Footnote bottle leaking and oxygen bad.

STATION 003

      124-125  Sample Log: "Not closed, pylon is advanced 2 places as it
               should be." So the first attempt at tripping bottle 14 did
               not work.  These bottles were not suppose to be closed. Com-
               ments on Sample Log confirm suspicion of proper bottle clo-
               sure.

    Cast 1     Sample Log: "Tripping problem."  Console Ops: "No confirm, 1
               push on 14, 2 No confirms."  One level was missed (600
               desired depth), but that was because of an operator error.
               Console operator did not realize the No confirm message and
               had the winch operator come up to next tripping depth.  Data
               are correct as pressure assigned.

      123      Sample Log: "Vent not closed."  Oxygen as well as other sam-
               ples are acceptable.

      121-123  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-90db.

      116      PO4 appears 0.04 high. Nutrient analyst could not find any
               analytical problems. PO4 is acceptable.

      114-123  Bottles did not trip as scheduled.  Data appear acceptable
               as trip levels reassigned.  See Cast 1 comments.

      112      Salinity indicates a large ∆S with CTD.  Gradient area,
               salinity appears to be okay.  No analytical problem found.

      108      Sample Log: "Vent not closed."  O2 is high. Other samples
               are acceptable.  Footnote bottle leaking, oxygen bad.

      105      Oxygen is low compared to adjoining stations and CTDO.  No
               analytical problems noted.  Feature is not seen in other
               parameters.  Footnote oxygen questionable.

      103      Sample Log: "Bottom seal leaks."  Salinity is ~0.020 low.
               Footnote salinity bad.  Oxygen as well as other samples are
               acceptable.

      101-102  Sample Log: "May have bubbled nitrogen through the valve."
               Oxygen as well as other samples are acceptable.

STATION 004

      123      Sample Log: "Vent was open."  Oxygen as well as other sam-
               ples are acceptable.

      120      O2 is high, nutrients are low. Salinity agrees with the CTD.
               Data are acceptable.  O2 does not agree with adjoining sta-
               tions.  Footnote o2 bad.

      114      Oxygen minimum, but nutrients are also low.  Nutrient Ana-
               lyst: "No analytical problems found."

      111      ∆S at 1122db is -0.0062.  No analytical problems noted.
               Salinity is acceptable.

      108      Sample Log: "Leaker."  O2 appears to be acceptable.  ∆S
               at 1536db is 0.006.  Salinity is high.  No analytical prob-
               lems noted.  Footnote salinity bad.

      105      Salinity is ~0.006 high.  No analytical problems found.
               Footnote salinity bad per PI review notes.

      103      Sample Log: "New bottle."  O2 as well as other samples are
               acceptable.

STATION 005

      111      Salinity large delta with CTD.  Gradient area. Other samples
               are acceptable.  Density inversion with this salinity,
               therefore salinity probably not real.  Footnote salinity
               bad.

      106      Salinity high compared with CTD.  Autosal diagnostics indi-
               cate 4 tries to get a good reading.  Gradient area, salinity
               minimum.  Variation in CTD trace.  Salinity is acceptable.

      103      Sample Log: "Vent left open."  O2 as well as other data are
               acceptable.

STATION 006

      128      Sample Log: "Not closed."  Okay, not suppose to be.

    Cast 1     Console Ops: "Duplicate No Confirm on 11, No confirm, retrip
               on 22."  One level was missed (1500 desired depth).  Data
               are correct as pressure assigned.

      125-126  Footnote CTDO questionable 52-110db.

      124      Oxygen is high and nutrients low, salinity is acceptable
               when compared to adjoining stations.  N:P ratio is good.
               Data are acceptable.

      113      Salinity is low, oxygen and nutrients high.  N:P ratio is
               good. Data are acceptable.

      111-127  See Cast 1 comments. Footnote bottle did not trip as sched-
               uled.  Data are acceptable as pressure for trip levels
               assigned.

      109      Sample Log: "Salt bottle thimbles don't fit."  Salinity is
               acceptable.

      104      Oxygen: "Late start."  Oxygen is acceptable.

      103      Salinity bottle had a loose thimble. Salinity is a little
               low. Footnote salinity questionable, out of WOCE spec.

      101      Sample Log: "Vent not closed."  Oxygen as well as other data
               are acceptable.  Autosal diagnostics indicate 4 tries before
               getting readings to agree.  The first readings gave better
               results and are used in this salinity calculation.  Salinity
               is acceptable.

STATION 007

    Cast 1     Console Ops: "2 No confirms, 1 push on 2, 2 No confirm  1
               confirm on 12, 2 No confirm  1 confirm on 19, 2 No confirm
               1 confirm on 20.  One level was missed (3800 desired depth).
               Data appear acceptable as trip levels reassigned.

      127      Footnote CTDO questionable 0-78db.

      119      Sample Log: "Vent open."  Oxygen as well as other data are
               acceptable.

      117      PO4 ~0.06 high, so is SiO3 high.  Nutrient analyst: "No ana-
               lytical problem found, peaks, calcs look okay, normal n:p."

      111      SiO3 a little high.  Nutrient analyst: "No analytical prob-
               lem found, peaks, calcs look okay."

      110      SiO3 ~1.0 high.  Nutrient analyst: "No analytical problem
               found, peaks, calcs look okay."

      102-127  See Cast 1 comment.  Footnote bottle did not trip as sched-
               uled.

STATION 008

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.  Console ops: "2 No confirm,
               1 confirm on 12, 2 No confirm, 1 confirm on 17.  No levels
               were missed and bottles tripped on the confirm signal.

      127-128  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-100db.

      125      Nutrients low, O2 high, salinity agrees with adjoining sta-
               tions.  Nutrient analyst: "N:P normal, no analytical problem
               found."

      109-110  Oxygen appears low compared to adjoining stations, agrees
               with CTDO.  Oxygen is acceptable.

STATION 009

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.  Console Ops: "Retripped 5."
               No levels were missed and bottles tripped on the confirm
               signal.

      126-128  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-110db.

      116      O2 looks high, but is okay, agrees with CTDO.  Salinity gra-
               dient area acceptable.  NO3 maybe 0.4 high, PO4 0.04 high.
               Nutrient Analyst: "Peaks okay, calculation okay.  No problem
               noted. This peak is higher than adjacent peaks. Could be
               real."

      106      Autosal diagnostics had the sample run 6 times.  This bottle
               gave analyst trouble last time it was used.  This time it
               caused a problem with the data.  Footnote salinity bad.
               Salinity bottle removed from box and replaced with a new
               bottle.

      105      Oxygen is ~0.04 low. No analytical problems noted.  Footnote
               oxygen questionable.

      102-105  PO4 slightly low.  Nutrient analyst: "No analytical problems
               found, N:P same as Sta 008."

      101      SiO3 high.  Nutrient analyst: "No analytical problems
               found."

STATION 010

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      128      Sample Log indicates that no salinity was drawn, but there
               is a sample and it appears to be acceptable.

      129      No salinity sample drawn, only TCO2.

      126      Sample Log indicates that no salinity was drawn, but there
               is a sample and it appears to be acceptable.

      125      Had trouble getting two reading to agree, but agrees fairly
               well for shallow value with the CTD.

      124      Oxygen appears high, flask 1308. Data are acceptable.

      116      Salinity low compared with CTD.  No analytical problem
               found.  Gradient area. Agrees fairly well with adjoining
               stations.

      101      Salinity about 0.003 high. No analytical problem found.
               Footnote salinity bad.

STATION 011

    Cast 1     Console Ops: "SBE pylon changed into rosette trip 1: 3 false
               confirms, manually fired after resetting."  No levels were
               missed and bottles tripped on the confirm signal.  Bottles
               were tripped as console operator had expected.

      126      Nutrients high, oxygen low. Data are acceptable.  Salinity
               agrees with adjoining stations.

      121      Nutrients were not drawn. This was an error in sampling,
               they should have been drawn.  Footnote nutrients lost.

      116      Nutrients were not drawn. This was an error in sampling,
               they should have been drawn.  Footnote nutrients lost.

      105      Sample Log: "Anomalous O2 draw temp."  salt way high.  Sus-
               pect bottle tripped on the way down between 300 and 400 db.
               Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled, samples bad.

      104      Bottle tripped at deepest level by request of console opera-
               tor through the pylon trip box.

      101      O2 is a little low. SiO3 high.  Nutrient analyst: "No ana-
               lytical problem found."

STATION 012

      120      Salinity is high compared with CTD.  PI: "Okay."

      116      Oxygen: "During titration, PC froze up, sample lost."



      115-120  PO4 low, NO3 low in this range.  Nutrient analyst: "Could be
               low, N:P a little high, but hard to tell. No analytical
               problem noted."

      114      Salinity has a large difference with the CTD agrees with
               adjoining stations. Salinity is acceptable.

      111      O2 high, nutrients low.  Data is acceptable.

      108      Sample Log: "Leaky vent."  Oxygen as well as other data are
               acceptable.

STATION 013

      119      Sample log: "Vent not closed."  Oxygen as well as other data
               are acceptable.

      110      PO4 appears high.  Nutrient analyst: "NO3 higher here, too.
               N:P looks about right.

      107      Salinity does not agree with CTD.  No analytical problem
               found.  Oxygen appears slightly low.  Gradient area. Other
               samples appear to be acceptable.

      101      SiO3 low.  Nutrient analyst: "No analytical problem found."

STATION 014

    Cast 1     Tripping problem. CTD tripping diagnostics indicated that
               bottle 5 did not trip, console operator then tried to fire
               the bottle but instead bottle 6 closed.  Data are correct as
               pressure is assigned.

      108      Sample log: "Leaking from vent."  Oxygen as well as other
               samples are acceptable.

      105      Console Ops: "Retripped, confirmed."  Sample log: "Didn't
               close."  Bottle did not close, but CTD data the same as bot-
               tle 6 is included to give users an additional flag that
               there was a slight problem, but it has been properly
               resolved.

      102      Salinity ran 4 times, loose thimble.  The first readings
               gave better results and are used in this salinity calcula-
               tion.  Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 015

    Cast 1     Sample Log: " No surface sample."

      132      Surface CTD data included for data users convenience.

      130-131  Bottles did not trip as scheduled.  They tripped one level
               shallower than planned.

      128      Console Ops: "One no confirm, then confirm."  Bottle tripped
               as scheduled.

      129      Sample Log: "Didn't close."  Only the CTD data is included.

      110      Salinity is a little high compared with CTD.  No analytical
               problems found.  Different water from adjoining stations.

