CRUISE REPORT: I08S
(Updated NOV 2016)

Highlights


                            Cruise Summary Information

                  Section Designation  I08S
   Expedition designation (ExpoCodes)  33RR20160208
                     Chief Scientists  Alison Macdonald/WHOI
                                Dates  2016 FEB 08 – 2016 MAR 16
                                 Ship  R/V Roger Revelle
                        Ports of call  Fremantle, Australia - Fremantle, Australia 

                                                      28° 19' 4.8" S
                Geographic Boundaries  78° 0' 36.72" E              95° 0' 46.44" E
                                                      66° 36' 9.72" S

                             Stations  83
         Floats and drifters deployed  6 SOCCOM floats, 10 NOAA drifters deployed
       Moorings deployed or recovered  0

                                Contact Information:
                                Alison M. Macdonald
          Mailstop 21 • Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution • Clark 344A 
                             Woods Hole, MA • 02543
                      Work: 508 289 3507 • amacdonald@whoi.edu






1  GO-SHIP I08S 2016 HYDROGRAPHIC PROGRAM


Fig. 1.1: Figure: *I08S Cruise Track of 2016*


The Southern Indian Ocean I08S repeat hydrographic line was reoccupied
for the US Global Ocean Carbon and Repeat Hydrography Program.
Reoccupation of the I08S transect, seen in the Figure: I08S Cruise
Track of 2016 figure, occurred on the R/V Roger Revelle from February
8th, 2016 to March 16th, 2016. The survey of I08S consisted of *CTDO*,
rosette, *LADCP*, chipod, water samples and underway measurements. The
ship departed and returned to the port of Fremantle, Western
Australia.

A total of 83 stations were occupied with 2 CTDO/rosette/LADCP/chipod
packages and the vertical sampling section profiles can be seen in the
following two figures Figure: Sample Profile Section: Stations 1-45
and Figure: Sample Section Profile: Stations 45-83. 1 test station and
83 stations performed, for the most part, a reoccupation of I08S-2007.
Stations 1-13 were completed with the initial primary package. While
deploying the package on station 14, our primary instrument was lost.
A second package was used from stations 14-83.


Fig. 1.2: Figure: *Sample Profile Section: Stations 1-45*

Fig. 1.3: Figure: *Sample Section Profile: Stations 45-83*


CTDO data and water samples were collected on each CTDO, rosette,
LADCP and chipod cast, usually within 10 meters of the bottom. Water
samples were measured on board for salinity, dissolved oxygen,
nutrients, *DIC*, pH, total alkalinity and *CFCs*/*SF6*. Additional
water samples were collected and stored for shore analyses of δO^18,
δN^15 and δO^18 in NO3, *DOC*/*TDN*, 13C/14C, *CDOM*, phytoplankton
pigments, *POC*, *HPLC* and *AP*.



1.1  Programs and Principal Investigators

A sea-going science team assembled from 13 different institutions 
participated in the collection and analysis of this data set. The
programs, affiliations, science team, responsibilities,
instrumentation, analysis and analytical methods are outlined in the
following cruise documents.

Program                  | Affiliation | PI                 | Email                  
=========================================================================================
*CTDO* Data, Salinity,   | *UCSD*,     | Susan Becker,      | sbecker@ucsd.edu,      
Nutrients, Dissolved O2  | *SIO*       | Jim Swift          | jswift@ucsd.edu        
-------------------------+-------------+--------------------+----------------------------
Total CO2 (DIC),         | *AOML*,     | Rik Wanninkhof     | Rik.Wanninkhof@noaa.gov
Underway pCO2            | *NOAA*      |                    |                        
-------------------------+-------------+--------------------+----------------------------
Total Alkalinity, pH     | *UCSD*,     | Andrew Dickson     | adickson@ucsd.edu      
                         | *SIO*       |                    |
-------------------------+-------------+--------------------+----------------------------
ADCP                     | *UH*        | Jules Hummon       | Hummon@hawaii.edu      
-------------------------+-------------+--------------------+----------------------------
*LADCP*                  | *LDEO*,     | Andreas Thurnherr, | ant@ldeo.columbia.edu, 
                         |             | William Smethie,   | bsmeth@ldeo.columbia.edu
                         | *UH*        | David Ho           | ho@hawaii.edu          
-------------------------+-------------+--------------------+----------------------------
*CFCs*, SF6              | *RSMAS*     | Jim Happel         | jhappell@rsmas.miami.edu
-------------------------+-------------+--------------------+----------------------------
DOC, TDN                 | *UCSB*      | Craig Carlson      | carlson@lifesci.ucsb.edu
-------------------------+-------------+--------------------+----------------------------
Transmissometry          | *TAMU*      | Wilf Gardner       | wgardner@ocean.tamu.edu
-------------------------+-------------+--------------------+----------------------------
Chipod                   | *OSU*,      | Jonathan Nash,     | nash@coas.oregonstate.edu
                         | *UCSD*      | Jen Mackinnon      | jmackinnon@ucsd.edu 
-------------------------+-------------+--------------------+----------------------------
*CDOM*, *HPLC*, *POC*    | *UCSB*      | Norm Nelson        | norm@icess.ucsb.edu    
-------------------------+-------------+--------------------+----------------------------
13C/14C                  | *WHOI*,     | Ann McNichol,      | amcnichol@whoi.edu,    
                         | *Princeton* | Robert Key         | key@princeton.edu      
-------------------------+-------------+--------------------+----------------------------
δO^18                    | *LDEO*      | Peter Schlosser    | schlosser@ldeo.columbia.edu
                         |             |                    |                            
-------------------------+-------------+--------------------+----------------------------
δN^15 and δO^18 in NO3   | *VUB*       | Francois Fripiat   | ffripiat@ulb.ac.be     
-------------------------+-------------+--------------------+----------------------------
*NOAA* Drifters          | *AOML*      | Shaun Dolk         | shaun.dolk@noaa.gov    
-------------------------+-------------+--------------------+----------------------------
*SOCCOM* Floats          | *UW*,       | Stephen Riser,     | riser@ocean.washington.edu
                         | *MBARI*,    | Ken Johnson,       | johnson@mbari.org, 
                         | *SIO*       | Lynne Talley       | ltalley@ucsd.edu       
-------------------------+-------------+--------------------+----------------------------
*SOCCOM* Optical Sensors | *Princeton* | Emmanuel Boss      | emmanuel.boss@maine.edu
-------------------------+-------------+--------------------+----------------------------
Bathymetry, Underway     | *UCSD*,     | Bruce Applegate    | bapplegate@ucsd.edu    
Thermosalinograph        | *SIO*       |                    |                       



1.2  Science Team and Responsibilities

Duties                    | Name         | Affiliation  | Email Address             
=======================================================================================
Chief Scientist           | Alison       | *WHOI*       | amacdonald@whoi.edu       
                          | Macdonald    |              |                     
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
Co-Chief Scientist        | Viviane      | *WHOI*       | vmenezes@whoi.edu         
                          | Menezes      |              |                     
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
CTD Watchstander,         | Earle        | *UW*         | earlew@uw.edu             
*SOCCOM* floats           | Wilson       |              |                           
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
CTD Watchstander          | Natalie      | *U Colorado* | Natalie.Freeman@Colorado.edu  
                          | Freeman      |              |                       
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
CTD Watchstander          | David        | *UNSW*       | d.webb@unsw.edu.au        
                          | Webb         |              |                     
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
CTD Watchstander          | Seth         | *UH*         | stravis3@hawaii.edu       
                          | Travis       |              |                     
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
CTD Watchstander          | Hannah       | U of Western | 20517368@student.uwa.edu.au  
                          | Dawson       | Australia    |                        
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
Res Tech                  | Josh         | *UCSD*       | jmanger@ucsd.edu          
                          | Manger       |              |                     
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
Computer Tech             | Mary         | *UCSD*       | mhuey@ucsd.edu            
                          | Huey         |              |                     
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
Nutrients, *ODF*          | Susan        | *UCSD*       | sbecker@ucsd.edu          
supervisor, *SOCCOM*      | Becker       | *ODF*        |                           
floats                    |              |              |                           
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
Nutrients                 | John         | *UCSD*       | jrballar@ucsd.edu         
                          | Ballard      | *ODF*        |
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
CTDO Processing, Database | Courtney     | *UCSD*       | cschatzman@ucsd.edu       
Management                | Schatzman    | *ODF*        |                           
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
Salts, ET, Deck           | John         | *UCSD*       | jkc@ucsd.edu              
                          | Calderwood   | *ODF*        |
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
Salts, ET, Deck           | Sergey       | *UCSD*       | sergey1@ucsd.edu          
                          | Tepyuk       | *ODF*        |
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
Dissolved O2, Database    | Andrew       | *UCSD*       | abarna@gmail.com          
Management                | Barna        | *ODF*        |                           
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
Dissolved O2, Database    | Joseph       | *UCSD*       | jgum@ucsd.edu             
Support                   | Gum          | *ODF*        |                           
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
SADCP, *LADCP*            | Philip A.    | *LDEO*       | pmele@ldeo.columbia.edu   
                          | Mele         |              |                     
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
*DIC*, underway pCO2      | Charles      | *AOML*       | charles.featherstone@noaa.gov  
                          | Featherstone |              |                     
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
*DIC*                     | Dana         | *PMEL*       | dana.greeley@noaa.gov     
                          | Greeley      |              |                     
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
*CFCs*, SF6               | Jim          | *RSMAS*      | jhappell@rsmas.miami.edu  
                          | Happell      |              |                     
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
*CFCs*, SF6               | Charlene     | *RSMAS*      | cgrall@rsmas.miami.edu    
                          | Grall        |              |                     
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
*CFCs*, SF6 student       | Sarah        | *RSMAS*      | sBercovici@rsmas.miami.edu  
                          | Bercovici    |              |                         
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
Total Alkalinity          | David        | *UCSD*       | d1cervantes@ucsd.edu      
                          | Cervantes    |              |                     
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
Total Alkalinity          | Heather      | *UCSD*       | hnpage@ucsd.edu           
                          | Page         |              |                     
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
pH                        | Michael      | *UCSD*       | mbfong@ucsd.edu           
                          | Fong         |              |                     
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
*CDOM*                    | Norm         | *UCSB*       | norm@icess.ucsb.edu       
                          | Nelson       |              |                     
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
*CDOM*                    | Cara         | *ETHZ*       | cara.nissen@usys.ethz.ch  
                          | Nissen       |              |                     
--------------------------+--------------+--------------+------------------------------
*DOC*, *TDN*              | Maverick     | *UCSB*       | maverickcarey@gmail.com   
                          | Carey        |              |                     



1.3  Underwater Sampling Package

CTDO/rosette/LADCP/chipod casts were performed with a package
consisting of a 36 bottle rosette frame, a 36-place carousel and 36
Bullister style bottles with an absolute volume of 10.4L. Underwater
electronic components primarily consisted of a SeaBird Electronics
pressure sensor and housing unit with dual exhaust, dual pumps, dual
temperature, a reference temperature, dual conductivity, dissolved
oxygen, transmissometer, chlorophyll fluorometer and altimeter. The
RINKOII optode, CDOM fluorometer and turbidity sensor were unique non-
standard instruments that were not replaceable after loss of initial
rosette package. LADCP and chipods instruments were deployed with the
CTD/rosette package in most cases and their use is outlined in
sections of this document specific to their analysis.