      109      Salinity is a little high compared with CTD.  No analytical
               problems found.  Different water from adjoining stations.
               Oxygen high and nutrients low (NO3, SiO3, PO4)

      108      Salinity is a little high compared with CTD.  No analytical
               problems found.  Different water from adjoining stations.
               Oxygen is low; could be Labrador Sea waters.

      102-108  The oxygen appears lower than adjoining stations.  However
               SiO3 seems to follow that same pattern.

STATION 016

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.  Nutrient analyst double
               checked entire SiO3 profile.

      128-131  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-230db.

      126      Autosal diagnostics indicate 4 tries to get a good reading.
               Salinity is high compared with CTD.  Variation is CTD trace,
               difference between the down and up.  PI: "Salinity is
               acceptable."

      123      Salinity is high compared with CTD.  No analytical problem
               noted.  Salinity is acceptable.

      118      Salinity is low compared with CTD.  No analytical problem
               noted.  Salinity is acceptable.  PI: "High gradient region."

      114      Salinity is high compared with CTD.  Autosal diagnostics
               indicate 4 tries to get a good reading, indicating a problem
               with the samples.  Footnote salinity bad.

      112      Oxygen may be low as compared to CTDO. No analytical reason
               noted for low oxygen.  Feature does not show in other prop-
               erties or adjoining stations.  PI: "This is okay, just the
               most extreme Labrador Sea water in the section."


      111      Oxygen appears high. No analytical reason noted.  Feature
               does not show in other properties or adjoining stations.
               Oxygen agrees with CTDO.  Oxygen is acceptable.  See 112 PI
               comment.

      110      Salinity is high compared with CTD.  No analytical problem
               noted.  Gradient area.  Salinity is acceptable.

      101      Salinity is high compared with CTD.  Autosal diagnostics
               indicate 4 tries to get a good reading, indicating a problem
               with the samples.  Footnote salinity bad.

STATION 017

      131      Footnote CTDO questionable 0-60db.

      120      Sample Log: "Lanyard hung, leaking."  Salinity is high com-
               pared with CTD.  No analytical problems found.  Oxygen as
               well as other parameters appear to be acceptable.  There is
               a large change in salinity between the down up, salinity may
               also be acceptable.

      119      Sample Log: "O2 flask 1403 broke, replaced by 1515."

      112      Sample Log: "Lanyard hung, leaking."  Salinity is high com-
               pared with CTD.  No analytical problems found.  Nutrients
               and oxygen are a little low.  Footnote bottle leaking, sam-
               ples bad.

      109      Console Ops: "10th light on."

      107      Console ops: "No FF08, 7 light on."

      108      Sample Log: "Was open, didn't close."  Console Ops: "FF10
               9th light on."  Bottle did not close, but CTD data the same
               as bottle 7 is included to give users an additional flag
               that there was a slight problem, but it has been properly
               resolved.

      106-111  NO3 appears low, SiO3 low and O2 high.  Nutrient Analyst:
               "No analytical problem noted, different water perhaps."

STATION 018

      124      Oxygen high and nutrients (NO3, SiO3,PO4) low

      119      Salinity is higher than CTD.  No analytical problem found.
               Feature in CTD which gives a large ∆S.  Salinity is
               acceptable.  Other data also okay.


      109      Console Ops: "Off by 1."  Bottle tripped after 10, footnote
               bottle did not trip as scheduled.  Data are acceptable.
               Bottle tripped before 09, the pylon was manually positioned
               and the bottle tripped as planned.

      110      Console Ops: "Manual position."  Sample Log: "Leaking from
               end cap."  Oxygen as well as other data are acceptable.
               Bottle tripped before 09, the pylon was manually positioned
               and the bottle tripped as planned.

      108      Console Ops: "No confirm, then confirm."

STATION 019

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      127      Oxygen: "PC locked up, lost sample."

      120      NO3 and PO4 appear high.  Nutrient Analyst: "Gradient here,
               probably real."

      119      Salinity is high compared with CTD.  No analytical problem
               found.  Oxygen is high.  NO3 and PO4 also appear high.
               Nutrient Analyst: "Gradient here, probably real."

      107      Salinity analyst switched to 8 before finishing 7.  All con-
               ductivity ratios were remembered and written down.

      101      SiO3 low.  Nutrient analyst: "No analytical problem found.
               Agrees with 102 and 103 which it should."  Data are accept-
               able.

STATION 020

      128-131  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-164db.

      124      Salinity is high compared with the CTD.  Autosal diagnostics
               indicate 4 tries to get a good reading, indicating a problem
               with the samples.  Salinity agrees with adjoining stations.
               Offset as much as station profile 100-700 db.

      121      Salinity is high compared with the CTD.  Autosal diagnostics
               indicate 4 tries to get a good reading, indicating a problem
               with the samples.  Salinity agrees with adjoining stations.

      119      Salinity is high compared with the CTD.  Autosal diagnostics
               indicate 4 tries to get a good reading, indicating a problem
               with the samples.  PI: "Could be okay, high variability
               region."  CTD profile indicates changing area. Down/up dif-
               ferences.  Salinity is acceptable.

      116      Salinity is low compared with the CTD Autosal diagnostics
               indicate 4 tries to get a good reading, indicating a problem
               with the samples.  Agrees with Station 019.  Salinity is
               acceptable.

      108      Sample Log: "Vent not fully closed."  Oxygen as well as
               other samples appear to be acceptable.

      104      Salinity is high compared with the CTD.  Autosal diagnostics
               indicate 3 tries to get a good reading, indicating a problem
               with the samples.  Also high compared with adjoining sta-
               tions.  Footnote salinity bad.

      101      Oxygen high. No analytical problem noted.  Footnote oxygen
               bad.

STATION 021

    Cast 1     SiO3 ~0.6 high.  Nutrient analyst: "No analytical problem
               noted."  SiO3 is acceptable.

      104      Console Ops: "Manually positioned with software to 4, no
               affect.  Dialed up 4 on deck unit and pushed button, bottle
               closed.  This occurred with the rosette at the surface."
               Sample Log: "Surface bottle."

      125      Footnote CTDO bad 492-626db.

      112      Salinity is high compared with the CTD.  Autosal diagnostics
               indicate 3 tries to get a good reading.  Variation in CTD
               trace.  PI: "Salinity is acceptable."

      107      Salinity is high compared with the CTD.  Autosal diagnostics
               indicate 3 tries to get a good reading, indicating a problem
               with the samples.  Footnote salinity bad.

STATION 022

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      130      PO4 ~0.4 high.  Nutrient analyst:" High surface gradient
               here."  Data are acceptable.

      124      Oxygen ~0.2 high. No analytical problems noted.  Footnote
               oxygen bad.

      123      Oxygen ~0.3 high on station profile. No analytical problems
               noted.  Oxygen agrees with CTDO.  Oxygen is acceptable.

      122-124  Nutrients appear low, oxygen appears high.  Salinity agrees
               with CTD.  Suspect this is real feature.  Data are acceptable.

      105-108  Nutrients appear low, oxygen appears high.  Salinity agrees
               with CTD.  Suspect this is real feature.  Data are accept-
               able.

      102      Several tries to get two readings to agree.  The first read-
               ings gave better results and are used in this salinity cal-
               culation.  Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 023

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      116      Salinity is low compared to CTD.  Salinity, oxygen and
               nutrients low.  Salinity and O2 would be higher if the bot-
               tle leaked.  Data are acceptable.

      110      Salinity is high compared to CTD.  Oxygen is a little high,
               nutrients are a little low.  Oxygen agrees with CTDO.  Data
               are acceptable.

      105-110  SiO3 low.  Nutrient Analyst: "Data are acceptable."

STATION 024

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      129      Oxygen is high. Other data are acceptable.  Flask 1149.  No
               analytical problems noted.  Footnote oxygen questionable.
               Footnote CTDO questionable 80-104db.

      116      Salinity appears low compared to CTD. But, plotted vs
               Pot.Temp., it agrees with Station 023 025 and 022.  Salinity
               is acceptable.

      113      Oxygen appears low compared with adjoining stations.  No
               analytical problem noted.  Compared vs. SiO3, oxygen appears
               acceptable.

      109      Salinity is a little high.  No analytical problem noted.
               PI: "High gradient."  Salinity is acceptable.  There is a
               feature in the CTD trace and a slight difference between the
               down and up trace.

STATION 025

    Cast 1     Sample Log: "Forgot to remove O2 sensor cover."  No CTDO
               reported.

      122      SiO3 appears low.  Nutrient Analyst: "Large gradient in
               nutrients."  Data are acceptable.

      118      Salinity is slightly high.  No analytical problem found.
               PI: "High gradient."  Salinity is acceptable.

      117-120  NO3 and PO4 are high.  Nutrient Analyst: "Large gradient in
               nutrients."  Data are acceptable.

      101      Salinity is high.  Autosal diagnostics indicate 4 tries to
               get a good reading, indicating a problem with the samples.
               The first readings gave better results and are used in this
               salinity calculation.  Salinity is acceptable.

      101-131  Oxygen sensor cover left on. CTDO lost.

STATION 026

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      130      Oxygen appears high vs. CTDO, but agrees with adjoining sta-
               tions.  Oxygen is acceptable.

      129      Oxygen appears low, agrees with CTDO, gradient area.  Fea-
               ture not seen in other data.  PI: "Checked with Freon ana-
               lysts, data are acceptable."

      125      Oxygen appears high, agrees with CTDO, gradient area.  Fea-
               ture not seen in other data.  PI: "Checked with Freon ana-
               lysts, data are acceptable."

      117      Oxygen appears high, agrees with CTDO, gradient area.  Fea-
               ture not seen in other data.  PI: "Checked with Freon ana-
               lysts, data are acceptable."

      107      Salinity is high.  Autosal diagnostics indicate 4 tries to
               get a good reading, indicating a problem with the samples.
               The first readings gave better results and are used in this
               salinity calculation.  Salinity is acceptable.  Oxygen is
               high.  Oxygen overtitrated, no endpoint.  Overtitration pro-
               cess evidently was not done correctly.  Footnote oxygen bad.

      104      Oxygen is 0.02 high.  No analytical problem noted, within
               WOCE specs.  Oxygen is acceptable.


STATION 027

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      129-131  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-126db.

STATION 028

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      117      ∆S at 1415db is -0.0064.  Salinity also high compared
               with adjoining stations.  No analytical problem noted.  Gra-
               dient and "spike" feature in CTD trace.  PI: "Salinity is
               acceptable."

      115      ∆S at 1720db is 0.0048.  Salinity agrees with adjoining
               stations.

STATION 029

      127-128  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-104db.

      121      Oxygen appears low. Feature does not show in other data.  No
               analytical problem noted.  Footnote oxygen questionable.
               Also appears low vs. CTDO.

      119      Sample Log: "Vent left open."  Oxygen as well as other data
               are acceptable.

      118      Salinity had a large difference as compared with the CTD.
               Autosal diagnostics indicate 5 tries to get a good reading.
               The first readings gave better results and are used in this
               salinity calculation.

      109      Oxygen appears low. Feature shown in high nutrients.  No
               analytical problem noted.  Oxygen is acceptable.

      101      ∆S at 4035db is 0.0025.  Salinity agrees with adjoining
               stations.

      101-109  NO3 and PO4 appear high. Feature does not show in S, O2, or
               SiO3.  Nutrient analyst: "F1s look high a bit compared to
               adjacent stations. Adjusted F1s to match adjacent stations."

STATION 030

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      123      Oxygen appears ~0.1 high.  No analytical problem found.
               Oxygen agrees with CTDO.  PI: "Oxygen is acceptable."

STATION 031

    Cast 1     No comment on the Sample Log.

      117      Oxygen low and nutrients (NO3, PO4 SiO3) high.

      109      ∆S at 1110db is -0.0076.  No analytical problem noted.

STATION 032

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      115-117  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-74db.

      108      Oxygen low, nutrients high. Salinity appears to be accept-
               able.  Feature probably real.

      107      Oxygen low, nutrients high. Salinity appears to be accept-
               able.  Feature probably real.

      102      ∆S at 1261db is -0.0067.  No analytical problem found.
               Salinity lower than adjoining stations.  Other data are
               acceptable.  Gradient area.  PI: "Salinity is acceptable."

      101      ∆S at 1509db is 0.004.  No analytical problem found.
               Salinity higher than adjoining stations.  Other data are
               acceptable.  Gradient area.  PI: "Salinity is acceptable."

STATION 033

      116      Sample Log: "Leak from bottom end cap when vent cracked."
               Oxygen as well as other data are acceptable.

      101      Salinity was ~.01 high.  Autosal diagnostics indicate 4
               tries to get a good reading.  The first readings gave better
               results and are used in this salinity calculation.  Salinity
               is acceptable.

STATION 034

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.  Duplicate salts were drawn
               and analyzed by third salinity analyst. Bottle 8 had no
               water left in it, but the other salts agreed except 6 which
               was 0.001 high and 1 was .003 high.

STATION 035

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      106      PO4 is ~0.03 high.  Nutrient analyst: "No analytical problem
               found, data is acceptable."

STATION 036

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      106      Oxygen appears low compared with adjoining stations.  PI:
               "NO3, PO4, but not silicate show similar (high) feature, low
               CFC-11-12 also, likely real."  Nutrient Analyst: "SiO3
               higher on chart, no problem."  Oxygen is acceptable.

      102      Oxygen appears high compared with adjoining stations.  No
               complimentary feature in nutrients.  Oxygen agrees with
               CTDO.  Oxygen is acceptable

STATION 037

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      122      Salinity had a large difference as compared with the CTD.
               Autosal diagnostics indicate 5 tries to get a good reading.
               The first readings gave better results and are used in this
               salinity calculation.  Other data are acceptable.  Salinity
               is acceptable.

      115      Oxygen appears low, nutrients high.  Data are acceptable.

      111      Oxygen: "PC hung up, sample lost."  Salinity had a large
               difference as compared with the CTD.  Autosal diagnostics
               indicate 5 tries to get a good reading.  The original read-
               ing gave better results.  Salinity is acceptable.  Other
               data are acceptable.

      106      Oxygen appears high, nutrients low.  Data are acceptable.

      103      Salinity had a large difference as compared with the CTD.
               Autosal diagnostics indicate 5 tries to get a good reading.
               The original reading gave better results.  Salinity is
               acceptable.  Other data are acceptable.

      101      ∆S at 1272db is 0.0133.  Autosal diagnostics indicate 5
               tries to get a good reading.  First reading was higher than
               the next set of readings.  Footnote salinity bad.  Other
               data are acceptable.

STATION 038

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      118      Oxygen low, nutrients (NO3, PO4, SiO3) high; Salinity low as
               well.

      110      ∆S at 1054db is 0.008.  Autosal diagnostics indicate 5
               tries to get a good reading.  Autosal operator did not write
               down the first reading.  Gradient area.  Salinity and other
               data are acceptable.

      106      Autosal diagnostics indicate 3 tries to get a good reading.
               First reading is a little better, but still high.  Gradient
               area.  Salinity and other data are acceptable.

STATION 039

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      107      Oxygen low.  No problems noted during analysis.  Footnote
               oxygen bad.  Flask 1509.

      105      Salinity had a large difference as compared with the CTD.
               Autosal diagnostics indicate 5 tries to get a good reading.
               The first readings gave better results and are used in this
               salinity calculation.  Salinity is acceptable.

      104      Salinity had a large difference as compared with the CTD.
               Autosal diagnostics indicate 5 tries to get a good reading.
               The first readings gave better results and are used in this
               salinity calculation.  Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 040

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      124      Footnote CTDO questionable 0-32db.

      120-121  Nutrients appear to be switched on NO3 vs. PO4 plot.  N:P
               ratios are low.  Salinity agrees with the CTD and it is
               unlikely that the bottle leaked, since the salinity is at
               the salinity max.  Nutrient analyst can find no problem with
               the data. Oxygen for 120 appears low on the station profile,
               vs. pressure, but not so low, compared to previous stations,
               that it could be considered questionable.  These  are in the
               appropriate order, they were not switched.

      104      Salinity had a large difference as compared with the CTD.
               Autosal diagnostics indicate 4 tries to get a good reading.
               The first readings gave better results and are used in this
               salinity calculation.  Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 041

      124      Sample Log: "Closed partly out of water."  No water for
               salinity sample.

      122-124  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-62db.

      111-112  Oxygen is low and nutrients are high.  salinity is a little
               low compared to CTD, but acceptable for gradient area.  Fea-
               ture must be real.

      105      ∆S at 2073db is 0.0179.  No analytical problem indi-
               cated.  Other data are acceptable.  Footnote salinity bad.

      103      Salinity had a large difference as compared with the CTD.
               Autosal diagnostics indicate 4 tries to get a good reading.
               The first readings gave better results and are used in this
               salinity calculation.  The salinity is still too high.
               ∆S at 2481db is 0.0056.  Footnote salinity bad.

      102      ∆S at 2632db is 0.0027.  Autosal diagnostics indicate 3
               tries to get a good reading.  The first reading gave better
               results and are used in this salinity calculation, but still
               out of WOCE specs.  Variation in the CTD trace.  PI: "Salin-
               ity is acceptable."

      101      ∆S at 2824db is 0.0092.  No analytical problem indi-
               cated.  Other data are acceptable.  Footnote salinity bad.

STATION 042

      124      Sample Log: "Closed partly out of water."

      112      ∆S at 1060db is -0.0065.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem with the analyses.  Other samples are
               acceptable.  Agrees fairly well with adjoining stations for
               this gradient.  Salinity is acceptable.

      106      ∆S at 1714db is 0.0261.  Autosal diagnostics indicate 7
               tries to get a good reading, indicating a problem with the
               samples.  Other samples are acceptable.  Footnote salinity
               bad.

      101      ∆S at 2518db is 0.0026.  The first readings gave better
               results and are used in this salinity calculation.  Salinity
               is out of WOCE specs.  Footnote salinity questionable.

STATION 043

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      110      Oxygen: "OT (No EP)."  ∆S at 1213db is 0.0072.  Autosal
               diagnostics indicate 3 tries to get a good reading, indicat-
               ing a problem with the samples.  Salinity operator did not
               annotate the first reading.  PI: "Doesn't look so far off on
               the plot, salinity is acceptable."

      109      Large salinity difference.  Suppression switch was set
               incorrectly. After correcting the data, the agreement is
               much better.  Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 044

      106      Sample Log: "Vent not tightly closed."  Oxygen as well as
               other data are acceptable.

STATION 045

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      118      Oxygen is high on station profile, nutrients are low.
               Salinity agrees with CTD and adjoining stations.  Data is
               acceptable.

      115      Oxygen is high on station profile, nutrients are low.
               Salinity agrees with CTD and adjoining stations.  Data is
               acceptable.

      113      Salinity ran out of water before reading could be obtained
               during analysis.  Footnote salinity lost.  Other data are
               acceptable.

      107      ∆S at 1606db is 0.0065.  No analytical problem found.
               Salinity is acceptable, feature also seen in CTD trace.

      105      SiO3 high, Oxygen low.  Data are acceptable.

STATION 046

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      119      Footnote CTDO questionable 0-36db.

      103      ∆S at 1662db is 0.0065.  Autosal diagnostics indicate 5
               tries to get a good reading, indicating a problem with the
               samples.  The first readings gave better results and are
               used in this salinity calculation.  Salinity still appears
               slightly high.  Footnote salinity questionable.

      101      ∆S at 1831db is 0.0057.  Autosal diagnostics indicate 5
               tries to get a good reading, indicating a problem with the
               samples.  The first readings gave better results and are
               used in this salinity calculation.  Salinity still appears
               slightly high.  Footnote salinity questionable.



STATION 047

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      114      The first readings gave better results and are used in this
               salinity calculation.

STATION 048

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      104      The first readings gave better results and are used in this
               salinity calculation.  Oxygen appears low, nutrients appear
               high.  Data is acceptable.  PI: "Likely okay, matches CTD."

STATION 049

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      106-107  Oxygen flasks changed during sampling.  Data recorded prop-
               erly and is acceptable.

STATION 050

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      108      Low N:P, the NO3 and PO4 stations profiles looked good.
               Nutrient Analyst: "No analytical problem, gradient."

STATION 051

      108      Sample Log: "Vent not closed."  Oxygen as well as other data
               are acceptable.

      105      Oxygen high, nutrients (NO3, SiO3,PO4) low.  Data are
               acceptable.

      103      The first readings gave better results and are used in this
               salinity calculation.  Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 052

    Cast 1     No comments from the Sample Log.

      118      SiO3 low ~0.9.  Nutrient analyst: "Looks the same as Sta
               051, in mixed layer."

      102-103  SiO3 0.4 low, within specs of the measurement.  Nutrient
               analyst: "No problem noted."

      101      PO4 0.05 high, O2 low.  PO4 agrees with Station 055.

STATION 053

      122      High on N:P plot.  Nutrient analyst: "Gradient, data is
               acceptable."

      108      Sample Log: "Vent is open."  Oxygen as well as other data
               are acceptable.  SiO3 is low.  Nutrient analyst: "Probably
               bad, code questionable."