Equipment        | Model      | S/N          | Cal Date     | Sta   | Resp Party  
=================+============+==============+==============+=======+=============
Rosette          | 36-place   | Orange       |      -       | 1-13  | *STS*/*ODF* 
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Rosette          | 36-place   | Yellow       |      -       | 14-83 | *STS*/*ODF* 
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
CTD              | SBE9+      | 401          |      -       | 1-13  | *STS*/*ODF* 
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Pressure Sensor  | Digiquartz | 59916        | Nov 17, 2015 | 1-13  | *STS*/*ODF* 
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
CTD              | SBE9+      | 831          |      -       | 14-83 | *STS*/*ODF* 
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Pressure Sensor  | Digiquartz | 99677        | Nov 17, 2015 | 14-83 | *STS*/*ODF* 
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Primary          | SBE3+      | 34213        | Nov 12, 2015 | 1-13  | *STS*/*ODF* 
Temperature      |            |              |              |       |             
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Primary          | SBE3+      | 32166        | Nov 17, 2015 | 14-83 | *STS*/*ODF* 
Temperature      |            |              |              |       |             
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Primary          | SBE4C      | 43176        | Nov 10, 2015 | 1-13  | *STS*/*ODF* 
Conductivity     |            |              |              |       |             
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Primary          | SBE4C      | 43057        | Nov 10, 2015 | 14-30 | *STS*/*ODF* 
Conductivity     |            |              |              |       |             
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Primary          | SBE4C      | 43399        | Nov 10, 2015 | 31-83 | *STS*/*ODF* 
Conductivity     |            |              |              |       |             
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Primary Pump     | SBE5       |      -       |      -       | 1-13  | *STS*/*ODF* 
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Primary Pump     | SBE5       |      -       |      -       | 14-83 | *STS*/*ODF* 
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Secondary        | SBE3+      | 32165        | Nov 17, 2015 | 1-13  | *STS*/*ODF* 
Temperature      |            |              |              |       |             
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Secondary        | SBE3+      | 34226        | Nov 17, 2015 | 14-83 | *STS*/*ODF* 
Temperature      |            |              |              |       |             
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Secondary        | SBE4C      | 42036        | Nov 10, 2015 | 1-13  | *STS*/*ODF* 
Conductivity     |            |              |              |       |             
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Secondary        | SBE4C      | 43023        | Dec 1, 2015  | 14-56 | *STS*/*ODF* 
Conductivity     |            |              |              |       |             
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Secondary        | SBE4C      | 41919        | Nov 10, 2015 | 57-83 | *STS*/*ODF* 
Conductivity     |            |              |              |       |             
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Secondary Pump   | SBE5       |      -       |      -       | 1-13  | *STS*/*ODF* 
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Secondary Pump   | SBE5       |      -       |      -       | 14-83 | *STS*/*ODF* 
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Transmissometer  | Cstar      | CST-327DR    | Jun 3, 2015  | 1-13  | *TAMU*      
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Transmissometer  | Cstar      | CST-492DR    |      -       | 14-83 | *STS*/*ODF* 
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Fluorometer CDOM | ECO CDOM   | FLCDRTD-3177 | May 13, 2013 | 1-13  | U Maine     
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Fluorometer      | ECO Chlor  | FLBBRTD-3697 | Sep 9, 2014  | 1-13  | *UCSB*      
Chlora           |            |              |              |       |             
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Fluorometer      | ChlorA     | SCF-2958     |      -       | 14-83 | *STS*/*ODF* 
Chlora           |            |              |              |       |             
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Scattering Meter | WL 700nm   | FLBBRTD-3697 | Sep 9, 2014  | 1-13  | *UCSB*      
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Altimeter        | LPA200     | 92147.24448  |      -       | 1-13  | *STS*/*ODF* 
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Dissolved Oxygen | SBE43      | 431129       | Dec 8, 2015  | 1-13  | *STS*/*ODF* 
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Dissolved Oxygen | SBE43      | 431138       | Nov 19, 2015 | 14-83 | *STS*/*ODF* 
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Dissolved Oxygen | RINKOII    | 143          | Jan 1, 2014  | 1-13  | *STS*/*ODF* 
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Temperature      | RINKOII    | 143          | Jan 1, 2014  | 1-13  | *STS*/*ODF* 
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Carousel         | SBE32      |      -       |      -       | 1-13  | *STS*/*ODF* 
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Carousel         | SBE32      |      -       |      -       | 14-83 | *STS*/*ODF* 
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Referense        | SBE35      |      -       |      -       | 1-13  | *STS*/*ODF* 
Temperature      |            |              |              |       |             
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
Referense        | SBE35      |      -       |      -       | 14-83 | *STS*/*ODF* 
Temperature      |            |              |              |       |             
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
LADCP (Up)       | WH300      | 13330        |      -       | 1-13  | *LDEO*/*UH* 
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
LADCP (Down)     | WH300      | 149          |      -       | 1-13  | *LDEO*/*UH* 
-----------------+------------+--------------+--------------+-------+-------------
LADCP (Down)     | WH300      | 150          |      -       | 28-83 | *LDEO*/*UH* 


CTD was housed in the recommended SBE cage, mounted vertically for
stations 1-13 and mounted horizontally for stations 14-83. Both cages
were mounted to one side of the bottom of the rosette frame. The
temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, respective pumps and
exhaust tubing were mounted to the CTD housing as recommended by SBE.
The reference temperature sensor was mounted between the primary and
secondary temperature sensors at the same level as the intake tubes
for the exhaust lines. The transmissometers were mounted horizontally.
The fluorometers and altimeters were mounted vertically inside the
bottom ring of the rosette frames. The 300 KHz bi-directional
Broadband LADCP (RDI) units, when in use, were mounted vertically on
the top and bottom sides of the frame. The LADCP battery pack was also
mounted on the bottom of the frame.

The rosette system was suspended from a UNOLS-standard three-conductor
0.322" electro-mechanical sea cable. The sea cable was terminated at
the beginning of I08S-2016. A full re-termination was completed after
the package was replaced on station 14. Another full re-termination
was performed prior to station 59. The CAST6 aft winch deployment
system cast used for test, 1-13 and 38-83 stations. The Markey DESH-5
forward winch was used for stations 14-37.

The deck watch prepared the rosette 10-30 minutes prior to each cast.
The bottles were cocked and all valves, vents and lanyards were
checked for proper orientation. LADCP technician would check for LADCP
battery charge, prepare instrument for data acquisition and disconnect
cables. The chipod battery was monitored for charge and connectors
were checked for fouling and connectivity. Every 20 stations, the
transmissometer windows were cleaned and an on deck blocked and un-
blocked voltage readings were recorded prior to the cast. Once stopped
on station, the Marine Technician would check the sea state prior to
cast and decide if conditions were acceptable for deployment.

Recovering the package at the end of the deployment was essentially
the reverse of launching. The rosette, CTD and carousel were rinsed
with fresh water frequently. CTD maintenance included rinsing de-
ionized water through both plumbed sensor lines between casts. On
average, once every 20 stations, 1% Triton-x solution was also rinsed
through both conductivity sensors. The rosette was routinely examined
for valves and o-rings leaks, which were maintained as needed.





2  CRUISE NARRATIVE


2.1  Summary

A hydrographic survey in the southern Indian Ocean that included
CTD/rosette/LADCP/Chi-pods/ Fluorometer/Transmissometer casts and bio-
optical casts, underway shipboard ADCP and pCO_2/T/S/XX/YY
measurements, as well as SOCCOM biochemical floats and drifter
deployments were carried out between early February and mid-March 2016.
After MOB (February 4th – 8th), the R/V Revelle departed Fremantle,
Australia on February 8th at 16:06 (local). The southern end of the
occupation took a western route to avoid ice. Sampling began on
February 19th on the Antarctica shelf in less than 500 m of water.
After leaving the shelf, sampling continued generally northeastward
until reaching 82°E where it began following the track of the 2007
occupation. At station 14 the primary rosette and all associated
instrumentation was lost. The spare rosette and instrument
replacements were used the remainder of the line.

A total of 83 stations were occupied: 83 CTD/rosette/fluorometer/
transmissometer casts; 13 included both upward and downward looking 
LADCP and 56 included downward looking-only LADCP; 66 included two 
upward looking chi-pods, 9 included two downward looking chi-pods and 
53 included 1 downward looking chi-pod; and 13 included a second 
fluorometer with a backscatter sensor. With a couple of exceptions, 
casts were made to within 10-15 m of the bottom. Water samples (up 
to 36) were collected in 10 L Bullister bottles at all stations pro-
viding water samples for CFCs/SF6, Total DIC, Total Alkalinity, pH, 
dissolved oxygen, nutrients, salinity, DOC, DI^13/14C, DO^14C, CDOM, 
Chl-A, HPLC, AP, POC, δ^18O, and Nitrate δ^15N/δ^18O. Once a day when 
weather, sea state and satellite flyovers were conducive to sampling 
a spectro-radiometer cast was performed. Underway surface pCO2, tem-
perature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, multi-beam bathymetry and 
meteorological measurements were collected. Six bio-chemical floats 
were deployed for the SOCCOM program and 10 surface drifters for the 
Global Drifter Program. XBTs provided upper water column temperature 
profiles for calibration of the multi-beam on all days that CTD casts 
were not performed. The cruise ended in Fremantle, Australia on March 
16th, 2016 with deMOB occurring on March 17th.



2.2  CRUISE NARRATIVE

Following the tracks of the WOCE 1994 and CLIVAR 2007 occupations,
2016 GO-SHIP expedition marks the third complete repeat of the IO8S
transect from Antarctica to 28°S. It is first leg of I08S/I09N 95°E
meridional transect in the Indian Ocean. The R/V Revelle arrived in
Fremantle on 3 February having completed a suite of successful tests
of the CAST-6 (primary) and DESH-5 (backup) winches in mid-January.
Between 4 February and 8 February, vans (SIO/ODF storage van, working
AOML/DICE van), equipment and supplies were loaded onto the ship in
Fremantle.

On 8 February, before leaving port, R. Rupan (U.W.) provided a
tutorial on the instrumentation on and deployment of the SOCCOM
(http://soccom.princeton.edu/) floats that we would be deploying. Our
CTD-watchstander, Earle Wilson was in charge of SOCCOM floats as well
as writing a blog for the SOCCOM program outreach
(http://floatdispenser.blogspot.com/). Trained by A. Pickering while
in port, watchstander Hannah Dawson was in charge of running the chi-
pods for the non-sailing OSU group. With all hands on board at 14:00,
Josh Manger (res-tech) provided an extended safety brief and Mary Huey
(computer tech) gave us the basics of computer and Internet access on
the ship. With ODF busy setting up the data management for the cruise
and creating cheat sheets for the CTD-watch, the electronic web-based
event logger was started for RR1603 and the various different types of
casts and event were created for the cruise. The first event was the
departure of the Revelle from a sunny and hot (106°F) Fremantle at
16:06 with 28 scientists from 13 different institutions aboard,
representing some XX PIs from YY institutions.

Underway sampling of (pCO2, oxygen, nutrients and chlorophyll-A, XX)
began at 20:00 local (12:00 UTC) and continued every 4 hours
thereafter. In spite of rain overnight, the following day (Tuesday 9
February) turned out to be sunny, if somewhat bumpy (seas 4-6 ft, with
6-8 swell and wind at 22 kt). The time for the test cast was
determined. We wanted at least 3000 m of water, to be outside the
Australian EEZ and to have it occur during the middle of the day. CTD-
watch was tutored on console duties and the rosette. We had our first
drills and obtained our first of our XBT profile. XBT profiles were
taken every day while in transit to update the sound speed profile
used by the multi-beam. Anyone who wanted the experience could sign up
to deploy an XBT.

The test cast took place on 10 February at 10:00. There was a hitch at
the start with a miscommunication between computer and the winch. The
computer’s coms check was interpreted as a signal that lab was ready,
but it was not. Deck could individually hear and speak to the winch,
but there was no direct communication between lab and deck; a point
that was not understood at the start of the cast. On later stations,
the Computer Lab often had a radio on in the lab to help mitigate this
issue. The first time the rosette went into the water, there were no
numbers coming out the CTD. Once this was finally relayed to deck the
rosette was brought out, by which time the CTD had started take
readings. It was deployed a second time. The test cast proceeded with
no further issues. Once complete, the CDOM group deployed the spectro-
radiometer, and sampling at the rosette began. The CTD-watchstanders
were taught to sample-cop and to sample for TAlk and salts.

The following day as winds picked up it became obvious that a cold/flu
had come aboard with us. The combination of strong winds with 8-12 ft
seas and flu symptoms continued for at least a week - making our
transit of the Southern Ocean difficult. Nevertheless, for the most
part, spirits remained high with cribbage games and birthday
celebrations coming in a seemingly endless stream. Two of the CTD-
watchstanders (Seth Travis and Natalie Freeman) created a handy piece
of software that would allow us to track our position on the weather
forecast maps.


Fig. 2.1: Maps
          Example of the weather maps used on the cruise from 21 February
          2016 15:00 UTC. Wind map for the Southern Indian Ocean from
          passageweather.com overlaid with our position at the time the
          figure as made (red diamond); our first station (yellow star); the
          track prior to the forecast date (black line); our planned position
          at the time of the forecast (gray diamond). (S. Travis and N.
          Freeman)


We were grateful to see that in spite of the sea state we were
experiencing, we were missing the worst of the storm. Although it took
some of the science party the entire transit to get their sea legs, we
were treated to science talks by many of the participants and we all
managed to be on our feet for the first station.

To create a sequential line from Antarctica to the northern Bay of
Bengal we began the 2016 I08S line at the southern end. The intention
was to follow track of the 2007 repeat as closely as possible.
Therefore, initially we steamed directly southwest towards what had
been the 2007 station 10 at 63.525°S, 82.000°E. This would place us
midway between the 2007 shelf stations and our best guess at a 2016
ice-free route onto the shelf. S. Escher at SIO provided us with daily
updates on ice conditions in the form of ice concentration maps based
on data from NSIDC averaged over 0.5°x0.5° bins.


Fig. 2.2: Ice-Concentration
          Example of the ice maps used on the cruise. Color shading indicates
          ice-concentration from NSIDC. Both the 2007 and planned 2016 tracks
          are plotted along with presently floats in the region. (Courtesy of
          S. Escher)


Andrew Constable onboard the Aurora Australis (currently in the region
performing their K-AXIS observations) also provided us (via Steve
Rintoul) with hand-annotated maps of the ice-conditions they were
seeing. It was obvious before reaching our first waypoint that in
spite of some melting and shifting, the 2007 shelf stations were under
ice. Therefore, we chose to sample the shelf to the west of the 2007
line. Under the expert navigational advice of Captain Curl we
approached the shelf from the west. There was some risk in this
decision in that we would need extra time this approach and track that
would have to be made up by efficient sampling and steaming as well as
the possibility of some extension of the nominal GO-SHIP 30 nm station
spacing for later stations. Nevertheless, it was considered important
to get the shelf stations, particularly because of the other work
going on in the region (K-AXIS) and decisions concerning spacing were
left for the future when we would have a better handle on station
timing.