      105      ∆S at 1618db is -0.0035.  No analytical problems noted.
               Salinity agrees with adjoining stations.  Gradient area,
               salinity is acceptable.

      103      O2 high.  PI: "Doesn't fit in CTDO.  Freon did not measure
               to assist in this.  Doesn't match CTDO, but similar to Stas.
               054 & 055.  Oxygen is acceptable."

      102      Oxygen: "PC lock-up, lost sample.

STATION 054

      123-124  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-38db.

      117      Oxygen: "PC locked up, sample lost."

      114      Oxygen low, nutrients (NO3, PO4, SiO3) high.  Data are
               acceptable.

      108      Sample Log: "Leaking when valve opened."  Oxygen and other
               data are acceptable.  ∆S at 1159db is 0.0064.  No ana-
               lytical problem noted.  Feature in CTD trace produced by
               bottle stop.  Gradient area.  Salinity agrees with adjoining
               stations.  Salinity is acceptable.

      104      ∆S at 1565db is 0.0029.  No analytical problem noted.
               Gradient area.  Salinity is acceptable.

      101      Footnote CTDO questionable 2066-2104db.

STATION 055

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      110      O2 maybe high.  PI: "No freon sample, oxygen appears to be
               okay compared with plots of several stations."

      109      PI: "Oxygen low, maybe match the upcast CTD, probably simi-
               lar to 056.

      108      Footnote CTDO bad 1098-1140db.

STATION 056

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      119-121  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-80db.

      118      Oxygen is a little high, but nutrients are low.  Salinity
               looks good on station profile.  Nutrient Analyst: "Almost
               looks like sample 19 & 18 are reversed or reversal of trip."

      114      Salinity appears high vs. CTD and adjoining stations.  Gra-
               dient area.  Salinity analyst had trouble getting readings
               to agree.  First reading is better, but still high.  Foot-
               note salinity questionable.

      108      O2 low.  PI: "Or 109 O2 high? but both match upcast.  Freon
               not sampled at all bottles. Oxygen is acceptable."

STATION 057

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      116-117  Footnote CTDO questionable 140-240db.

      102      ∆S at 1513db is 0.0027.  No analytical problem noted.
               Gradient area.  Feature in CTD trace produced by ship roll
               during sampling may cause the difference in salinity values.
               Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 058

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      111      Oxygen appears a little low, but nutrients appear a little
               high. Salinity agrees with the CTD and adjoining stations.
               Data are acceptable.

      104      The first readings gave better results and are used in this
               salinity calculation.  Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 059

    Cast 1     Sample Log: "Battery died on O2 thermometer."

      113-115  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-152db.

      110      Oxygen appears a little high, but nutrients appear a little
               low. Salinity agrees with the CTD and adjoining stations.
               Data are acceptable.

      104      Oxygen appears a little high, but nutrients appear a little
               low. Salinity agrees with the CTD and adjoining stations.
               Data are acceptable.

      101      The first readings gave better results and are used in this
               salinity calculation.

STATION 060

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      106      N:P ratio low.  Nutrient Analyst: "N:P gradient, data are
               acceptable."

STATION 061

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

STATION 062

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

STATION 063

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      102      Oxygen appears low but nutrients are high.  Data are accept-
               able.

STATION 064

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      113-115  N:P high.  NO3 and PO4 look okay on property plots and the
               N:P plot agrees with Station 068.
               Footnote CTDO questionable 0-100db.

STATION 065

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      102      ∆S at 1011db is 0.006.  No analytical problem noted.
               Salinity is not any higher than bottles 3-5 compared with
               064 and 067. Does not appear high when plotted on CTD trace.
               Salinity is acceptable.  Oxygen is high and nutrients are
               low except SiO3 which is also high.  Oxygen also agrees with
               CTDO trace.

STATION 066

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      101-102  PO4 and SiO3 appear a little high.  Oxygen is lower than
               Stations 065 and 067, but higher than Station 068.  Data are
               acceptable.

STATION 067

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      101      ∆S at 1518db is 0.0039.  No analytical problem noted.
               CTD trace shows a mass of features which are created from
               the bottle trip.  Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 068

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      122-124  Footnote CTDO bad 0-106db.

      115      Oxygen high and nutrients low, salinity agrees with CTD.
               Data are acceptable.

      107      ∆S at 1617db is 0.0029.  No analytical problems noted.
               Gradient area.  Salinity is acceptable.

      104      ∆S at 2072db is 0.0031.  No analytical problems noted.
               Gradient area.  Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 069

      123      Sample Log: "Low on water for tritium; no water left for
               salts."

      121-123  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-134db.

      119-120  Console Ops: "20 tripped first then 19."  This was done
               through the software, no levels were missed.

      118      Console Ops: "No confirm, then confirm."

      102      ∆S at 2628db is 0.0025.  The first readings gave better
               results and are used in this salinity calculation.

      101      Footnote CTDO bad 2806-2840db.

STATION 070

      121-124  Footnote CTDO bad 0-192db.

      108      Sample Log: "Vent not quite closed."  Oxygen as well as
               other data are acceptable.

      102      Oxygen is low, nutrients are high. Salinity agrees with
               adjoining stations.  Data are acceptable.

STATION 071

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.  Console Ops: "Down trace
               30-75m, something stuck in conductivity cell?"

      122      Oxygen high, nutrients low, salinity agrees with CTD.

      103      Autosal diagnostics indicate 4 tries to get a good reading,
               indicating a problem with the samples.  The first readings
               gave better results and are used in this salinity calcula-
               tion.  Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 072

      120      ∆S at 3db is 0.0296.  Autosal diagnostics do not indi-
               cate a problem.  Salinity as well as other data are accept-
               able.

      119-120  Footnote CTDO bad 0-42db.

      104      ∆S at 1717db is -0.0026.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Gradient area.  Salinity is acceptable.

      101      Sample Log: "Vent open."  Oxygen as well as other data are
               acceptable.

STATION 073

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      118-120  Footnote CTDO bad 0-100db.

      115      No nutrients drawn, sampling error.

      112      ∆S at 567db is 0.0227.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Salinity agrees with adjoining stations
               and CTD down trace.  Oxygen is low and nutrients are high.
               Data are acceptable.

STATION 074

      121      Sample Log: "Closed partially out of water."  Oxygen as well
               as other data are acceptable compared to adjoining stations.

      119-121  Footnote CTDO bad 0-138db.

      114      Low Oxygen, nutrients are a little high and overlay the
               adjoining stations, salinity is a little low compared to
               adjoining stations and CTD.  Data are acceptable.

      113      ∆S is -0.0583. Salinity is low compared with adjoining
               stations and CTD down trace as well as up.  Autosal diagnos-
               tics do not indicate a problem.  Footnote salinity question-
               able.  Other data are acceptable.

      101      Footnote CTDO questionable 2240-2272db.

STATION 075

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      108      Nutrients low, O2 high, salinity agrees with CTD.  Data are
               acceptable.

STATION 076

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      115      Oxygen low, corresponding high feature not in nutrients.
               Low oxygen shown in CTDO trace.

      103      SiO3 appears low compared with following stations, it agrees
               with previous stations.  Data are acceptable.

STATION 077

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      119-120  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-48db.

STATION 078

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      113-116  Footnote CTDO bad 0-160db.

STATION 079

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      114      Footnote CTDO bad 0-26db.

      109      Oxygen: "Sample lost." No further explanation.

STATION 080

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      119-120  Footnote CTDO bad 0-64db.

      113      Oxygen high, feature is also in nutrients-low.  CTDO also
               indicates high O2.  Oxygen is acceptable.

      106      Oxygen appears low, corresponding high feature not seen in
               nutrients. CTDO also indicates high O2.

      101      Oxygen appears high, corresponding low feature not seen in
               nutrients. CTDO also indicates high O2.

      101-104  NO3 and PO4 a little higher than previous stations, looks
               okay on N:P plot.

STATION 081

      121      Footnote CTDO bad 0-30db.

      113      Oxygen appears high.  Feature does not show in nutrients.
               Could possibly show in CTDO, but difficult to tell.  Does
               agree with Sta. 083.

      111      Salinity appears high, O2 low, but salinity and O2 agree
               with CTD.

      108      Sample Log: "Vent leaking."  Oxygen as well as other data
               are acceptable.

      108-113  SiO3 slightly higher than adjoining stations, NO3 too.  PO4
               appears low.  Nutrient Analyst: "PO4 okay, N:P's look nor-
               mal.

STATION 082

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      120-122  Footnote CTDO bad 0-122db.

STATION 083

      128      Sample Log: "3 micro-rinses on salinity."  Salinity is
               acceptable.

      124-128  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-280db.

      113-116  Problem with the run, it appears to have shifted according
               to the data, but the shift does not show in the peaks.  SiO3
               is questionable.

STATION 084

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      119-125  Footnote CTDO bad 0-510db.

      103      PO4 too high.  Nutrient Analyst: "Higher on trace as well-
               doesn't look right-maybe contaminated? PO4 is questionable."
               PI: "Code PO4 bad."

STATION 085

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      121-125  Footnote CTDO bad 0-312db.

      117      Duplicate O2 drawn.  SiO3 1.0 low.  Nutrient Analyst: "Okay
               on chart, peak okay. Agrees with Station 084 as well. Gradi-
               ent area. SiO3 is acceptable."

      101      ∆S at 2959db is 0.0078.  Bottle salinity is acceptable.
               Large spikes in CTD data.

STATION 086

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      122-127  Footnote CTDO bad 0-288db.

      119      Triplicate O2 drawn.

      104      ∆S at 2751db is 0.0025.  PI: "Noisy CTD profile, so
               okay."  Footnote CTD salinity despiked.

      103      ∆S at 2821db is 0.0057.  PI: "Noisy CTD profile, so
               okay."  Footnote CTD salinity despiked.

      102      ∆S at 2862db is 0.0044.  PI: "Noisy CTD profile, so
               okay."  Footnote CTD salinity despiked.

      101      ∆S at 2908db is -0.0073.  PI: "Noisy CTD profile, so
               okay."  Footnote CTD salinity despiked.

STATION 087

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      103      ∆S at 2702db is 0.0037.  PI: "Noisy CTD profile, bottle
               salinity okay."  Footnote CTD salinity questionable.  No
               CTDO is calculated because the CTD Salinity is coded ques-
               tionable.

      102      ∆S at 2754db is -0.003.  PI: "Noisy CTD profile, bottle
               salinity okay."  Footnote CTD salinity questionable.  No
               CTDO is calculated because the CTD Salinity is coded ques-
               tionable.

STATION 088

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      116      Salinity is higher than CTD profile.  Autosal diagnostics do
               not indicate a problem.  Salinity appears higher than
               adjoining stations, but not too much more than other salin-
               ity values in this gradient. It looks like it could be a
               drawing error.  Footnote salinity questionable.

      114      Salinity is higher than CTD profile.  Autosal diagnostics do
               not indicate a problem.  Salinity appears higher than
               adjoining stations, but not too much more than other salin-
               ity values in this gradient. It looks like it could be a
               drawing error.  Footnote salinity questionable.

      109      ∆S at 1967db is 0.0066.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Gradient.  Salinity is acceptable.  PI:
               "Code salinity as questionable."

      108      ∆S at 2068db is 0.0025.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Gradient.  Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 089

      127      Sample Log: "Running out of water."  Salinity is acceptable.

      125-127  Footnote CTDO bad 0-102db.

      119      Oxygen: "Sample is lost, thio tube was bent and not dispens-
               ing properly.  Footnote oxygen lost.

      109      ∆S at 1639db is 0.003.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Gradient area.  Salinity is acceptable.

      101      Footnote CTDO questionable 2170-2182db.

STATION 090

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      118-123  Footnote CTDO bad 0-444db.

      105      The first readings gave better results and are used in this
               salinity calculation.

      102      ∆S at 1745db is 0.0059.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  There is a "spike" in the CTD trace
               which is probably giving the large difference. This is real
               data at a bottle stop and is showing the difference in just
               a few seconds of sampling.  Salinity is acceptable.

      101      Footnote CTDO bad 1786-1798db.

STATION 091

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

STATION 092

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      118      Footnote CTDO questionable 0-34db.

STATION 093

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      101      Footnote CTDO questionable 506-516db.

STATION 094

    Cast 1     No comments on Sample Log.  STD dial 5 units higher than
               previous and next runs.  This would only be a difference if
               0.001 PSU and is negligible on this shallow station.

      110      ∆S at 4db is 0.0455.  CTD trace has a large "spike" in
               it.  Footnote CTD salinity questionable.  No CTDO is calcu-
               lated because the CTD Salinity is coded bad.

      109-110  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-44db.

      109      ∆S at 32db is 0.0431.  CTD trace has a large "spike" in
               it.  Footnote CTD salinity questionable.  No CTDO is calcu-
               lated because the CTD Salinity is coded bad.

STATION 095

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      111      ∆S at 3db is 0.0375.  Autosal diagnostics do not indi-
               cate a problem.  Lots of variation in CTD trace at the time
               of bottle trip.  Footnote CTD salinity questionable, just
               not good for bottle trip.
               No CTDO is calculated because the CTD Salinity is coded bad.
               Footnote CTDO bad 0-18db.

      109      ∆S at 103db is -0.044.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Footnote CTD salinity questionable,
               just not good for bottle trip.  No CTDO is calculated
               because the CTD Salinity is coded bad.

STATION 096

      114      ∆S at 4db is -0.0297.  Autosal diagnostics do not indi-
               cate a problem.

      113      The first readings gave better results and are used in this
               salinity calculation, but made a 0.005 difference.

      108      Sample Log: "Leaking when vent opened."  Oxygen as well as
               other data are acceptable.

      102      Triplicate O2 drawn.
               Footnote CTDO questionable 748-772db.

STATION 097

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      110      ∆S at 2db is 0.0409.  Autosal diagnostics do not indi-
               cate a problem.  Salinity is acceptable.
               Footnote CTDO bad 0-40db.

      109      ∆S at 44db is 0.049.  Autosal diagnostics indicate 3
               tries to get a good reading.  Used the first reading The
               first readings gave better results and are used in this
               salinity calculation.  Salinity is a little lower than
               adjoining stations.  Salinity is acceptable.

      108-109  N:P low.  Nutrient Analyst: "NO3 and PO4 are acceptable."

      101      Footnote CTDO questionable 426-448db.

STATION 098

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      108      Footnote CTDO questionable 0-12db.

STATION 099

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      109-110  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-66db.


STATION 100

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      103      ∆S at 1042db is -0.0167.  No analytical problem.  Large
               spike in CTD data.

STATION 101

      117      Oxygen appears low, however, it is higher than 100 and lower
               than 102.  Lower nutrients show that the feature is real.

      108      Sample Log: "Vent loose."  Oxygen as well as other data are
               acceptable.

STATION 102

      119-121  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-78db.

      106      PO4 low, NO3 low vs other stations, but SiO3 is not.  Nutri-
               ent analyst: "Yes, SiO3 is lower, just not as pronounced.
               No analytical problem."

      105      Sample Log: "oxygen redrawn."  Oxygen as well as other data
               are acceptable.  ∆S at 1809db is 0.0028.  Salinity is a
               little high Lots of variation seen in CTD profile.  No ana-
               lytical problem noted.  PI: "Salinity is acceptable."

      103      ∆S at 2038db is -0.0051.  Gradient area.  No analytical
               problem noted.  lots of variation seen in CTD profile at
               bottle trip.  Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 103

      128      Sample Log: "No water for surface salts."
               Footnote CTDO questionable 0-40db.

STATION 104

      129      O2 appears high compared to adjoining stations, PO4 and NO3
               are lower.  Data are acceptable.

      114      ∆S at 1570db is 0.0052.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Salinity minimum, data is acceptable.

      110      ∆S at 2378db is 0.0027.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Salinity maximum, salinity is accept-
               able.

      109      ∆S at 2530db is 0.0032.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Salinity maximum, salinity is acceptable.

      108      ∆S at 2631db is 0.0037.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Lots of features in the salinity pro-
               file.  Data are acceptable.

      106      ∆S at 2774db is -0.0052.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Lots of features in the salinity pro-
               file.  Data are acceptable.

      104      Triplicate O2 drawn.

      103      ∆S at 2957db is -0.0035.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Lots of features in the salinity pro-
               file.  Data are acceptable.

      102      Triplicate O2 drawn.

STATION 105

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      129      Oxygen: "OT (No EP)."  Oxygen as well as other data are
               acceptable.

      126      O2 low, high feature also seen in nutrients.  Data are
               acceptable.

      122      Salinity high compared to the CTD.  The first readings gave
               better results and are used in this salinity calculation.
               The salinity is acceptable after the correction.  O2 high,
               feature is also seen in lower nutrients.  Data are accept-
               able.

      115      ∆S at 1468db is 0.0086.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Salinity appears high.  Other data are
               acceptable.  Footnote salinity questionable.  PI: "Code
               salinity bad."

      111-125  NO3 low.  Nutrient Analyst: "Reanalyzed data and made a cor-
               rection to NO3. Data are now acceptable."

      107      ∆S at 2786db is 0.0044.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Lots of variation in CTD profile at
               bottle trip.  Salinity as well as other data are acceptable.

      105      ∆S at 3010db is -0.0028.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Lots of variation in CTD profile at
               bottle trip.  Salinity as well as other data are acceptable.

      104      ∆S at 3070db is -0.0029.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Lots of variation in CTD profile at
               bottle trip.  Salinity as well as other data are acceptable.

      103      ∆S at 3132db is -0.0028.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Lots of variation in CTD profile at
               bottle trip.  Salinity as well as other data are acceptable.

      102      ∆S at 3194db is -0.0043.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Lots of variation in CTD profile at
               bottle trip.  Salinity as well as other data are acceptable.

STATION 106

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      127-128  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-36db.

STATION 107

      126-128  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-68db.

      108      Sample Log: "Vent open."  Vent is not as tight as the oth-
               ers.  Oxygen as well as other data are acceptable.

STATION 108

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      128      ∆S at 35db is -0.046.  Autosal diagnostics do not indi-
               cate a problem.  CTD profile indicates a lot of mixing
               "spikes".  Salinity is acceptable.

      126-129  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-166db.

      122      Triplicate O2 drawn.

      111      ∆S at 2119db is 0.0027.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Gradient area.  Salinity is acceptable.

      110      Triplicate O2 drawn.

STATION 109

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      130      Nutrients not analyzed, no reason noted, suspect drawing
               problem. Footnote nutrients lost.

      129      Oxygen: "Sample lost, PC Hung up during titration."

      128-130  Footnote CTDO bad 0-62db.

      123      Oxygen: "Sample lost, PC glitch."

      109      ∆S at 2499db is 0.0027.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Salinity agrees with adjoining sta-
               tions.

      108      Salinity appears high compared with CTD.  Autosal diagnos-
               tics do not indicate a problem.  Salinity agrees with
               adjoining stations.

      101-102  Footnote CTDO questionable 3010-3086db.

      101      NO3 low.  Nutrient Analyst: "Corrected data. NO3 is accept-
               able."

STATION 110

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      119      Oxygen: "Overtitrate."  Oxygen as well as other data are
               acceptable.

      107      ∆S at 2470db is -0.0049.  Gradient area.  Salinity is
               acceptable.

      106      Salinity disagreed with CTD data.  The first readings gave
               better results and are used in this salinity calculation.
               Salinity is acceptable.

      104      Oxygen: "Overtitrate."  Oxygen as well as other data are
               acceptable.

      103      Salinity disagreed with CTD data.  The first readings gave
               better results and are used in this salinity calculation.
               Salinity is acceptable.

      102      ∆S at 3145db is -0.0041.  CTD indicates a lower salin-
               ity at this level.  Salinity is acceptable.

      101      Footnote CTDO questionable 3188-3212db.

STATION 111

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      119      Oxygen appears high, CTDO indicates higher oxygen is accept-
               able. PO4, SiO3 and NO3 low verifying this as a real fea-
               ture.

      101-102  Footnote CTDO questionable 2608-2722db.

STATION 112

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      119      Nutrients appear low, oxygen high.  Salinity is acceptable.
               This feature is real.

      115      Salinity appears high compared with CTD.  CTD indicates a
               lot of mixing.  Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 113

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      109      Salinity: "Lip was cracked on the bottle."  Replaced the
               bottle.  Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 114

      125      Sample Log: "Ran out of water; no tritium, no salinity."

      117      Oxygen high, nutrients low.  Data are acceptable.

      114      ∆S at 689db is -0.0090.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  PI: "High gradient."  Data are accept-
               able.

      101      Footnote CTDO questionable 2476-2508db.

STATION 115

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      101      Footnote CTDO questionable 1968-2010db.

STATION 116

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      122-123  Footnote CTDO bad 0-46db.

      104      ∆S at 2529db is -0.0025.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Large difference between down and up
               trace.  Also a large difference at this bottle trip.  Salin-
               ity is acceptable.

      101      Salinity appears a little high compared with adjoining sta-
               tions and CTD.  Footnote salinity questionable.

STATION 117

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      113-114  SiO3 low, and so is NO3.  Data are acceptable.