As we headed south we were treated to displays of the Southern Lights,
Aurora Australis. A sign up list for aurora wake up calls was started
so that no one would have to miss what for some of us was a once in a
life time opportunity to see the spectacle. On February 19th, 11 days
after leaving Fremantle, approaching from the west to avoid ice, we
reached our first station at 66.6°S, 78.4°E in Prydz Bay. To
everyone’s delight we were just south of the Antarctic Circle at the
time was at 66.5°S. In ~460 m of water station 001/01 occurred without
incident.

Our track took us on a line perpendicular to the slope, northwestward
from our first station on the shelf to station 007 at 66.15°S,
78.01°E. The close station spacing (3.2 to 9.4 nm) provided bottom
depth changes between stations of order 500 m. We then began a series
of stations approximately 37-38 nm apart to bring us around the
regions of high ice-concentration back to the northward track of the
2007 line at 82°E. Although always kept at a safe distance, we were
accompanied by isolated icebergs as we sampled our way across the
Princess Elizabeth Trough. At more than one point we had to change our
transit heading to avoid ice, and once we had to shift a station
position because an iceberg had arrived there before us. Nevertheless,
the ice-concentration maps were a great help because we only traveled
through regions with less than 10% ice-cover giving us plenty of space
and time to stay well away from the potential ice hazards.
Occasionally, sightings were reported of penguins sitting en masse on
these bergs. However, not even the many zoom lenses carried with us
managed to actually capture these penguineries. We were, however, met
by the occasional penguin or two in the water, along with whales,
albatross and petrels all of which were subject to our cameras, phones
and Go-Pros. In fact, very little occurred on this cruise that was not
subject to one or more forms of image capture.

We proceeded to work our way through stations ironing out short-term
surmountable issues. At station 2, the solution in the syringes placed
on the CTD intake froze. It was decided that until temperatures warmed
up we would rinse the CTD with the syringes and then remove them. It
was found that for stations 001-003 although conductivity was correct,
there was a problem with the conversion to salinity. A software
solution was found. Another issue that followed us throughout the
cruise was the source of seawater intake. During our transit, the
uncontaminated seawater intake was switched from the bow to the
portside sea chest because the rough weather was causing bubbles.
However, on Feb 19th, trash was found in the uncontaminated seawater.
It was therefore requested that trash not be dump on the portside.
Later in the cruise, when the weather calmed, intake was switched back
to the bow, and switched back and forth yet again as the weather
changed and when a problem with the sea chest pump occurred. On
station 005 the wire stopped paying out at 1368 m. Evidently a surge
from the generator caused the ship to have to shut down power. The
power came back after a few minutes and the cast continued without
further incident. The multi-beam began having difficulties before even
arriving at our southernmost point, at the start of station 006 it
was shut down for maintenance. Luckily our altimeter was working
flawlessly coming in 200 m above the bottom.

By the time we reached station 010 it was obvious that particularly
with short station spacing coming off the shelf, the day shift CTD
watch was being overwhelmed by the extra sampling for non-sailing
participants that included both δ^18O and Nitrate δ^15N/δ^18O. The
watchstander students were also sampling salts and TAlk, and Hannah
was in charge of the chi-pods downloads and maintenance. It was
therefore, decided that the δ^18O and Nitrate δ^15N/δ^18O sampling
would only occur on the night shift which had 3 watchstander students.
On the night watch, Natalie Freeman and David Webb also helped with
the radiocarbon sampling.

To stagger the bottle spacing throughout the water column and across
stations we used three rotating schema designed for a 36 bottle
rosette. The particular pressures at which bottles would be tripped
were based on bottom depth and scheme. To alleviate the pressure on
the analysis teams it was decided that when in shallower waters (less
than 3000 meters) and particularly during times of close station
spacing the number of bottles to be tripped would be pre-determined.
The schema would still be used, but in such a way that the pressures
at which samples were taken were set by the number of bottles to be
tripped rather than the bottom depth. To keep some consistency, when
stations positions matched, the number of bottles used in 2007 would
be considered in this decision.

Stations 007 to 0010 had taken us eastward across deepest stations in
the Princess Elizabeth Trough and we began to head up the slope
southeast of the Banzare Bank (part of the larger Kerguelen Plateau).
On 21 February, at station 011 (82°E) we arrived back at the 2007
line. We reverted back to our nominal 30 nm spacing and we had our
first SOCCOM float deployment. These deployments were done in
conjunction with extra sampling for HPLC and POC from the rosette at
the chlorophyll-A maximum and at the surface. At one of these two
depths we would trip two bottles, so that duplicates of the 2.2L HPLC
and POC samples could be taken. As it turned out, it was only at the
other depth (where only 1 bottle was tripped) that we ran into issues
with water availability. At all subsequent casts where these samples
were taken we either tripped two bottles at both the surface and
chlorophyll maximum, or made sure that HPLC/POC and nutrients obtained
water before salts and any non-level 1 sampling. The float deployments
are discussed in a separate section of this report.

During our first few days of sampling we had overcome the expected
variety of small issues as they had come up, and with the now longer
station spacing, we were just getting into the swing of deployments,
recoveries, sampling and analysis when we came to station 014 (62.0°S,
82.0°E) just after lunch on 22 February. All appeared to be going
well, the CAST-6 boom had extended out over the water for deployment
just as it had done on every other cast when the CTD package was
unceremoniously dumped into 2250 m of water.


Fig. 2.3: Rosette loss
          The primary rosette going in for the last time on station 014 
          Cast 01 (photo courtesy of M. Carey).


A detailed report on this incident, along with loss of instrumentation
and science impact has been submitted and the particulars are not
discussed here. Calls to shore were made and a decision was quickly 
reached not to drag for the lost rosette along with all our primary 
instrumentation as a) there would be too much time lost with little 
hope of recovery and b) setting up dragging would involve the same 
personnel needed to prep the spare CTD/rosette and the hydro-boom, 
DESH-5 winch.

Along with ODF/STS and the day shift science personnel who got the
replacement rosette together quickly and efficiently, the ship crew
did a wonderful job getting us up and running again. The teamwork
involved on what was a very cold in the Southern Ocean was
outstanding. This efficiency and the subsequent fast transit speeds
gave us as much time as possible to make up for the loss and truly
minimized the overall impact on science. The chief and co-chief want
to personally thank everyone involved, and my particular thanks go to
Captain Chris Curl, Res-tech Josh Manger, Techs John Calderwood and
Susan Becker who kept the whole situation in perspective and motivated
a positive solution, and to science personnel Hannah Dawson, Seth
Travis, Maverick Cary and Phil Mele who did whatever was asked of them
to assist. Surprisingly, there were some bonuses to this disaster.
These included a) the chance for the day watch students to not only
see how a rosette is put together, but actually help in the building
of it; b) the reversion back to the DESH-5 gave all the students a
chance to participate in deck work; and c) keeping our sense of humor
here, it provided the chief and co-chief scientists the chance to fire
a few bottles and gave a number of the other members of the science
party a chance to work at the console or on the deck. Within less than
9 hours we were up and running again. Generally speaking, every 4
hours of time lost is equivalent to losing one 4000 m station. Loss of
stations means a loss of horizontal resolution which was particularly
important to us for resolving the ACC fronts and eddy field to the
north of the Kerguelen Plateau.

At station 014, the first with our new rosette, we double fired all
bottles to check for problems. Not wishing to lose any more time, we
continued up the slope and onto station 015. We continued to deal with
small issues with the Bullister bottles that meant we lost some data
to misfires and leaks. We continued to double fire at depths where we
were using “untrustworthy” bottles. As we were in fairly shallow waters 
(<2200 m) we had bottles to spare for this process of working out the
kinks. One loss over these days was that we did not yet have either
our remaining LADCP or 3 chi-pods installed. Both had to wait for the
engineers to design additions to the rosette frame for mounting of the
instruments and batteries.

Station 015 also presented another issue that plagued us as long as we
used the DESH-5. The winch was unable to properly zero out the meter.
Initially this just created offset headaches for the console
operators, but eventually, after a number of attempts to fix the
problem, the inability to zero correctly escalated to a software
“feature” that required the winch to zero out the meter before 1400 m
of wire-out; otherwise it would revert to negative 1400 and start
counting backwards. So, beginning at station 028, every one-thousand
meters the console would give the winch a heads up and the meter would 
be zeroed out on the fly. Interestingly this actually made the console
operators job easier because they only had to deal with the last 3
digits on the offset between wire-out and pressure.

On the 23 February at station 19 we deployed the first of 10 surface
drifters for the Global Drifter Program at approximate 59.5°S, 82°E.
Over the course of the cruise most of the CTD watch had a chance to
deploy a drifter or two as it basically entailed nothing more than
dropping them off the back of the ship and noting the time and
position.

We maintained 30 nm spacing or better between 63°S and 54°S and the
stations once again began to roll by as we crossed the Kerguelen
Plateau and over the sharp ridge on the northern side into the Labuan
Basin, home to our deepest casts. The chi-pods (2 upward and 1
downward) and LADCP (downward only) went on the rosette at station
028. The replacement LADCP appeared to have issues with the tilt of
the rosette, but nothing could be done about this as there did not
seem to be any way to re-weight the rosette or to re-seat the LADCP
system. These problems continued until the incident at station 59 –
but more about that later.

By the time we reached station 032 (54.9°S, 86.6°E) the winds had
picked up again and we were reminded that we were once again crossing
the Southern Ocean. By station 033, we decided to start firing bottles
on the fly to minimize the amount of the time in the water. At station
034 the winch was forced not to exceed 30 m/min to avoid high
tensions, and after a long delay due to strong winds, much of the down
cast for station 35 (4600 m) was done at 10 m/min. Still we
persevered. At station 36, unidentified noises started coming from the
winch, which stopped at 4370 m wire-out for some investigation. The
station continued, but on the next (037) the DESH-5 seized. After
going down at 30 m/min due to tension spikes, the console was informed
of mechanical issues and the cast was stopped at 2010 m wire-out. The
rosette was brought up at 4 m/min and bottles were fired on the fly.
The internals of the DESH-5 system had seized and it was not possible
correct the issue at sea. Everyone was left somewhat mystified at all
these winch issues as both the CAST-6 and DESH-5 had been completely
overhauled just prior to the start of this cruise. Nevertheless, ours
is not to reason why. Ours is to figure out what to do and get back to
sampling. We moved off station 037 with only half a profile and moved
on to the station 038.

On the transit and once on station the CAST-6 winch was once again
prepared for use and the wire was re-terminated. As we no longer had a
rosette with a frame designed for docking, our chief engineer, the
res- techs and winch operators worked out a way to use the CAST-6 as a
boom. Tests were performed with a weight and the rosette so that
between them winch operators and deck would have control of the
package. It was decided that a third person would be needed to provide
an extra tagline. It was also found that with this new setup negative
tensions on the downcast could be an issue when the ship rolled, so it
became common practice to start descent at 30 m/min, move on to 45
m/min and then only once the package was 200-500 m deep accelerate to
60 m/min. Station 038 proceeded without major incidents, but the level
wind failed somewhere near the bottom. Since the engineers were not
confident enough with the system to re-lay the wire with the rosette
on it, we stopped at a point between stations 038 and 039 that was
deeper than 038, put a weight on the wire and sent it down to below
the point that level wind had failed. With the wire wound onto the
spool correctly we continued on to station 039.

At 53.5°S we went to 35 nm spacing, a compromise between the need to
make up time and the desire to have closer station in the rich eddy
field created by the Polar Front as it passes to the north of
Kerguelen and Heard Islands and the plateau. Before even arriving at
this region, our co-chief, Vivianne Menezes was creating mean fields
of these eddies along with one day a real-time image.


Fig. 2.4: Real-time image
          Satellite sea surface anomaly and absolute geostrophic currents for
          Feb 24, 2016 (stations 021-026) based on near real-time altimetry
          data from IMOS. Pink squares show the I08S station positions.  (V.
          Menezes)


This region, and in particular, the pathway of the Polar Front are
subjects of CTD-watchstander Natalie Freemans thesis research. She
provided us with maps of mean frontal position (~station 034) and we
hope to see real time figures once we get back to shore. Being in the
Southern Ocean has the big disadvantage that our Internet bandwidth is
low, making real-time anything difficult to obtain. One exception is
weather. Our LADCP tech, Phil Mele, directed us to a website where we
could download small (kbyte) 3-hour forecasts of winds and waves
(Passageweather.com/download.htm). It was these maps that Seth Travis
overlaid our track on, and these maps that kept us diligently moving
northward as we worked to avoid a massive storm that would have caused
even more delays.

At stations 039 and 040 we again had some issues with wire readout. We
now found that the numbers in the lab were not the same as those seen by
the winch. It was a initially thought that this particular problem
could be fixed by a software reset, but to varying extents it
continued throughout the rest of the cruise. As it got too confusing,
it helped when the winch used LCI readout that lab could also see.
Likewise, there were occasional glitches when winch’s wire-out readout
would fail completely. There was one other winch “feature” that began
occurring regularly which was that on descent the winch would have to
stop in order to slow down. This meant that console had to be
particularly diligent in being early to give the slow down signal for
the bottom approach.