      109      Triplicate O2 drawn.

      102      Triplicate O2 drawn.

STATION 118

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      101-102  Low SiO3, NO3 and PO4 also show this low feature and O2 a
               little higher than adjoining stations.

STATION 119

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      131      Footnote CTDO questionable 0-6db.

      119      Low NO3 and PO4, but SiO3 does not show this low feature.
               Nutrient Analyst: "No analytical problems. NO3 and PO4 are
               within WOCE specs. Data are acceptable."

      111      ∆S at 2426db is -0.0025.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Higher salinity value also seen in CTD
               down/up trace within a salinity minimum area.  Salinity is
               acceptable.

      101      Salinity a little high.  The first readings gave better
               results and are used in this salinity calculation.  Salinity
               is acceptable.  Oxygen also appears slightly low, but nutri-
               ents are slightly compared with Station 118.  Data are
               acceptable.
               Footnote CTDO questionable 4332-4352db.

STATION 120

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      128      Triplicate O2 drawn.

      126      Low nutrients, O2 slightly high.  Data are acceptable.

STATION 121

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      128-129  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-54db.

      124      Nuts appear high. CO2 reports bottle problem.  O2 low but
               CTDO confirms O2 is acceptable.  Salinity agrees with CTD.
               Data are acceptable.

      101-103  SiO3 appears low. PO4 is a little lower than adjoining sta-
               tions.  Nutrient Analyst: "No analytical problem found.
               Salinity also appears to be a little lower on the station
               profile."  Data are acceptable.

STATION 122

      130-131  Sample Log: "Closed just below the surface to avoid contami-
               nation from deck washing."  There are no samples taken here.

      124      Triplicate O2 drawn.

      123      O2 low, nutrients high, salinity agrees with CTD.  Data are
               acceptable.

      118      Triplicate O2 drawn.

      114      ∆S at 1312db is 0.0061.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Does not agree with down or up CTD
               trace.  Does not agree with adjoining stations, but there
               was not sampling at this pressure.  Footnote salinity ques-
               tionable.

      102      ∆S at 3539db is -0.0025.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  There is also a difference between the
               down and up CTD trace indicated a lot of variations in the
               water being sampled.  Salinity is acceptable.

      101      ∆S at 3639db is -0.0029.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  There is also a difference between the
               down and up CTD trace indicated a lot of variations in the
               water being sampled.  Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 123

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      130-131  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-54db.

      113      Oxygen high compared with adjoining stations.  Nutrients are
               low.  Data are acceptable.
               Footnote CTDO questionable 1924-1980db.

      103      Salinity high compared to CTD.  The first readings gave bet-
               ter results and are used in this salinity calculation.
               Salinity is acceptable.

      101      ∆S at 4313db is -0.0025.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Salinity is lower than both the down
               and up CTD trace.  It also appears low on the station pro-
               file. The adjoining stations are not as deep as this sta-
               tion.  This is just slightly out of WOCE specs.  Footnote
               salinity questionable.

STATION 124

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      109-110  Nutrients low, oxygen high.  Salinity agrees with CTD.  Data
               are acceptable.

      101      Footnote CTDO questionable 4028-4056db.

STATION 125

      124      Oxygen low, nutrients high. Salinity agrees with CTD.  Data
               are acceptable.

      123      Oxygen high, nutrients low. Salinity agrees with CTD.  Data
               are acceptable.

      121      Oxygen high, nutrients low. Salinity agrees with CTD.  Data
               are acceptable.

      109      Oxygen: "Overtitrated, no end point."  Oxygen is acceptable.

      105      Sample Log: "Oxygen had to be redrawn, bubbles after stop-
               pering."  Oxygen is acceptable.

STATION 126

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      130      Oxygen: "Overtitrate (No Endpoint)."  Oxygen is acceptable.

      127      Oxygen: "Overtitrate (No Endpoint)."  Oxygen is acceptable.

      126      Oxygen: "Overtitrate (No Endpoint)."  Oxygen is acceptable.

      125-130  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-264db.

      120      ∆S at 630db is 0.01.  Autosal diagnostics do not indi-
               cate a problem.  Salinity minimum, large variation in CTD
               trace at bottle trip.  Salinity is acceptable.  Oxygen:
               "Overtitrate (No Endpoint)."  Oxygen is acceptable.

      113      Oxygen: "Overtitrate (No Endpoint)."  Oxygen is acceptable.

      108      Oxygen: "Overtitrate (No Endpoint)."  Oxygen is acceptable.

      106      Oxygen: "Overtitrate (No Endpoint)."  Oxygen is acceptable.

STATION 127

      119      Sample Log: "Had to redraw O2."  O2 agrees with CTDO.  Oxy-
               gen is acceptable.

      115      ∆S at 1406db is 0.008.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Salinity agrees with CTD down trace;
               slight gradient.  Salinity is acceptable.

      109      ∆S at 2704db is 0.0051.  Autosal diagnostics indicate 3
               tries to get a good reading, indicating a problem with the
               samples.  But none of the other readings make the salinity
               lower.  Gradient area.  Salinity is acceptable.

      108      ∆S at 2957db is 0.0025.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.

      103      Oxygen: "Overtitrate (No Endpoint)."  Oxygen is acceptable.

      102      Oxygen: "Overtitrate (No Endpoint)."  Oxygen is acceptable.

      101-104  SiO3 appears low compared to adjoining stations, doesn't
               show in PO4 or NO3, but O2 and salinity are higher than
               adjoining stations. Adjoining stations are not as deep as
               this station.  Nutrient Analyst: "No analytical problems.
               Does agree with Station 126, also compares vs. oxygen. Data
               are acceptable."

STATION 128

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      126-127  Footnote CTDO bad 0-36db.

      110      ∆S at 1718db is 0.0029.  salinity does appear slightly
               high compared with CTD.  However, it does appear to agree
               with Station 127.  Gradient area.  Salinity is acceptable.

      106      Triplicate O2 drawn.  Oxygen: "Overtitrate (No Endpoint),
               this was on one of the duplicate samples."  Original oxygen
               agree with CTDO and appears okay on station profile.

STATION 129

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      128      Oxygen: "bad end point."  O2 does appear slightly high.
               Footnote O2 questionable.

      127      Oxygen: "bad end point."  O2 appears to be acceptable,
               agrees with CTDO and station profile.

      122      Oxygen: "Overtitrated (No EP)."  O2 appears a little low,
               but in gradient area.  Oxygen is acceptable.

      120      Oxygen: "Overtitrated (No EP)."  O2 appears a little high,
               but in gradient area.  Oxygen is acceptable.  ∆S at
               660db is -0.0124.  Variation in CTD trace.  Salinity is
               acceptable.

      119      Oxygen: "Overtitrated (No EP)."  O2 appears okay on station
               profile and agrees  with CTDO, in gradient area.  Oxygen is
               acceptable.

      116      ∆S at 1164db is 0.0327.  Autosal diagnostics indicate 3
               tries to get a good reading, indicating a problem with the
               samples.  However, they were all fairly close and does not
               account for this large of a difference.  It appears to be a
               drawing error.

      114      Oxygen: "Overtitrated (No EP)."  O2 appears okay on station
               profile and agrees with CTDO.  Oxygen is acceptable.

      101      Footnote CTDO questionable 4018-4048db.

STATION 130

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      119      Oxygen: "Overtitrated (No EP)."  Oxygen as well as other
               data are acceptable.

      116      Oxygen: "Overtitrated (No EP)."  Oxygen as well as other
               data are acceptable.

STATION 131

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      128      ∆S at 31db is -0.0293.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Variation in CTD trace.  Salinity as
               well as other data are acceptable.

      126      Large difference with CTD.  Autosal diagnostics do not indi-
               cate a problem.  Variation in CTD trace.  Salinity as well
               as other data are acceptable.

      122      Large difference with CTD.  Autosal diagnostics do not indi-
               cate a problem.  Variation in CTD trace.  Salinity as well
               as other data are acceptable.

STATION 132

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      102      Triplicate O2 drawn.

      101-107  SiO3 may be high. Compared with adjoining stations and Sta-
               tion 034 and 031, it appears to be acceptable.

      101-102  Footnote CTDO questionable 3496-3544db.

STATION 133

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      121      Oxygen appears high, nutrients low.  O2 agrees with CTDO.

      101      Footnote CTDO questionable 3180-3294db.

STATION 134

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      122      Oxygen: "Overtitration (No EP)."  There is a feature in the
               CTD trace, which shows the oxygen low.  Comparing to adjoin-
               ing stations it may be a little high.  Oxygen is acceptable.

      115      Oxygen high, does not fit station profile or CTDO.  Other
               data are acceptable.  Footnote O2 bad.

      110      ∆S at 1612db is 0.0063.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Gradient area.  Salinity is acceptable.

      108      ∆S at 1912db is 0.0043.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Variation in the CTD at the bottle trip
               and between the down and up.

STATION 135

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      123-124  Footnote CTDO bad 0-50db.

      120      ∆S at 185db is 0.0262.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Variation in CTD trace looking like a
               "spike", at the bottle trip.  Salinity is acceptable.

      118      Large difference between salinity and CTD.  Autosal diagnos-
               tics do not indicate a problem.  Variation in CTD trace
               looking like a "spike", at the bottle trip.  Salinity is
               acceptable.

      116      ∆S at 558db is 0.0129.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Variation in CTD trace looking like a
               "spike", at the bottle trip.  Salinity is acceptable.

      101      Footnote CTDO questionable 3040-3072db.

STATION 136

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      123      Large difference with CTD salinity.  Autosal diagnostics do
               not indicate a problem.  Variation in CTD at bottle trip
               showing as a "spike".

      119      Large difference with CTD salinity.  Autosal diagnostics do
               not indicate a problem.  Compared with down and up salinity
               is acceptable.

      116      ∆S at 567db is -0.0199.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Gradient area.  Salinity is acceptable.

      114      ∆S at 739db is 0.0105.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Variation in CTD at bottle trip showing
               as a "spike".

STATION 137

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      117      Nutrients low and oxygen high.  Data are acceptable.

      101      Footnote CTDO questionable 2506-2560db.

STATION 138

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      115      ∆S at 607db is -0.0158.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Gradient area, also a variation in the
               CTD trace resulting in a "spike" at the bottle trip.  Salin-
               ity is acceptable.

      103      Triplicate O2 drawn.

      101-102  Footnote CTDO questionable 2346-2444db.

      101      Oxygen is a little low on the station profile.  Nutrients do
               not confirm this as a real feature.  But it is difficult to
               explain a low oxygen.  CTDO confirms the lower oxygen
               "tail".

STATION 139

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      117-118  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-78db.