At station 41 with 1.5 knots of current under us, and a lot of wire
out, we had the ship go off station to correct the problem. But, as
we headed northward out of the Furious Fifties into the Roaring
Forties for the most part the casts went by uneventfully and we began
to make up time as deck and winch grew more skillful with deployments
and recoveries. Air tests were performed on the secondary
transmissometer on stations 14, 37, 57 and 78. The computer running
the Seabird software, which had been rebooted at station 020 (2/23)
when dealing with an issue with the computer mouse, had to be rebooted
again at station 049 (3/3) after it froze near the surface on the
ascent. This same freezing up of the console occurred at station 077
(3/10). We would suggest that in the future the computer be rebooted
every day to avoid the issue.

On March 4, after station 054, the hangar was found to be slippery. We
tried to clean it up but could not alleviate the problem, which only
appeared to be getting worse. Once daylight was with us the engineers
determined that it was a leak from a loose fitting on the CAST-6
hydraulics on the deck above. Both DOC and CDOM were carefully to
clean all spigots before sampling. The crew to get the deck and hangar
cleaned up.

In the first week of March as we moved into warmer climes the hydro-lab
began having issues with rising temperatures. On 5 March the ship
turned the air conditioning back on and appeared to have solved the
issue. It certainly cooled off the computer lab.

On March 6th, by station 058 the wire was beginning to look damaged –
showing small curve and raised strand outer armor. Using an abundance
of caution as requested from land, the wire was mechanically
reterminated. On station 059 recovery the Evergrip used in the
termination slipped, the packaged slid down the wire hitting the
boards and then teetering on the rail as the winch attempted to bring
it in. It was brought under control and brought onboard. The students
on the deck did a great job of holding the lines and the winch managed
to pick it up and get it safely on the deck. A complete retermination
was done before Station 60. Not only did all sensors check out after
this incident, but the LADCP actually started working properly again.
Also, this time it was night watchstanders who got the chance to learn
about and participate in a retermination. We consider ourselves lucky
as the glass salinity sensors could have easily broken and the two we
still had available were not as good as those on the rosette.

We had started doing 40 nm spacing at station 051 (45.6°S),
but the efficiency of the work as we continued using the CAST-6
system meant that we were making up time, allowing us to revert back
to the 30 nm spacing or less until station 078. The captain gave us a
drop-dead time of 06:00 (local) on 12 March for completing our final
station. We finished up the last few subtropical casts using 36 nm
spacing, making it through our final planned station at 28.3°S with 25
minutes to spare. The one loss on these few days of sampling was for
CFCs, whose system broke down due to an overflow. Nevertheless, they
got it up and running again and were able to fully sample the last few
stations.

During our copious free time, along with maps of tracks and bottle
spacing, we started to produce section plots. These indicate strong
CFC and SF6 signals in bottom and intermediate waters (see section
plots). We also began some preliminary comparisons to the previous
occupations of this line. Consistent with large-scale studies, there
are strong warming and freshening signals visible in the bottom
waters.


Fig. 2.5: Property-Property
          Potential Temperature versus Salinity plot comparing data from the
          previous two occupations of I08s to the 2016 occupation. The data
          indicate strong warming and freshening between 63°S and 51°S
          (contours σ4).


Our co-chief, Viviane Menezes put a substantial effort into a
preliminary analysis of the temperature and salinity changes and we
hope to have these results in the published literature soon.

As this report is being written we are in the midst of the 4–day
transit back to Fremantle. Yesterday we had red-nose testing for those
for whom this was the first Antarctic Circle crossing. In full penguin
regalia the red-noses cleaned the refrigerators and galley, and made
pizzas for lunch. Two penguins deployed XBTS and all penguins joined
in a rousing rendition of the hit song, ICEBERG, written and arranged
by our very own res-tech Josh Manger. By unanimous vote of a two-
person panel the winning penguin was declared to be Mary Huey, a rock-
hopper with pink feet and a uniquely slippery coat.

Along with writing documentation, we are once again deploying XBTs
each day and will be doing some rearrangements of the lab spaces so
make room for the new groups arriving with I9N. We are expecting to
arrive outside Fremantle on the evening of the 15th, which should
allow us to start unloading on 16 March as intended.

This cruise presented us all with challenges. We would like thank the
officers and crew of the R/V Revelle who have gone above and beyond to
support the science of this expedition. They have worked with us every
step of the way, to fix everything from the smallest detail to the
greatest problems, all the while speeding us along so that we could
sample the full line with minimal loss of data.





3  CTDO AND HYDROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS


3.1  CTDO and Bottle Data Acquisition

The CTD data acquisition system consisted of an SBE-11+ (V2) deck unit
and a networked generic PC workstation running Windows 7 2009 SBE
SeaSave v.7.18c software was used for data acquisition and to close
bottles on the rosette.

CTD deployments were initiated by the console watch after the ship had
stopped on station. The watch maintained a CTD Cast logs for each
attempted cast containing a description of each deployment event.

Once the deck watch had deployed the rosette, the winch operator would
lower it to 10 meters. The CTD exhaust line pumps were configured with
a 10 second startup delay in addition to the necessity that salt water
be present in the conductivity cells, and were usually on by this
time. The console operator checked the CTD data for proper sensor
operation, waited for sensors to stabilize, and then instructed the
winch operator to bring the package to the surface in good weather and
up to 5 meters below the surface in high seas. The winch was then
instructed to lower the package to the initial target wire-out at no
more than 30m/min to 100m and no more than 60m/min after 100m
depending on sea cable tension and the sea state.

The console watch monitored the progress of the deployment and quality
of the CTD data through interactive graphics and operational displays.
The altimeter channel, CTD pressure, wire-out and center multibeam
depth were all monitored to determine the distance of the package from
the bottom. The winch was directed to slow decent rate to 30m/min 100m
from the bottom and 10m/min 30m from the bottom. The maximum depth of
the CTD cast was usually within 10-20 meters of the bottom depth
determined by the altimeter data. For each up-cast, the winch operator
was directed to stop the winch at up to 36 predetermined sampling
pressures. These standard depths were staggered every station using 3
sampling schemes. The CTD console operator waited 30 seconds prior to
tripping sample bottles, to ensure package shed-wake had dissipated.
An additional 15 seconds elapsed before moving to the next consecutive
trip depth, which allowed for the SBE35RT to record bottle trip
temperature.

After the last bottle was closed, the console operator directed winch
to recover the rosette. Once the rosette was on deck, the console
operator terminated the data acquisition, turned off the deck unit and
assisted with rosette sampling.

Additionally, the watch created a sample log for each deployment.
Sample logs are used to record the depths of bottles tripped and serve
as correspondence between rosette bottles and analytical samples
drawn.

Normally the CTD sensors were rinsed after each station using syringes
fitted with Tygon tubing and filled with a fresh solution of dilute
Triton-X in de-ionized water. The syringes were left on the CTD
between casts, with the temperature and conductivity sensors immersed
in the rinsing solution.

Each bottle on the rosette had a unique serial number, independent of
the bottle position on the rosette. Sampling for specific programs was
outlined on sample log sheets prior to cast recovery or at the time of
collection. The bottles and rosette were examined before samples were
drawn. Any abnormalities were noted on the sample log, stored in the
cruise database and reported in the APPENDIX.



3.2  CTDO Data Processing

Shipboard CTD data processing was performed after deployment using
SIO/ODF CTD processing software v.5.1.0. CTD acquisition data were
copied onto the Linux system and database, then processed to a
0.5-second time-series. CTD data at bottle trips were extracted, and a
2-decibar down-cast pressure series created. The pressure series data
set was submitted for CTD data distribution.

A total of 88 CTD casts were made including one test cast, 4 aborted
casts and 83 successful CTD casts. The 36-place (CTD #401) rosette was
used on the test station 998 and from station 1 to station 13. The
36-place (CTD #831) rosette was used from station 14 to station 83

CTD data were examined at the completion of each deployment for clean
corrected sensor response and any calibration shifts. As bottle
salinity and oxygen results became available they were used to refine
shipboard conductivity and oxygen sensor calibrations.

Temperature, salinity and dissolved O2 comparisons were made between
down and up casts as well as between groups of adjacent deployments.
Vertical sections of measured and derived properties from sensor data
were checked for consistency.

A number of issues were encountered during I08S-2016 that directly
impacted CTD analysis. Low surface air temperatures caused total ice
blockage in primary plumb line of CTD on station/cast 2/2.
Station/cast 2/2 was terminated to clear plumb lines and the station
work resumed with 2/3. A similar partial ice blockage occurred on
station 4/1 and cleared a few hundred meters from the surface. The
loss of our primary rosette system (CTD #401) occurred during recovery
of the package on station 14. Deployments resumed from the Markey
DESH-5 winch deployment system after a back-up package (CTD #831)
could be constructed on station 14. The LCI-90i interface and DESH-5
system  was used from station 14-38 and that system had communication
issues as well as possible drum slip issues on station/cast 038/01 at
4450-4470 dbar. The cast 038/01 was paused to analyze the LCI-90 and
DESH-5 communications, which compromised the stability of the CTDO
signal and that section of data was coded questionable. Winch stops on
CTDO down-cast were also noted on several stations where the CAST6
system was put back into use. The CAST6 system was frequently stopped
between on bottom approach from 60m/min to 30 m/min transition to put
the automated control into manual mode. Only station 059/01 from
3530-3590 and station 065/02 from 4000-4040 appeared to have
compromised data sections due to the auto manual transition, and those
sections were also coded questionable. One station had a sizable
signal inversion in oxygen and conductivity from 2350 to 2390 dbar.
The inversion was filtered and coded on the data as well. High seas
and negative winch tensions during operations prompted CTD acquisition
team to trip bottles without the standard delay observed at trip
levels ("tripping on the fly") on the up-cast for stations 33-37. Trip
levels that appeared to be negatively impacted by "tripping on the
fly" were quality flagged and recorded in APPENDIX.



3.3  Pressure Analysis

Laboratory calibrations of CTD pressure sensors were performed prior
to the cruise. Dates of laboratory calibration are recorded on the
underway sampling package table and calibration documents are provided
in the APPENDIX.

The Paroscientific Digiquartz pressure transducer S/N: 401-59916 and
S/N: 831-99677 were both calibrated on November 17th, 2015 at the SIO/
Calibration Facility. The lab calibration coefficients provided on the
report were used to convert frequencies to pressure. Initially SIO/
pressure lab calibration slope and offsets coefficients were applied
to cast data. A shipboard calibration offset was applied to the
pressure signal during each cast. These offsets were determined by the
on-deck pre- and post-cast pressure offsets. The pressure offsets were
applied per configuration cast sets.


* CTD Serial 401-59916; Station Set 1-13

               | Start P (dbar) | End P (dbar)
==============================================
Min            | -0.2           | -0.3      
---------------+----------------+-------------
Max            |  2.5           | -0.1      
---------------+----------------+-------------
Average        |  0.164286      | -0.214286 
---------------+----------------+-------------
Applied Offset |                | -0.06     


CTD Serial 831-99677; Station Set 14-83

               | Start P (dbar) | End P (dbar)
==============================================
Min            | -0.5           | -0.5      
---------------+----------------+-------------
Max            |  0.3           |  0.5      
---------------+----------------+-------------
Average        | -0.0695652     | -0.114493 
---------------+----------------+-------------
Applied Offset |                |  0.1      


Pre- and post-cast on-deck pressure offsets for CTD 401 varied from
-0.2 to +2.5 dbar before the casts, and -0.3 to -0.1 dbar after the
casts. An offset of -0.06 was applied to every cast performed by CTD
401. Pre- and post-cast on-deck pressure offsets for CTD 831 varied
from -0.5 to +0.3 dbar before the casts, and -0.5 to +0.5 dbar after
the casts. An offset of 0.1 was applied to every cast performed by
CTD 831.



3.4  Temperature Analysis

Laboratory calibrations of temperature sensors were performed prior to
the cruise at the SIO/ Calibration Facility. Dates of laboratory
calibration are recorded on the 'Underway Sampling Package' table and
calibration documents are provided in the APPENDIX.

The pre-cruise laboratory calibration coefficients were used to
convert SBE3plus frequencies to 90 temperature. Additional shipboard
calibrations were performed to correct sensor bias. Two independent
metrics of calibration accuracy were used to determine sensor bias. At
each bottle closure, the primary and secondary temperature were
compared with each other and with a SBE35RT reference temperature
sensor.

The SBE35RT Digital Reversing Thermometer is an internally-recording
temperature sensor that operates independently of the CTD. The SBE35RT
was located equidistant between the two SBE3plus temperature sensors.
It is triggered by the SBE32 carousel in response to a bottle closure.
According to the manufacturer's specifications, the typical stability
is 0.001(deC/year. The SBE35RT was set to internally average over a 5
second period.

A functioning SBE3plus sensor typically exhibit a consistent
predictable well modeled response. The response model is second order
with respect to pressure, a first order with respect to temperature
and a first order with respect to time. The functions used to apply
shipboard calibrations are as follows.


              T    = T + D P  + D P  + D T  + D T + Offset
               cor        1 2    2      3 2    4 


                            T   = T + tp P + t
                             90         1     0


                  T   = T + aP  + bP + cT  + dT + Offset
                   90         2          2


Corrected temperature differences are shown in figures SBE35RT-T1 by
station (-0.01°C  T1-T2  0.01°C) through T1-T2 by pressure (-0.01°C
T1-T2  0.01°C).


Fig. 3.1: SBE35RT-T1 by station (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C).

Fig. 3.2: Deep SBE35RT-T1 by station (Pressure ≥ 2000dbar).

Fig. 3.3: SBE35RT-T2 by station (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C).

Fig. 3.4: Deep SBE35RT-T2 by station (Pressure ≥ 2000dbar).

Fig. 3.5: T1-T2 by station (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C).

Fig. 3.6: Deep T1-T2 by station (Pressure ≥ 2000dbar).

Fig. 3.7: SBE35RT-T1 by pressure (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C).

Fig. 3.8: SBE35RT-T2 by pressure (-0.01° ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C).

Fig. 3.9: T1-T2 by pressure (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C).


The 95% confidence limits for the mean low-gradient (where -0.01°C
≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C) differences are ±0.0049°C for SBE35RT-T1, ±0.0052°C 
for SBE35RT-T2 and ±0.0042°Cfor T1-T2. The 95% confidence limits for 
the deep temperature residuals (where pressure ≥ 2000dbar) are 
±0.00083°C for SBE35RT-T1, ±0.00096°C for SBE35RT-T2 and ±0.00088°C 
for T1-T2.

No problems were encountered with the temperature sensors used for this
cruise. The SBE35RT memory bank was full for stations 75/1 bottle 36
to station 78/1 bottle 21. Data was not reported from the SBE35RT for
that section.



3.5  Conductivity Analysis

Laboratory calibrations of conductivity sensors were performed prior
to the cruise at the SeaBird Calibration Facility. Dates of laboratory
calibrations are recorded on the underway sampling package table and
calibration documents are provided in the APPENDIX.

The pre-cruise laboratory calibration coefficients were used to
convert SBE4C frequencies to mS/cm conductivity values. Additional
shipboard calibrations were performed to correct sensor bias.
Corrections for both pressure and temperature sensors were finalized
before analyzing conductivity differences. Two independent metrics of
calibration accuracy were examined. At each bottle closure, the
primary and secondary conductivity were compared with each other. Each
sensor was also compared to conductivity calculated from check sample
salinities using CTD pressure and temperature.

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


Fig 3.10: Coherence of conductivity differences as a function of
          temperature differences.


Uncorrected conductivity comparisons are shown in figures Uncorrected
CBottle - C1 by station (-0.01°C  T1-T2  0.01°C). through Uncorrected
C1-C2 by station (-0.01°C  T1-T2  0.01°C)..


Fig 3.11: Uncorrected C(Bottle) - C1 by station (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2
          ≤ 0.01°C).

Fig 3.12: Uncorrected C(Bottle) - C2 by station (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2
          ≤ 0.01°C).

Fig 3.13: Uncorrected C1-C2 by station (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C).


A functioning SBE4C sensor typically exhibit a predictable modeled
response. Offsets for each C sensor were determined using C(Bottle) -
C_CTD differences in a deeper pressure range (500 or more dbars).
After conductivity offsets were applied to all casts, response to
pressure, temperature and conductivity were examined for each
conductivity sensor. The response model is second order with respect
to pressure, a first order with respect to temperature, first order
with respect to conductivity and a first order with respect to time.
The functions used to apply shipboard calibrations are as follows.

The residual conductivity differences after correction are shown in
figures Corrected C(Bottle) - C1 by station (-0.01°C  T1-T2  0.01°C).
through Corrected C1-C2 by conductivity (-0.01°C  T1-T2  0.01°C)..


Fig 3.14: Corrected C(Bottle) - C1 by station (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C).

Fig 3.15: Deep Corrected C(Bottle) - C1 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

Fig 3.16: Corrected C(Bottle) - C2 by station (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C).

Fig 3.17: Deep Corrected C(Bottle) - C2 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

Fig 3.18: Corrected C1-C2 by station (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ ≤ 0.01°C).

Fig 3.19: Deep Corrected C1-C2 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

Fig 3.20: Corrected C(Bottle) - C1 by pressure (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C).

Fig 3.21: Corrected C(Bottle) - C2 by pressure (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C).

Fig 3.22: Corrected C1-C2 by pressure (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C).

Fig 3.23: Corrected C(Bottle) - C1 by conductivity (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C).

Fig 3.24: Corrected C(Bottle) - C2 by conductivity (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C).

Fig 3.25: Corrected C1-C2 by conductivity (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C).


Corrections made to all conductivity sensors had the form:

                               2
                C    = C + cp P  + cp P + c C + c
                 cor         2       1     1     0


Salinity residuals after applying shipboard P/T/C corrections are
summarized in the following figures. Only CTD and bottle salinity data
with "acceptable" quality codes are included in the differences.
Quality codes and comments are also published in APPENDIX.


Fig 3.26: Salinity residuals by station (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C).

Fig 3.27: Salinity residuals by pressure (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C).

Fig 3.28: Deep Salinity residuals by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).


The 95% confidence limits for the mean low-gradient (where -0.01°C
≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C) differences are ±0.0064°C for salnity-C1. The
95% confidence limits for the deep salinity residuals (where pressure
≥ 2000dbar) are ±0.00016 for salinity-C1.

A number of issues affected conductivity and calculated CTD salinities
during this cruise. After the loss of the initial package on station
14 a new package was constructed with new instrumentation. The
secondary conductivity (SBE4C: 42023) was used from station 14-56.
C2:42023 was replaced after its data drifted at a non-linear rate
that was not in accordance with manufacturing specifications. As the
cruise progressed North the temperatures in the Hydro-Lab, where
discrete salinity samples were analyzed, became unstable. Samples data
from station 48 bottle 2 through bottle 23 and station 49 bottle 1
through bottle 29 were considered unusable for comparison.



3.6  CTD Dissolved Oxygen

Laboratory calibrations of the dissolved oxygen sensors were performed
prior to the cruise at the SeaBird Calibration Facility. Dates of
laboratory calibration are recorded on the underway sampling package
table and calibration documents are provided in the APPENDIX.

The pre-cruise laboratory calibration coefficients were used to
convert SBE43 frequencies to µmol/kg oxygen values for acquisition
only. Additional shipboard fittings were performed to correct for the
sensors non-linear response. Corrections for pressure, temperature
and conductivity sensors were finalized before analyzing dissolved
oxygen data. The SBE43 sensor data were compared to dissolved O2
check samples taken at bottle stops by matching the down cast CTD data
to the up cast trip locations along isopycnal surfaces. CTD dissolved
O2 was then calculated using Clark Cell MPOD O2 sensor response
model for Beckman/Sensormedics and SBE43 dissolved O2 sensors. The
residual differences of bottle check value versus CTD dissolved O2
values are minimized by optimizing the SIO DO sensor response model
coefficients with a Levenberg-Marquardt non-linear least-squares
fitting procedure.

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

        ´                  `
       |           P(h)     |                                       dOc       dP
       |       C(2)----     |            (C(4)t(s) + C(7)P(1) + C(6)--- + C(8)--- + C(9)dT)
O2ml/l=|C·V  ·e    5000 + C |·ƒ   (T,P)·e                            dT       dTt
       | 1 DO              3|  sat
       |                    |
        `                  ´

Where:

* O2 ml/l          Dissolved O2 concentration in ml/l

* V(DO)            Raw sensor output

* C(1)             Sensor slope

* C(2)             Hysteresis response coefficient

* C(3)             Sensor offset

* f(sat) (T,P)|O2| saturation at T,P (ml/l)

* T                In-situ temperature (°C)

* P                In-situ pressure (decibars)

* P(h)             Low-pass filtered hysteresis pressure (decibars)

* T(l)             Long-response low-pass filtered temperature (°C)

* T(s)             Short-response low-pass filtered temperature (°C)

* P(l)             Low-pass filtered pressure (decibars)

* dO(c)/dt         Sensor current gradient (µamps/sec)

* dP/dt            Filtered package velocity (db/sec)

* dT               Low-pass filtered thermal diffusion estimate (T(s) – T(l))

* C(4) – C(9)      Response coefficients


CTD dissolved O2 residuals are shown in figures O2 residuals by
station (-0.01°C  T1-T2  0.01°C). through Deep O2 residuals by station
(Pressure >= 2000dbar).


Fig 3.29: O2 residuals by station (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C).

Fig 3.30: O2 residuals by pressure (-0.01°C ≤ T1-T2 ≤ 0.01°C).

Fig 3.31: Deep O2 residuals by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).


The standard deviations of 2.98 (µmol/kg) for all oxygens and 0.69
(µmol/kg) for deep oxygens are only presented as general indicators of
goodness of fit. SIO makes no claims regarding the precision or
accuracy of CTD dissolved O2 data.

A few minor problems with acquisition of data complicated the CTD
dissolved oxygen fits. The primary pumps were partially blocked on
station 4. This resulted in the use of the up-cast for data reporting
instead of the standard down-cast profile. On stations 3, 36, 59 and
65 the winch stopped on CTD decent. This caused the data from the
oxygen sensor to report different values at the same pressure depth.
These data were coded questionable for those perspective pressure
depth regions. For a number of near surface bottle values, the down-
casts did not match the bottle value, however the up-cast did match.
These samples were comment on in the bottle quality comments and coded
good, but the data associated with those trips were weighted 0 in the
non-linear least squares fitting algorithm and not used for the fit.


[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).





4  SALINITY


4.1  Equipment and Techniques

A single Guildline Autosal, model 8400B salinometer (S/N 65-740)
located in salinity analysis room, was used for all salinity
measurements. The autosal was recently calibrated before this cruise,
I08S. The salinometer readings were logged on a computer using in-
house LabView program developed by Carl Mattson. This is to ensure
stabilize reading values and improve accuracy. Salinity analyses were
performed after samples had equilibrated to laboratory temperature,
usually 8 hours after collection. The salinometer was standardized for
each group of samples analyzed (usually 2 casts and up to 72 samples)
using two bottles of standard seawater: one at the beginning and end
of each set of measurements. The salinometer output was logged to a
computer file. The software prompted the analyst to flush the
instrument's cell and change samples when appropriate. Prior to each
run a sub-standard flush, approximately 200 ml, of the conductivity
cell was conducted to flush out the DI water used in between runs. For
each calibration standard, the salinometer cell was initially flushed
6 times before a set of conductivity ratio reading was taken. For each
sample, the salinometer cell was initially flushed at least 3 times
before a set of conductivity ratio readings were taken.

IAPSO Standard Seawater Batch P-158 was used to standardize all casts.


Fig. 3.31: Salinity standard IAPSO Batch P-158



4.2  Sampling and Data Processing

The salinity samples were collected in 200 ml Kimax high-alumina
borosilicate bottles that had been rinsed at least three times with
sample water prior to filling. The bottles were sealed with custom-
made plastic insert thimbles and Nalgene screw caps. This assembly
provides very low container dissolution and sample evaporation. Prior
to sample collection, inserts were inspected for proper fit and loose
inserts replaced to insure an airtight seal. Laboratory temperature
was also monitored electronically throughout the cruise. PSS-78
salinity [UNESCO1981] was calculated for each sample from the measured
conductivity ratios. The offset between the initial standard seawater
value and its reference value was applied to each sample. Then the
difference (if any) between the initial and final vials of standard
seawater was applied to each sample as a linear function of elapsed
run time. The corrected salinity data was then incorporated into the
cruise database.

As the cruise progressed north temperatures in the lab became warmer,
which affected analysis for station data 48 and 49. Samples were
flagged in the database and reflected in the quality comments
documented for this report APPENDIX.


[UNESCO1981] UNESCO 1981. Background papers and
             supporting data on the Practical Salinity Scale, 1978.
             UNESCO Technical Papers in Marine Science, No. 37 144.





5  NUTRIENTS


PIs
   * Susan Becker

   * James Swift

Technicians
   * Susan Becker

   * John Ballard



5.1  Summary of Analysis

* 2723 samples from 83 ctd stations

* The cruise started with new pump tubes and they were changed prior
  to stations 31 and 60.

* 4 sets of nitrate, phosphate, and silicate Primary/Secondary
  standards were made up over the course of the cruise.

* 2 sets of Primary and 26 sets of Secondary nitrite and ammonia
  standards were made up over the course of the cruise.

* The cadmium column efficiency was check periodically and ranged
  between 96%-100%.  A new column was put on if the efficiency fell
  below 97%.



5.2  Equipment and Techniques

Nutrient analyses (phosphate, silicate, nitrate+nitrite, nitrite and
ammonia) were performed on a Seal Analytical continuous-flow
AutoAnalyzer 3 (AA3). The methods used are described by Gordon et al

[Gordon1992] Hager et al. [Hager1972], and Atlas et al. [Atlas1971].
Details of modification of analytical methods used in this cruise are
also compatible with the methods described in the nutrient section of
the GO-SHIP repeat hydrography manual (Hydes et al., 2010)

[Hydes2010].



5.3  Nitrate/Nitrite Analysis

A modification of the Armstrong et al. (1967) [Armstrong1967]
procedure was used for the analysis of nitrate and nitrite. For
nitrate analysis, a seawater sample was passed through a cadmium
column where the nitrate was reduced to nitrite. This nitrite was then
diazotized with sulfanilamide and coupled with
N-(1-naphthyl)-ethylenediamine to form a red dye. The sample was then
passed through a 10mm flowcell and absorbance measured at 540nm. The
procedure was the same for the nitrite analysis but without the
cadmium column.