      101      Footnote CTDO bad 1772-1786db.

STATION 140

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      117-118  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-34db.

      109      ∆S at 656db is -0.014.  No analytical problem noted.
               Gradient area, feature in the CTD trace.  Data are accept-
               able.

      101      Footnote CTDO bad 1726-1808db.

STATION 141

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      115      CTD profile shows variation in the water which may cause a
               difference between the salinity and the CTD.  Salinity is
               acceptable.

      101      Footnote CTDO questionable 1942-1968db.

STATION 142

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      121      ∆S at 30db is -0.0279.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Variations in CTD profile indicating an
               explanation for a large difference with the salinity.
               Salinity is acceptable.

      120      Duplicate O2 drawn.  ∆S at 49db is -0.0255.  Autosal
               diagnostics do not indicate a problem.  Variations in CTD
               profile indicating an explanation for a large difference
               with the salinity.  Salinity is acceptable.

      115      Nutrients low and oxygen high.  Data are acceptable.

      108      ∆S at 1050db is 0.01.  Autosal diagnostics do not indi-
               cate a problem.  CTD profile indicates a "spike" at the bot-
               tle trip.  Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 143

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      120-121  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-40db.

      114      Oxygen is high and nutrients are low.  Data are acceptable.

STATION 144

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      120-124  Footnote CTDO bad 0-192db.

      110      ∆S at 1058db is -0.0073.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Difference between down and up CTD pro-
               file.  Salinity is acceptable.

      105      ∆S at 1815db is -0.0027.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Gradient area.  Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 145

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      105      Triplicate O2 drawn.

      102      Triplicate O2 drawn.

      101      ∆S at 2689db is 0.0029.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Difference between the down and up CTD
               trace.  Salinity is acceptable.
               Footnote CTDO questionable 2648-2688db.

STATION 146

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      109      ∆S at 1767db is 0.0031.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Gradient area.  Data are acceptable.

      103      Footnote CTDO questionable 2610-2740db.

      101      Oxygen: "Overtitrate, (No End Point)."  Oxygen is accept-
               able.  Difference with the CTD salinity.  The first readings
               gave better results and are used in this salinity calcula-
               tion.  Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 147

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      121-124  Footnote CTDO bad 0-146db.

      116      Nutrients are high, oxygen is low.  CTD agrees with salinity
               and oxygen.  Feature is real.

      110      ∆S at 1056db is 0.009.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Salinity agrees with adjoining sta-
               tions.  Salinity is acceptable.

      106      ∆S at 1713db is 0.0026.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Salinity agrees with adjoining sta-
               tions.  Salinity is acceptable.

      105      Oxygen: "Overtitrate (No End Point)."  Oxygen is acceptable.

      101      ∆S at 2648db is 0.0054.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Salinity agrees with adjoining sta-
               tions.  Variation in CTD trace as a "spike" at bottle trip.
               Salinity is acceptable.
               Footnote CTDO questionable 2602-2648db.

STATION 148

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      118-120  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-84db.

      112      Oxygen: "Overtitrate, (No End Point).  Oxygen is acceptable.

      104      Oxygen appears low.  Gradient area, oxygen is acceptable.

STATION 149

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      120-122  Footnote CTDO bad 0-100db.

      115      Oxygen: "Overtitrate (No End Point)."  Oxygen is acceptable.

      110      ∆S at 758db is 0.0178.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Gradient in a maximum salinity feature
               as shown by the CTD.  Salinity is acceptable.

      103      ∆S at 1921db is -0.0029.  Autosal diagnostics do not
               indicate a problem.  Feature in CTD up trace similar to a
               "spike" at bottle trip.  Salinity is acceptable.

STATION 150

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      116-119  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-154db.

      115      High O2.  Feature does not show in nutrients.  Salinity is
               acceptable.  CTDO shows that oxygen is higher at this level.
               Oxygen is acceptable.

      110      ∆S at 668db is -0.0274.  Gradient in a maximum salinity
               feature as shown by the CTD.  Salinity is acceptable.

      103      ∆S at 1617db is 0.0031.  Variation in CTD trace appear-
               ing as a "spike" at the bottle trip.  Salinity is accept-
               able.

      101      ∆S at 1835db is 0.0027.  Variation in CTD trace appear-
               ing as a "spike" at the bottle trip.  Salinity is accept-
               able.
               Footnote CTDO questionable 1828-1836db.

      101-102  Nutrients high, O2 low.  Feature is real.

STATION 151

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      115-117  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-112db.

      102      Triplicate O2 drawn.

STATION 152

    Cast 1     No comments on the Sample Log.

      115-117  Footnote CTDO bad 0-72db.

      107      Nutrients high and oxygen and salinity low.  Data are
               acceptable.

      106      Oxygen: "Overtitrate, (No End Point)."  Oxygen is accept-
               able.

STATION 153

    Cast 1     Console Ops: "Special cast for LADCP bottom tracking test,
               minimal sampling."  Only salinity drawn.

      101-103  No bottle oxygen data for fit, use corrections from nearby
               cast.
               Footnote CTDO questionable 0-1086db.

      216      Sample Log: "Not enough water for salinity."

      215-216  Footnote CTDO questionable 0-36db.

      213      Oxygen: "Overtitrate, (No End Point)."  Oxygen is accept-
               able.

      211      O2 appears high on station profile, but CTDO also shows this
               high feature.  Oxygen is acceptable.



___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________


WHPO DATA CHECK
  a24_ct1.zip
  a24_hy1.csv

About the '_check.txt', '_sal.ps' and '_oxy.ps' files:

The WHP-Exchange format bottle and/or CTD data from this cruise have 
been examined by a computer application for contents and consistency. 
The parameters found for the files are listed, a check is made to see if 
all CTD files for this cruise contain the same CTD parameters, a check 
is made to see if there is a one-to-one correspondence between bottle 
station numbers and CTD station numbers, a check is made to see that 
pressures increase through each file for each station, and a check is 
made to locate multiple casts for the same station number in the bottle 
data. Results of those checks are reported in this '_check.txt' file.

When both bottle and CTD data are available, the CTD salinity data (and, 
if available, CTD oxygen data) reported in the bottle data file are 
subtracted from the corresponding bottle data and the differences are 
plotted for the entire cruise. Those plots are the '_sal.ps' and 
'_oxy.ps' files*.

Following parameters found for bottle file:

      EXPOCODE       DEPTH          SILCAT         CFC-12_FLAG_W
      SECT_ID        CTDPRS         SILCAT_FLAG_W  TCARBN
      STNNBR         CTDTMP         NITRAT         TCARBN_FLAG_W
      CASTNO         CTDSAL         NITRAT_FLAG_W  PCO2
      SAMPNO         CTDSAL_FLAG_W  NITRIT         PCO2_FLAG_W
      BTLNBR         SALNTY         NITRIT_FLAG_W  ALKALI
      BTLNBR_FLAG_W  SALNTY_FLAG_W  PHSPHT         ALKALI_FLAG_W
      DATE           CTDOXY         PHSPHT_FLAG_W  PH
      TIME           CTDOXY_FLAG_W  CFC-11         PH_FLAG_W
      LATITUDE       OXYGEN         CFC-11_FLAG_W  PCO2TMP
      LONGITUDE      OXYGEN_FLAG_W  CFC-12         CTDRAW
      THETA            
	
All ctd parameters match the parameters in the reference station.
All stations correspond among all given files.

No bottle pressure inversions found.
Bottle file pressures are increasing.

a24_hy1.csv -> contains stations with multiple casts:
  station -> 153:
              2 casts.

*_oxy.ps is not available, see pdf file for '_sal.ps' 



WHPO/CCHDO DATA PROCESSING NOTES

DATE      CONTACT      DATA TYPE       DATA STATUS SUMMARY
--------  -----------  --------------  ----------------------------------------
03/18/98  Talley       Cruise Report   Submitted: Data Update
          I have revised the A24 doc file (a24do.txt). I have added cruise 
          summary information to the front, very slightly reorderd the 
          information in the narrative section, including the tables, and 
          removed the page separators.
          
          I have placed the edited file in the imani ftp site. Please 
          replace the version in the website table with this one.
                    
02/22/00  Diggs        CFCs            Submitted: by Weiss/Salameh 
          To the best of my knowledge (and our database's) we did not 
          receive any updated CFC values from you until today. We realize 
          how important the CFC synthesis is, so I will put merging these 
          data at the top of the list. 
          
02/22/00  Diggs        CFCs            Submitted; sent to D.Newton to merge
          In the list of things to do, there are new CFCs from Weiss/Salameh 
          for A24 ready to be merged. They are in the following directory 
          (I converted them already to WOCE format for your program and ran 
          the file through WOCECVT)
                    
02/28/00  Huynh        Cruise Report   Website Updated: txt doc online
          pdf file is waiting for figures from Lynne Talley and the txt file 
          is up.
                    	
02/29/00  Newton       CFCs            Update needed: replicate values
          "I'm merging the updated WOCE A24 CFC data you sent Steve Diggs on 
          Feb 22. I've encountered a small problem that you'll need to resolve.
          At the very end of file  "woce-a24.cfc" you sent is this fragment:
              153      2      14         64    1.463    2.769        22
              153      2      15         35    1.443    2.724        22
              153      2      16          2    1.404    2.627        22
              153      2      16          2    1.406    2.619        22
          As you can see there are two station 153 cast 2 bottle 16 values. 
          I can't merge them both. 
          
03/06/00  Huynh        Cruise Report   Website Updated: pdf & txt docs online
          Both txt and pdf doc versions are up
                    
03/13/00  Salameh      CFCs            Data Update: replicate value fixed
          Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you on this!  My 
          software is supposed to take means of replicate samples before 
          creating the file for WHPO, but obviously there is a bug when the 
          replicate sample happens to be the last one in the list. I have 
          now fixed the problem and attached a new version of the data file.
          

DATE      CONTACT      DATA TYPE       DATA STATUS SUMMARY
--------  -----------  --------------  ----------------------------------------
03/13/00  Swift        CTD/BTL         Data are Public
          Please make the CTD and S/O2/nut data from the Talley A24 line 
          public (and unencrypted), as per the message just received from 
          Lynne. Thanks.
          