**REAGENTS**

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

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

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

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

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



5.4  Phosphate Analysis

Ortho-Phosphate was analyzed using a modification of the Bernhardt and
Wilhelms (1967) [Bernhardt1967] method. Acidified ammonium molybdate
was added to a seawater sample to produce phosphomolybdic acid, which
was then reduced to phosphomolybdous acid (a blue compound) following
the addition of dihydrazine sulfate. The sample was passed through a
10mm flowcell and absorbance measured at 820nm (880nm after station
59, see section on analytical problems for details).

**REAGENTS**

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

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

Dihydrazine Sulfate
   Dissolve 6.4g dihydazine sulfate in DIW, bring to 1 liter volume
   and refrigerate.



5.5  Silicate Analysis

Silicate was analyzed using the basic method of Armstrong et al.
(1967). Acidified ammonium molybdate was added to a seawater sample to
produce silicomolybdic acid which was then reduced to silicomolybdous
acid (a blue compound) following the addition of stannous chloride.
The sample was passed through a 10mm flowcell and measured at 660nm.

**REAGENTS**

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

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

Stannous Chloride
   stock: (as needed)

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

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

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



5.6  Ammonium Analysis

**Fluorometric method**
   Ammonia is analyzed using the method described by Kerouel and
   Aminot [Kerouel1997]. The sample is combined with a working reagent
   made up of ortho-phthalaldehyde, sodium sulfite and borate buffer
   and heated to 75degC. Fluorescence proportional to the NH4
   concentration is emitted at 460nm following excitation at 370nm.

**REAGENTS**

Ortho-phthalaldehyde stock (OPH):
   Dissolve 8g of ortho-phthalaldehyde in 200mls ethanol and mix
   thoroughly. Store in a dark glass bottle and keep refrigerated.

Sodium sulfite stock:
   Dissolve 0.8g sodium sulfite in DIW and dilute up to 100ml. Store
   in a glass bottle, replace weekly.

Borate buffer
   Dissolve 120g disodium tetraborate in DIW and bring up to 4L
   volume.

Working reagent:
   In the following order and proportions combine: 1L borate buffer
   20ml stock orthophthalaldehyde, 2 ml stock sodium sulfite, 4 drops
   40% Surfynol 465/485 surfactant and mix. Store in a glass bottle
   and protect from light. Replace weekly. Make this up at least one
   day prior to use. Store in dark bottle and protect from outside
   air/nh4 contamination.



5.7  Sampling

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



5.8  Data collection and processing

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



5.9  Standards and Glassware calibration

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

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

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

Standardizations were performed at the beginning of each group of
analyses with working standards prepared prior to each run from a
secondary. Working standards were made up in low nutrient seawater
(LNSW). Two different batches of LNSW were used on the cruise. The
first, used for initial underway and stations 001-054, was collected
off shore of coastal California and treated in the lab. The water was
first filtered through a 0.45 micron filter then re-circulated for ~8
hours through a 0.2 micron filter, passed a UV lamp and through a
second 0.2 micron filter. The actual concentration of nutrients in
this water was empirically determined during the standardization
calculations. The second batch of LNSW, used for stations 055-083, was
collected off shore of coastal California, filtered, and UV treated in
the same manner described for batch one. The concentrations in micro-
moles per liter of the working standards used were:


                - |  N+N  | PO4  | SiO3 | NO2   | NH4 
                  | (uM)  | (uM) | (uM) | (uM)  | (uM)
               =======================================
                0 |  0.0  | 0.0  |  0.0 | 0.0   | 0.0 
               ---+-------+------+------+-------+-----
                3 | 15.50 | 1.2  | 60   | 0.50  | 2.0 
               ---+-------+------+------+-------+-----
                5 | 31.00 | 2.4  | 120  | 1.00  | 4.0 
               ---+-------+------+------+-------+-----
                7 | 46.50 | 3.6  | 180  | 1.50  | 6.0 



5.10  Quality Control

All final data was reported in micro-moles/kg. NO3, PO4, and NO2 were
reported to two decimals places and SIL to one. Accuracy is based on
the quality of the standards the levels are:

                 NO3   | 0.05 µM (micro moles/Liter) 
                -------+-----------------------------
                 PO4   | 0.004 µM                    
                -------+-----------------------------
                 SIL   | 2-4 µM                      
                -------+-----------------------------
                 NO2   | 0.05 µM                     
                -------+-----------------------------
                 NH4   | 0.03 µM                     
               
As is standard ODF practice, a deep calibration "check" sample was run
with each set of samples to estimate precision within the cruise. The
data are tabulated below.

               Parameter | Concentration (µM) | stddev 
              -----------+--------------------+--------
               NO3       | 31.20              | 0.12   
              -----------+--------------------+--------
               PO4       |  2.16              | 0.02   
              -----------+--------------------+--------
               SIL       | 99.3               | 0.51   
                
SIO/ODF has been using Reference Materials for Nutrients in Seawater
(RMNS) on repeat Hydrography cruises as another estimate of accuracy
and precision for each cruise since 2009. The accuracy and precision
(standard deviation) for this cruise were measured by analysis of a
RMNS with each run. The RMNS preparation, verification, and suggested
protocol for use of the material are described by Aoyama [Aoyama2006]

[Aoyama2007], [Aoyama2008] and Sato [Sato2010]. RMNS batch BV was used
on this cruise, with each bottle being used twice before being
discarded and a new one opened. Data are tabulated below.

     Parameter | Concentration | stddev | assigned conc | diff   
    =============================================================
      -        |   (µmol/kg)   |    -   |   (µmol/kg)   |   -      
    -----------+---------------+--------+---------------+--------
     NO3       |    35.29      |  0.12  |    35.36      |  0.07   
    -----------+---------------+--------+---------------+--------
     PO4       |     2.50      |  0.02  |     2.498     | -0.002 
    -----------+---------------+--------+---------------+--------
     Sil       |   101.9       |  0.63  |   102.2       |  0.32   
    -----------+---------------+--------+---------------+--------
     NO2       |     0.05      |  0.006 |     0.047     | -0.002 



5.11  Analytical problems

Distilled deionized water was checked for all nutrients during cruise
after reporting a POC filter change warning. All nutrient levels were
below detection limit and good for duration of cruise.

Sulfite reagent was replaced once due to degradation in detected in
OPA working reagent. Occasional phosphate baseline drifts and jumps
were mitigated with periodic soap and bleach cleaning.

Nitrate and nitrite detector gains were reset at station 045 due to an
increased sensitivity and high standard readings slightly above the
set ranges within the software.


[Armstrong1967] Armstrong, F.A.J., Stearns, C.A., 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).


[Atlas1971]     Atlas, E.L., Hager, S.W., Gordon, L.I., and
                Park, P.K., "A Practical Manual for Use of the Technicon
                AutoAnalyzer in Seawater Nutrient Analyses Revised,"
                Technical Report 215, Reference 71-22, p.49, Oregon State
                University, Department of Oceanography (1971).


[Aoyama2006]    Aoyama, M., 2006: 2003 Intercomparison
                Exercise for Reference Material for Nutrients in Seawater
                in a Seawater Matrix, Technical Reports of the
                Meteorological Research Institute No.50, 91pp, Tsukuba,
                Japan.


[Aoyama2007]    Aoyama, M., Susan B., Minhan, D., Hideshi,
                D., Louis, I. G., Kasai, H., Roger, K., Nurit, K., Doug,
                M., Murata, A., Nagai, N., Ogawa, H., Ota, H., Saito, H.,
                Saito, K., Shimizu, T., Takano, H., Tsuda, A., Yokouchi,
                K., and Agnes, Y. 2007. Recent Comparability of
                Oceanographic Nutrients Data: Results of a 2003
                Intercomparison Exercise Using Reference Materials.
                Analytical Sciences, 23: 1151-1154.


[Aoyama2008]    Aoyama M., J. Barwell-Clarke, S. Becker, M.
                Blum, Braga E. S., S. C. Coverly,E. Czobik, I. Dahllof,
                M. H. Dai, G. O. Donnell, C. Engelke, G. C. Gong, Gi-Hoon
                Hong, D. J. Hydes, M. M. Jin, H. Kasai, R. Kerouel, Y.
                Kiyomono, M. Knockaert, N. Kress, K. A. Krogslund, M.
                Kumagai, S. Leterme, Yarong Li, S. Masuda, T. Miyao, T.
                Moutin, A. Murata, N. Nagai, G.Nausch, M. K. Ngirchechol,
                A. Nybakk, H. Ogawa, J. van Ooijen, H. Ota, J. M. Pan, C.
                Payne, O. Pierre-Duplessix, M. Pujo-Pay, T. Raabe, K.
                Saito, K. Sato, C. Schmidt, M. Schuett, T. M. Shammon, J.
                Sun, T. Tanhua, L. White, E.M.S. Woodward, P. Worsfold,
                P. Yeats, T. Yoshimura, A.Youenou, J. Z. Zhang, 2008:
                2006 Intercomparison Exercise for Reference Material for
                Nutrients in Seawater in a Seawater Matrix, Technical
                Reports of the Meteorological Research Institute No. 58,
                104pp.


[Bernhardt1967] 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).


[Gordon1992]    Gordon, L.I., Jennings, J.C., Ross, A.A.,
                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).
   

[Hager1972]     Hager, S.W., Atlas, E.L., Gordon L.I.,
                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).
   

[Hydes2010]     Hydes, D.J., Aoyama, M., Aminot, A., Bakker,
                K., Becker, S., Coverly, S., Daniel, A., Dickson, A.G.,
                Grosso, O., Kerouel, R., Ooijen, J. van, Sato, K., Tanhua,
                T., Woodward, E.M.S., Zhang, J.Z., 2010. Determination of
                Dissolved Nutrients (N, P, Si) in Seawater with High
                Precision and Inter-Comparability Using Gas-Segmented
                Continuous Flow Analysers, In: GO-SHIP Repeat Hydrography
                Manual: A Collection of Expert Reports and Guidelines.
                IOCCP Report No. 14, ICPO Publication Series No 134.


[Kerouel1997]   Kerouel, R., Aminot, A., “Fluorometric
                determination of ammonia in sea and estuarine waters by
                direct segmented flow analysis.” Marine Chemistry, vol
                57, no. 3-4, pp. 265-275, July 1997.


[Sato2010]      Sato, K., Aoyama, M., Becker, S., 2010. RMNS as
                Calibration Standard Solution to Keep Comparability for
                Several Cruises in the World Ocean in 2000s. In: Aoyama,
                M., Dickson, A.G., Hydes, D.J., Murata, A., Oh, J.R.,
                Roose, P., Woodward, E.M.S., (Eds.), Comparability of
                nutrients in the world’s ocean. Tsukuba, JAPAN: MOTHER
                TANK, pp 43-56.





6  OXYGEN ANALYSIS


PIs
   * Susan Becker

   * James Swift

Technicians
   * Andrew Barna

   * Joseph Gum



6.1  Equipment and Techniques

Dissolved oxygen analyses were performed with an SIO/ODF-designed
automated oxygen titrator using photometric end-point detection based
on the absorption of 365nm wavelength ultra-violet light. The
titration of the samples and the data logging were controlled by PC
LabView software. Thiosulfate was dispensed by a Dosimat 765 buret
driver fitted with a 1.0 ml burette. ODF used a whole-bottle modified-
Winkler titration following the technique of Carpenter (Carpenter
1965) with modifications by Culberson (Culberson 1991) but with higher
concentrations of potassium iodate standard approximately 0.012N, and
thiosulfate solution approximately 55 gm/l. Pre-made liquid potassium
iodate standards were run every day (approximately every 4-5
stations), unless changes were made to the system or reagents.
Reagent/distilled water blanks were determined every day or more often
if a change in reagents required it to account for presence of
oxidizing or reducing agents.



6.2  Sampling and Data Processing

2699 oxygen measurements were made. Samples were collected for
dissolved oxygen analyses soon after the rosette was brought on board.
Using a silicone drawing tube, nominal 125ml volume-calibrated iodine
flasks were rinsed 3 times with minimal agitation, then filled and
allowed to overflow for at least 3 flask volumes. The sample drawing
temperatures were measured with an electronic resistance temperature
detector (RTD) embedded in the drawing tube. These temperatures were
used to calculate umol/kg concentrations, and as a diagnostic check of
bottle integrity. Reagents (MnCl2 then NaI/NaOH) were added to fix
the oxygen before stoppering. The flasks were shaken twice (10-12
inversions) to assure thorough dispersion of the precipitate, once
immediately after drawing, and then again after about 30-40 minutes.

The samples were analyzed within 2-14 hours of collection, and the
data incorporated into the cruise database.

Thiosulfate normalities were calculated for each standardization and
corrected to 20 deg C. The 20 deg C normalities and the blanks were
plotted versus time and were reviewed for possible problems. The
blanks and thiosulfate normalities for each batch of thiosulfate were
stable enough that no smoothing was necessary.



6.3  Volumetric Calibration

Oxygen flask volumes were determined gravimetrically with degassed
deionized water 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 volume is detected.  The
volumetric flasks used in preparing standards were volume-calibrated
by the same method, as was the 10 ml Dosimat buret used to dispense
standard iodate solution.



6.4  Standards

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



6.5  Narrative

Initial setup and reagent preparation occurred while in the port of
Fremantle, WA on 2016-02-05. Setup was smooth, with no issues.

Standards were run about every 24 hours during the transit to station
1 to monitor thiosulfate stability. Underway samples were also being
collected and analyzed at during the transit.

After station 25, the thiosulfate was topped off from the working
stock. A subsequent standardization showed an out of spec jump in the
thiosulfate normality. Standardizations performed in the following 24
hours showed this new normality to be stable.

Around station 65 problems with the UV Detector box occurred. The
behavior observed was a rising zero offset when the detector was
completely blocked. Swapping to the spare detector box appeared to
solve the issue.

On station 74, the initial estimates of how much MnCl2 and NaI/NaOH
were needed proved to be incorrect. New batches of both reagents were
made and were in use by station 75. No analytical issues were noted
due to the new reagents.

No samples were lost due to analytical error.





7  TOTAL ALKALINITY

PI
   * Andrew G. Dickson – Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Technicians
   * David Cervantes

   * Heather Page (Graduate Student)



7.1  Total Alkalinity

The total alkalinity of a sea water sample is defined as the number of
moles of hydrogen ion equivalent to the excess of proton acceptors
(bases formed from weak acids with a dissociation constant K ≤
10–4.5 at 25°C and zero ionic strength) over proton donors (acids with
K > 10–4.5) in 1 kilogram of sample.



7.2  Total Alkalinity Measurement System

Samples are dispensed using a Sample Delivery System (SDS) consisting
of a volumetric pipette, various relay valves, and two air pumps
controlled by LabVIEW 2012. Before filling the jacketed cell with a
new sample for analysis, the volumetric pipette is cleared of any
residual from the previous sample with the aforementioned air pumps.
The pipette is then rinsed with new sample and filled, allowing for
overflow and time for the sample temperature to equilibrate. The
sample bottle temperature is measured using a DirecTemp thermistor
probe inserted into the sample bottle and the volumetric pipette
temperature is measured using a DirecTemp surface probe placed
directly on the pipette. These temperature measurements are used to
convert the sample volume to mass for analysis.

Samples are analyzed using an open cell titration procedure using two
250 mL jacketed cells. One sample is undergoing titration while the
second is being prepared and equilibrating to 20°C for analysis. After
an initial aliquot of approximately 2.3-2.4 mL of standardized
hydrochloric acid (~0.1M HCl in ~0.6M NaCl solution), the sample is
stirred for 5 minutes while air is bubbled into it at a rate of 200
scc/m to remove any liberated carbon dioxide gas. A Metrohm 876
Dosimat Plus is used for all standardized hydrochloric acid additions.
After equilibration, ~19 aliquots of 0.04 ml are added. Between the pH
range of 3.5 to 3.0, the progress of the titration is monitored using
a pH glass electrode/reference electrode cell, and the total
alkalinity is computed from the titrant volume and e.m.f. measurements
using a non-linear least-squares approach ([Dickson2007]). An Agilent
34970A Data Acquisition/Switch Unit with a 34901A multiplexer is used
to read the voltage measurements from the electrode and monitor the
temperatures from the sample, acid, and room. The calculations for
this procedure are performed automatically using LabVIEW 2012.



7.3  Sample Collection

Samples for total alkalinity measurements were taken at all I08
Stations (1-83). Two Niskin bottles at each station were sampled twice
for duplicate measurements except for stations where 15 or less Niskin
bottles were sampled. Using silicone tubing, the total alkalinity
samples were drawn from Niskin bottles into 250 mL Pyrex bottles,
making sure to rinse the bottles and Teflon sleeved glass stoppers at
least twice before the final filling. A headspace of approximately 3
mL was removed and 0.06 mL of saturated mercuric chloride solution was
added to each sample for preservation. After sampling was completed,
each sample's temperature was equilibrated to approximately 20°C using
a Thermo Scientific RTE water bath.



7.4  Problems and Troubleshooting

Normally after samples are collected, they are placed into a water
bath to equilibrate the sample temperature near 20°C. For I08, this
caused a problem for our SDS. Heating the samples to 20°C resulted in
too much gas being released from the samples. The SDS tubing and
pipette began to fill with such a large amount of gas bubbles from the
sample that the SDS pipette failed to fill completely resulting in
inaccurate sample sizes. To remedy this problem, we began
equilibrating our samples to 11°C and increased the pipette filling
time from 70 seconds to 80 seconds. The amount of gas bubbles forming
in the SDS immensely decreased and the SDS pipette began to fill
normally.

Throughout I08, the Agilent 34970A Data Acquisition/Switch Unit and
the LabVIEW software occasionally displayed an error when beginning a
titration. A software communication error is suspected but this cannot
be confirmed at sea. When this error occurs, the Agilent Unit will
immediately beep and an error message will be visible on the Agilent
Unit’s display. A LabVIEW error message appears on the computer after
approximately 1.65 mL of standardized hydrochloric acid is added
during the titration’s initial aliquot. If this error message is
noticed and attended to immediately, the Agilent Unit will "reset"
itself and begin to process the titration normally, resulting in a
reliable total alkalinity measurement. If the error is not caught in
time, the total alkalinity measurement is unacceptable. One sample was
lost because the operator was unable to notice the Agilent Unit's
error in time.



7.5  Quality Control

Dickson laboratory Certified Reference Material (CRM) Batch 152 was
used to determine the accuracy of the total alkalinity analyses. The
certified total alkalinity value for Batch 152 is 2216.94 ± 0.60 mol
kg:sup`-1`. This reference material was analyzed 108 times throughout
I08 at least once for every station. The preliminary B152 measured
value average for I08 is 2216.53 ± 0.70 mol kg^(-1).

Throughout I08, empty pre-weighed glass bottles with rubber stoppers
and aluminum caps were filled with deionized water from the SDS and
then crimped shut. These sealed bottles will be weighed again once
they return to shore to detect (or confirm) any possible or suspected
shifts in volume dispensing throughout the cruise that could have
caused reference material, and therefore sample, value shifts.

If greater than 15 Niskin bottles were sampled at a station, two
Niskin bottles on that station were sampled twice to conduct duplicate
analyses. If 15 or less Niskin bottles were sampled at a station, only
one Niskin on that station was sampled twice for duplicate analyses. A
total of 138 Niskin bottles were sampled for duplicate measurements
and gave an average difference of 0.01 ± 1.01 mol kg^(-1).

Each I08 station's total alkalinity measurements were compared to
measurements taken from the neighboring I08 2016 stations and the I08
2007 stations of similar if not identical coordinates.

1811 total alkalinity values were submitted out of 1812 sampled Niskin
bottles. Corrections have already been applied for the Certified
Reference Material comparison and also for the mercuric chloride
dilution. A normalized total alkalinity plot was analyzed to aid in
identifying any possible inaccurate measurements. Although most
corrections have been made and it is unlikely that additional ones
will need to be performed, this data should be considered preliminary
until the correction for any shifts in total volume dispensed per
sample is checked, confirmed and applied. This assessment cannot be
accomplished until the pre-weighed bottles of filled deionized water
are reweighed back on land.





8  DISSOLVED INORGANIC CARBON (DIC)


PI’s
   * Rik Wanninkhof (NOAA/AOML)

   * Richard A. Feely (NOAA/PMEL)

Technicians
   * Charles Featherstone (NOAA/AOML)

   * Dana Greeley (NOAA/PMEL)



8.1  Sample collection

Samples for DIC measurements were drawn (according to procedures
outlined in the PICES Publication, *Guide to Best Practices for Ocean
CO2 Measurements* [Dickson2007]) from Niskin bottles into 294 ml
borosilicate glass bottles using silicone tubing. The flasks were
rinsed once and filled from the bottom with care not to entrain any
bubbles, overflowing by at least one-half volume. The sample tube was
pinched off and withdrawn, creating a 6 ml headspace, followed by 0.16
ml of saturated HgCl2 solution which was added as a preservative. The
sample bottles were then sealed with glass stoppers lightly covered
with Apiezon-L grease and were stored at room temperature for a
maximum of 12 hours.

The analysis was done by coulometry with two analytical systems (AOML
3 and AOML 4) used simultaneously on the cruise. Each system consisted
of a coulometer (CM5015 UIC Inc) coupled with a Dissolved Inorganic
Carbon Extractor (DICE). The DICE system was developed by Esa Peltola
and Denis Pierrot of NOAA/AOML and Dana Greeley of NOAA/PMEL to
modernize a carbon extractor called SOMMA ([Johnson1985],

[Johnson1987], [Johnson1993], [Johnson1992], [Johnson1999]).

The two DICE systems (AOML 3 and AOML 4) were set up in a seagoing
container modified for use as a shipboard laboratory on the aft main
working deck of the R/V Roger Revelle.



8.2  DIC Analysis

In coulometric analysis of DIC, all carbonate species are converted to
CO2 (gas) by addition of excess hydrogen ion (acid) to the seawater
sample, and the evolved CO2 gas is swept into the titration cell of
the coulometer with pure air or compressed nitrogen, where it reacts
quantitatively with a proprietary reagent based on ethanolamine to
generate hydrogen ions. In this process, the solution changes from
blue to colorless, triggering a current through the cell and causing
coulometrical generation of OH^(-) ions at the anode. The OH^(-) ions
react with the H^(+) and the solution turns blue again. A beam of light
is shone through the solution, and a photometric detector at the
opposite side of the cell senses the change in transmission. Once the
percent transmission reaches its original value, the coulometric
titration is stopped, and the amount of CO2 that enters the cell is
determined by integrating the total change during the titration.



8.3  DIC Calculation

Calculation of the amount of CO2 injected was according to the CO2
handbook [DOE1994].  The concentration of CO2 ([CO2]) in the samples
was determined according to:

                       (Counts – Blank * Run Time) * Kµmol/count
   CO2 = Cal. Factor * -----------------------------------------
                           pipette volume * density of sample

where Cal. Factor is the calibration factor, Counts is the instrument
reading at the end of the analysis, Blank is the counts/minute
determined from blank runs performed at least once for each cell
solution, Run Time is the length of coulometric titration (in
minutes), and K is the conversion factor from counts to micromoles.

The instrument has a salinity sensor, but all DIC values were
recalculated to a molar weight (µmol/kg) using density obtained from
the CTD’s salinity. The DIC values were corrected for dilution due to
the addition of 0.16 ml of saturated HgCl2 used for sample
preservation. The total water volume of the sample bottles was 288 ml
(calibrated by Esa Peltola, AOML). The correction factor used for
dilution was 1.00055. A correction was also applied for the offset
from the CRM. This additive correction was applied for each cell using
the CRM value obtained at the beginning of the cell. The average
correction was 1.82 µmol/kg for AOML 3 and 3.18 µmol/kg for AOML 4.

The coulometer cell solution was replaced after 25 – 28 mg of carbon
was titrated, typically after 9 – 12 hours of continuous use. Normally
the blank is less than 30, but we were forced to run them with blanks
in the 12 – 48 range.


8.4  Calibration, Accuracy, and Precision

The stability of each coulometer cell solution was confirmed three
different ways.

1. Gas loops were run at the beginning of each cell

2. CRM’s supplied by Dr. A. Dickson of SIO, were measured near the
   beginning; middle and end of each cell

3. Duplicate samples from the same Niskin were run throughout the
   life of the cell solution.

Each coulometer was calibrated by injecting aliquots of pure CO2
(99.999%) by means of an 8-port valve [Wilke1993] outfitted with two
calibrated sample loops of different sizes (~1ml and ~2ml). The
instruments were each separately calibrated at the beginning of each
cell with a minimum of two sets of these gas loop injections.

The accuracy of the DICE measurement is determined with the use of
standards (Certified Reference Materials (CRMs), consisting of
filtered and UV irradiated seawater) supplied by Dr. A. Dickson of
Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO). The CRM accuracy is
determined manometrically on land in San Diego and the DIC data
reported to the data base have been corrected to this batch 152 CRM
value. The CRM certified value for this batch is 2020.88 µmol/kg1.

The precision of the two DICE systems can be demonstrated via the
replicate samples. Approximately 12% of the Niskins sampled were
duplicates taken as a check of our precision. These replicate samples
were interspersed throughout the station analysis for quality
assurance and integrity of the coulometer cell solutions. The average
absolute difference from the mean of these replicates is 1.51 µmol/kg
- No major systematic differences between the replicates were
observed.

The pipette volume was determined by taking aliquots of distilled
water from volumes at known temperatures. The weights with the
appropriate densities were used to determine the volume of the
pipettes.

Calibration data during this cruise:


  UNIT  |  L Loop  |  S Loop  |  Pipette  |   Ave CRM1    | Std Dev1 | Dupes2 
==============================================================================
 AOML 3 | 1.002367 | 1.000603 | 27.927 ml | 2019.15, N=40 |   1.29   |  1.56  
--------+----------+----------+-----------+---------------+----------+--------
 AOML 4 | 1.000058 | 0.998393 | 29.306 ml | 2016.28, N=42 |   3.18   |  1.45  



8.5  Underway DIC Samples

Underway samples were collected from the flow thru system in the
forward Main Lab during transit. Discrete DIC samples were collected
approximately every 4 hours with duplicates every fifth sample. A
total of 80 discrete DIC samples including duplicates were collected
while underway. The average difference for replicates of underway DIC
samples was 1.24 µmol/kg and the average STDEV was 0.88.