          Jim - funny you should ask minutes after Worth's note about making 
          A24 public. I told him that A24 should be public now, so please 
          have Steve make the necessary changes. I would be interested in 
          seeing what you find for the EGS. Lynne
                    
03/14/00  Weiss        CFCs            Website Updated: Status changed to Public
          
03/14/00  Newton       CFCs            Website Updated: Data Online
          I received the correct a24 cfc file from Peter Salameh and have 
          merged it. On whpo INCOMING please find: a24cfcmerg.tar.Z it 
          contains the merged file, the corrected CFCs, and my notes.
               
          a24cfc_weiss_salameh_wocefmt.2000.02.24.txt on  whpo in 
          onetime/atlantic/a24/original/2000.02.23.A24.WEISS_SALAMEH.CFC is 
          bogus (Quality codes not reordered with data) 
          a24_cfc_salameh.2000.02.21.txt   in that same directory contains 
          an error at the last bottle (replicates not averaged) Those two 
          files should be deleted/buried . -david
          
          Notes on merging CFC into A24   EXPOCODE 316N151/2   WHP-ID A24 
          merging went fine. no problems.
          D. Newton 13Mar2000
                    
03/22/00  Chapman      CTDO/NUTS/CFCs  Data are Public
          ar24: no tracers; a24: BTL data pubic. I asked Mke Mccartney 
          what, if any data were taken on AR24 other than CTDO data. He said 
          that no tracer data were collected on either of these repeat 
          cruises, and that nutrients were collected only on the first of them.
          
          Thus, it seems as though the only tracer data collected in this 
          region were on the A24 cruise when Lynne Talley was chief 
          scientist. Her latest message, and one from Ray Weiss, state that 
          the CTDO, nuts and CFC data should all be public now.
                    
03/24/00  Diggs        CTD/BTL         Website Updated: files online, public
          
03/24/00  Schlosser    He/Tr           Data are Public; NOT FINAL
          as mentioned in my recent message, we will release our data with a 
          flag that indicates that they are not yet final. We started the 
          process of transferring the data and we will continue with the 
          transfer during the next weeks. I had listed the expected order of 
          delivery in my last message.
                    

DATE      CONTACT      DATA TYPE       DATA STATUS SUMMARY
--------  -----------  --------------  ----------------------------------------
07/10/00  Huynh        Cruise Report   Website Updated: 
          pdf, txt versions updated, online  
                    
02/08/01  Kappa        Cruise Report   Update Needed
          Replace online ODF report w/ Orig. ODF report
                    
04/06/01  Uribe        CTD/BTL/SUM     Website Updated: expocodes corrected
          Expocodes for sum and bottle were modified. Expocodes in all ctd 
          files have been editted to match the underscored expocode in the 
          sum and bottle files New files were zipped and replaced existing 
          ctd files online. Old files were moved to original directory.
                    
05/04/01  Kozyr        ALKALI/TCARBN   Final Data Submitted; also CO2/pH/PCO2
          I have put the final CO2-related data files for the N. Atlantic 
          Ocean WOCE Sections A20, A22, and A24 to the WHPO ftp INCOMING 
          area. There are 4 CO2 parameters: Total CO2, Total Alkalinity, pH, 
          and pCO2 (with pCO2 temp) with quality flags. Note, that these 
          data are different from those you have in your data base for these 
          cruises on WHPO web site. Please confirm the data submissio
                    
06/20/01  Uribe        BTL             Website Updated: Exchange file online
          Bottle file in exchange format has been linked to website.
                    
06/21/01  Uribe        CTD/BTL         Website Updated: New Exchange files online
          The exchange bottle file name in directory and index file was 
          modified to lower case. CTD exchange files were put online.
          
12/03/01  Muus         BTL/CO2         Website Updated: New CSV & BTL files
          Merged Carbon data received from A. Kozyr, May 2001, into bottle 
          file and placed on web together with new exchange file. REVPRS and 
          REVTMP columns deleted. 

          Notes on A24 Carbon merging Dec 3, 2001. D. Muus
           1. New TCARBN, ALKALI, PH, PCO2, and PCO2TMP from:
                /usr/export/html-public/data/onetime/atlantic/a24/original 
                /2001.05.04_A20_A22_A24_CARBON_KOZYR/a24carb_wocefmt.txt
              Merged into SEA file from web Nov 30, 2001 (20010406WHPOSIOKJU)
              No QUALT2 words in SEA file or new data file so added QUALT2 
                identical to QUALT1 after merging.
           2. REVPRS and REVTMP columns removed. No reversing thermometers used.
           3. Exchange file checked using Java Ocean Atlas.
                    

DATE      CONTACT      DATA TYPE       DATA STATUS SUMMARY
--------  -----------  --------------  ----------------------------------------
12/17/01  Hajrasuliha  CTD/BTL         Internal DQE completed: summery of errors
          The following are results from the examminer.pl and plotter.pl 
          code that were run on this cruise. Not all of the errors are 
          reported but rather a summery of what was found. For more 
          information you can go to the cruise directory, and look at the 
          NEW file called CruiseLine_check.txt. Two plot files are also 
          present. _oxy.ps and _sal.ps
             _oxy.ps and _sal.ps files are created for the cruise.
             No problems found in the BOTTLE and CTD file.
                    
12/20/01  Uribe        CTD             Website Updated: Exchange file online
          CTD has been converted to exchange using the new code and put online.
                    
04/10/02  Lebel        CFCs            Submitted  Data ARE FINAL
          The data disposition is: Public
          The file format is: Plain Text (ASCII)
          The archive type is: NONE - Individual File
          The data type(s) is: Other: final CFC data
          The file contains these water sample identifiers:
            Cast Number (CASTNO)
            Station Number (STATNO)
            Bottle Number (BTLNBR)
            Sample Number (SAMPNO)
          LEBEL, DEBORAH would like the following action(s) taken on the data:
            Merge Data
            Place Data Online
            Update Parameters
          Any additional notes are:
            These are the final CFC data, including QUALT2 word. Scale is 
            SIO98, units are pmol/kg. Data were recalibrated last fall, and 
            these changes are incorporated as well.
                      
08/20/02  Diggs        TCARBN/CFCs     Website Updated: data are final
          Merged TCARBN (Kozyr: 20020820), and FINAL cfc-11 and cfc-12 
          values from D. Lebel (20020410). Made new bottle Exchange files 
          and NetCDF, as well as inventory files.
             
12/13/02  Kozyr        CFCs            Update Needed  CFCs missing values
          I've noticed that CFCs missing values in the A24 bottle data file 
          a24hy.txt are -9.074 (CFC11) and -9.048 (CFC12). Seems like it has 
          happened when one added a constant correction for all cfc numbers. 
          Same in the a24_hy.csv file.
          
02/10/03  Diggs        He/Tr           Submitted Excel and CSV files 
          Excel files and CSVs submitted and placed in home directory. 
          Excel files (along w/ CSVs) were submitted to ODF email address 
          and decoded and placed in home directory for A24 data files.
                    

DATE      CONTACT      DATA TYPE       DATA STATUS SUMMARY
--------  -----------  --------------  ----------------------------------------
02/12/03  Anderson     He/Tr/CFCs      Website Updated: Data Online
          Merge Notes:
            Alex Kozyr noted that the missing values for cfc11 was -9.074 and 
            for cfc12 -9.048. These were the values in the file 
            20020410.123042_LEBEL_A24_a24.dat from Lebel found in 
            original/20020410.123042_LEGEL_A24 that S. Diggs merged into the 
            online file 20011130WHPOSIODM on Aug. 20, 2002.

            I changed the missing values to -9.000 for cfc11 and cfc12.

            Bottle: (cfc-11, cfc-12, tritum, helium, delhe3, triter, helier, 
                     delher, qualt1, qualt2)

            Merged the HELIUM, HELIER, DELHE3, DELHER, TRITIUM, and TRITER 
            sent to S. Diggs from B. Newton found in file.
 
            A24_helium_tritium.csv found in original/20020522_A24_HE-TR_NEWTON 
            into the online file 20011130WHPOSIODM (This is the file that S. 
            Diggs merged the carbon and cfcs into, but he apparently didn't 
            change the time stamp.
            Sarilee Anderson  
                
09/22/03  Kozyr        Cruise Report   CO2 report online @ CDIAC
          The ORNL/CDIAC-143, NDP-082: "Carbon Dioxide, Hydrographic, and 
          Chemical Data Obtained During the R/V Knorr Cruises in the North 
          Atlantic Ocean on WOCE Sections AR24 (November 2 - December 5, 
          1996) and A24, A20, and A22 (May 30 - September 3, 1997)" is now 
          available online through CDIAC web page: 
                      http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/doc.html
          The hard copy is in production department and will be sent to you 
          soon. Please let me know if you have any comments. Special 
          thanks to Ken Johnson: even after retirement, he continues to 
          supply CDIAC with all information needed for this and other NDPs.
                    
10/18/06  Johnson      Cruise Report   Submitted Final cruise report 
          The documentation files have been updated with post-cruise info 
          and final comments.
          

DATE      CONTACT      DATA TYPE       DATA STATUS SUMMARY
--------  -----------  --------------  ----------------------------------------
10/18/06  Johnson      CTD/BTL/SUM     Submitted; Data are Final
          Final A24/ACCE data are now ready to go, with calibrations 
          checked, CTDOXY data refit, and CTD data despiked as warranted. 
          CTD data are coded for despiking and problems, and a few bottle 
          quality codes were updated (codes for CTD data in the bottle 
          files). Kristin gave us an updated bottle file with the final 
          quality codes and CTD data, and an updated .sum file with 
          theancillary codes added. The documentation files have been 
          updated with post-cruise info and final comments.

          These were older cruise data without the database, so we do NOT 
          have exchange formats available. However, Steve Diggs said he 
          could handle that for us.

          Since all of the WOCE data have been declared public by the WHPO, 
          the files are available for immediate access.
                  CTDPRS  CTDTMP  CTDSAL  CTDOXY  THETA  SALNTY  
                  OXYGEN  SILCAT  NITRAT  NITRIT  PHSPHT
                    
11/03/06  Johnson      Cruise Report   Submitted updated cruise report 
          I caught a buglet in the documentation - Appendix A, the T(t**1) 
          column was wrong and wasn't separated from the first column in the 
          plain-text version. It's now fixed; the difference in the value 
          is fairly negligible, but when I noticed the bug while doing 
          something else, I thought I should correct it.

          I re-did the main ftp releases, but also made one with JUST the 
          documentation files. You can find the doc-files at:
                  ftp://odf.ucsd.edu/pub/HydroData/woce/a24.acce/

          The files called a24final-doc.{zip,tar.gz} are the new doc. No 
          data files have been altered, and only Appendix A in the doc has 
          been updated.
                    
11/27/06  Kappa        Cruise Report   Website Updated: new cruise report 
          New cruise report, pdf and ascii versions, include:
          * changes discussed in Mary Johnson's 11/3/06 email 
          * CCHDO Data Processing Notes
          * Alex Kozyr's CO2 report
          * Hajrasuliha's CTD data check (see 12/17/01 note)