8.6  Summary

The overall performance of the analytical equipment was good during
the cruise. During setup  of the DICE Lab van it was discovered that
the AOML 4 cooler housing the  8-port valve outfitted with two
calibrated sample loops of different sizes (~1ml and ~2ml) was filled
with water, which apparently leak from the hatch in the roof above
during shipment to Fremantle. The 8-port valve and two positon
actuator control module was replaced with a new one and the two sample
loops were removed from the old 8-port valve and connected to the new
valve. The gas calibrations seemed to vary throughout the cruise on
AOML 4, but did not affect the data. Several small leaks were fixed in
the HSG and compressed air lines at the beginning of the cruise.

Including the duplicates, over 2013 samples were analyzed from 83 CTD
casts for dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) which means that there is a
DIC value for approximately 66% of the Niskins tripped. The DIC data
reported to the database directly from the ship are to be considered
preliminary until a more thorough quality assurance can be completed
shore side.


[DOE1994]     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. Ed. A. G. Dickson and C. Goyet. Carbon
              Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National
              Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.


[Dickson2007] Dickson, A.G., Sabine, C.L. and Christian,
              J.R. (Eds.), (2007): *Guide to Best Practices for Ocean
              CO2 Measurements*. PICES Special Publication 3, 191 pp.


[Feely1998]   Feely, R.A., R. Wanninkhof, H.B. Milburn, C.E.
              Cosca, M. Stapp, and P.P. Murphy (1998): *"A new automated
              underway system for making high precision pCO2
              measurements aboard research ships."* Anal. Chim. Acta,
              377, 185-191.


[Johnson1985] Johnson, K.M., A.E. King, and J. McN.
              Sieburth (1985): *"Coulometric DIC analyses for marine
              studies: An introduction."* Mar. Chem., 16, 61-82.


[Johnson1987] Johnson, K.M., P.J. Williams, L.
              Brandstrom, and J. McN. Sieburth (1987): *"Coulometric
              total carbon analysis for marine studies: Automation and
              calibration."* Mar. Chem., 21, 117-133.


[Johnson1992] Johnson, K.M. (1992): Operator's manual:
              *"Single operator multiparameter metabolic analyzer
              (SOMMA) for total carbon dioxide (CT) with coulometric
              detection."* Brookhaven National Laboratory, Brookhaven,
              N.Y., 70 pp.


[Johnson1993] 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 continuous gas
              extraction system and coulometric detector."* Mar.
              Chem., 44, 167-189.


[Johnson1999] Johnson, K.M., Körtzinger, A.; Mintrop,
              L.; Duinker, J.C.; and Wallace, D.W.R. (1999).
              *Coulometric total carbon dioxide analysis for marine
              studies: Measurement and interna consistency of underway
              surface TCO2 concentrations.* Marine Chemistry
              67:123–44.


[Lewis1998]   Lewis, E. and D. W. R. Wallace (1998) Program
              developed for CO2 system calculations. Oak Ridge, Oak
              Ridge National Laboratory.
              http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/co2rprt.html
  

[Wilke1993]   Wilke, R.J., D.W.R. Wallace, and K.M. Johnson
              (1993): "Water-based gravimetric method for the
              determination of gas loop volume." Anal. Chem. 65,
              2403-2406
  




9  DISCRETE pH ANALYSES


PI
   Dr. Andrew Dickson

Cruise Participant
   Michael B. Fong



9.1  Sampling

Samples were collected in 250 mL Pyrex glass bottles and sealed using
grey butyl rubber stoppers held in place by aluminum-crimped caps.
Each bottle was rinsed two times and allowed to overflow by one
additional bottle volume. Prior to sealing, each sample was given a 1%
headspace and poisoned with 0.02% of the sample volume of saturated
mercuric chloride (HgCl2). Samples were collected only from Niskin
bottles that were also being sampled for both total alkalinity and
dissolved inorganic carbon in order to completely characterize the
carbon system. Additionally, two duplicate samples were collected from
almost all stations for quality control purposes.



9.2  Analysis

pH was measured spectrophotometrically on the total hydrogen scale
using an Agilent 8453 spectrophotometer and in accordance with the
methods outlined by Carter et al., 2013 [Carter2013]. A Kloehn V6
syringe pump was used to autonomously fill, mix, and dispense sample
through the custom 10cm flow-through jacketed cell. A Thermo NESLAB
RTE-7 recirculating water bath was used to maintain the cell
temperature at 25.0°C during analyses, and a YSI 4600 precision
thermometer and probe were used to monitor and record the temperature
of each sample immediately after the spectrophotometric measurements
were taken. The indicator meta-cresol purple (mCP) was used to measure
the absorbance of light measured at two different wavelengths (434 nm,
578 nm) corresponding to the maximum absorbance peaks for the acidic
and basic forms of the indicator dye. A baseline absorbance was also
measured and subtracted from these wavelengths. The baseline
absorbance was determined by averaging the absorbances from 725-735nm.
The ratio of the absorbances was then used to calculate pH on the
total scale using the equations outlined in Liu et al., 2011

[Liu2011]. The salinity data used was obtained from the conductivity
sensor on the CTD. The salinity data was later corroborated by
shipboard measurements.



9.3  Reagents

The mCP indicator dye was made up to a concentration of approximately
2.0mM and a total ionic strength of 0.7 M. A total of 2 batches were
used during Leg 1 of the cruise. The pHs of these batches was adjusted
with 0.1 M solutions of HCl and NaOH (in 0.6 M NaCl background) to
approximately 7.3, measured with a pH meter calibrated with NBS
buffers. The indicator was obtained from Dr. Robert Byrne at the
University and Southern Florida and was purified using the flash
chromatography technique described by Patsavas et al., 2013

[Patsavas2013].



9.4  Data Processing

An indicator dye is itself an acid-base system that can change the pH
of the seawater to which it is added. Therefore, it is important to
estimate and correct for this perturbation to the seawater’s pH for
each batch of dye used during the cruise. To determine this
correction, multiple bottles from each station were measured twice,
once with a single addition of indicator dye and once with a double
addition of indicator dye. The measured absorbance ratio (R) and an
isosbestic absorbance (A(iso)) were determined for each
measurement, where:

                              A    - A
                               578    base
                          R = ------------
                              A    - A
                               434    base

and

                          A    = A   - A
                           iso    488   base


The change in R for a given change in A(iso), ∆R/∆A(iso), was then 
plotted against the measured R-value for the normal amount of dye and 
fitted with a linear regression. From this fit the slope and y-intercept
(b and a respectively) are determined by:

                         ∆R/∆A(iso), = bR + a

From this the corrected ratio (R') corresponding to the measured
absorbance ratio if no indicator dye were present can be determined
by:

                       R' = R - A(iso)(bR + a)



9.5  Standardization/Results

The precision of the data was assessed from measurements of duplicate
analyses, replicate analyses (two successive measurements on one
bottle), certified reference materials (CRMs) from Batch 152 (provided
by Dr. Andrew Dickson, UCSD). CRMs were measured twice a day over the
course of the cruise.

The overall precision determined from duplicate analyses was ±0.00039
(n=161). The overall precision determined from replicate analyses was
±0.00029 (n=161). Additionally, 98 measurements were made on 49
bottles of Certified Reference Materials, which were found to have a
pH of 7.8708 ±0.00063 (n=98) and a within-bottle standard deviation of
±0.00041 (n=98).

The pH of the entire transect is shown as a section in pH Section.



9.6  Problems

Many of the samples had high dissolved gas content and degassed when
brought to room temperature. This could be clearly seen in the
formation of bubbles inside the sealed sample bottles and in the
spectrophotometric pH system (Kloehn syringe pump, sample tubing, and
the 10 cm cell). Bubbles were especially difficult to eliminate in the
Kloehn syringe pump, which would accumulate large bubbles at the top
after running a number of samples in each station. Efforts were made
to reduce bubble formation by verifying all pump fittings were tight,
slowing down the speed of the syringe pump, holding samples below
25°C, and analysis at a lower temperature (10°C). Bubbles were cleared
from the syringe after every station by flushing with ethanol,
followed by DI water. The potential for the bubbles to alter the
sample pH was a concern, and the significance of this error was
evaluated by examining a handful of duplicates which were run after
the accumulation of large bubbles in the syringe and immediately after
clearing bubbles from the syringe. The difference of these duplicates
suggested there was no significant effect of the bubbles on sample pH.
Samples for two stations (Stations 25 and 26) were held and measured
at 10°C in an attempt to reduce bubble formation, but no dramatic
improvement in bubble formation was observed. Furthermore, the
baseline absorbances at 10°C were consistently high (as high as
0.006). The decision was therefore made to continue running samples at
25°C.

Bubbles also occasionally formed in the water bath that controls the
measurement temperature. In one instance, an extremely large bubble in
the tubing stopped the circulation of water around the 10 cm cell and
caused a sudden drop in temperature. This appeared to affect the pH of
one sample, which deviated from a typical profile and was flagged as
questionable in the preliminary data. All water bath fittings were
readjusted and retightened afterwards to prevent bubble formation.

The Labview program that controls our automated pH system crashed once
during the cruise, resulting in the loss of data for one sample.

Our HgCl2 dispenser became clogged due to the cold temperatures in
the staging bay and eventually became unusable by the middle of the
cruise. As the dispenser was failing, the volume of HgCl2 dispensed
into some of the samples was variable, although no effect on the pH
was detected. After the dispenser failed completely, we used an
Eppendorf pipette to deliver 60 µL of saturated HgCl2 solution into
the samples.

Fig. 9.1: pH Section
          Section of pH on the total scale along I08S (Stations 1 to 83).
          Data were DIVA-gridded, and a few contours are shown. Because
          measurements at Station 25 and 26 were at 10°C, as opposed to 
          25°C for all the other stations, the pH data shown here have been
          recalculated at 25°C from the measured pH and total alkalinity,
          using the constants of Lueker et al. (2000) [Lueker2000].


[Carter2013]   Carter, B.R., Radich, J.A., Doyle, H.L., and
               Dickson, A.G., "An Automated Spectrometric System for
               Discrete and Underway Seawater pH Measurements,"
               Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 2013.
  

[Liu2011]      Liu, X., Patsavas, M.C., Byrne R.H., "Purification
               and Characterization of meta Cresol Purple for
               Spectrophotometric Seawater pH Measurements," Environmental
               Science and Technology, 2011.
  

[Lueker2000]   Lueker, T.J., Dickson, A.G., Keeling, C.D.
               "Ocean pCO2 calculated from dissolved inorganic carbon,
               alkalinity, and equations for K1 and K2: validation based
               on laboratory measurements of CO2 in gas and seawater at
               equilibrium," Marine Chemistry, 2000.


[Patsavas2013] Patsavas, M.C., Byrne, R.H.,  and Liu X.
               "Purification of meta-cresol purple and cresol red by
               flash chromatography: Procedures for ensuring accurate
               spectrophotometric seawater pH measurements," Marine
               Chemistry, 2013.





10  CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, and SF_6


Analysts
   * Jim Happell

   * Charlene Grall

   * Sarah Bercovici



10.1  Sample Collection

All samples were collected from depth using 10.4 liter Niskin bottles.
None of the Niskin bottles used showed a CFC contamination throughout
the cruise. All bottles in use remained inside the CTD hanger between
casts.

Sampling was conducted first at each station, according to WOCE
protocol. This avoids contamination by air introduced at the top of
the Niskin bottle as water was being removed. A water sample was
collected from the Niskin bottle petcock using viton tubing to fill a
300 ml BOD bottle. The viton tubing was flushed of air bubbles. The
BOD bottle was placed into a plastic overflow container. Water was
allowed to fill BOD bottle from the bottom into the overflow
container. The stopper was held in the overflow container to be
rinsed. Once water started to flow out of the overflow container the
overflow container/BOD bottle was moved down so the viton tubing came
out and the bottle was stoppered under water while still in the
overflow container. A plastic cap was snapped on to hold the stopper
in place. One duplicate sample was taken on every other station from
random Niskin bottles. Air samples, pumped into the system using an
Air Cadet pump from a Dekoron air intake hose mounted high on the
foremast, were run when time permitted. Air measurements are used as a
check on accuracy.



10.2  Equipment and Technique

CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, and SF6 were measured on 78 0f 83 stations
for a total of 2100 samples. Salt water flooded the analytical system
just after sampling station 76, which caused us to not analyzing
samples from Stations 75, 77, 78, 79, and 81. Analyses were performed
on a gas chromatograph (GC) equipped with an electron capture detector
(ECD). Samples were introduced into the GC-EDC via a purge and dual
trap system. 202 ml water samples were purged with nitrogen and the
compounds of interest were trapped on a main Porapack N/Carboxen 1000
trap held at ~ -20°C with a Vortec Tube cooler. After the sample had
been purged and trapped for 6 minutes at 250ml/min flow, the gas
stream was stripped of any water vapor via a magnesium perchlorate
trap prior to transfer to the main trap. The main trap was isolated
and heated by direct resistance to 150°C. The desorbed contents of the
main trap were back-flushed and transferred, with helium gas, over a
short period of time, to a small volume focus trap in order to improve
chromatographic peak shape. The focus trap was Porapak N and is held
at ~ -20°C with a Vortec Tube cooler. The focus trap was flash heated
by direct resistance to 180°C to release the compounds of interest
onto the analytical pre-columns. The first precolumn was a 5 cm length
of 1/16" tubing packed with 80/100 mesh molecular sieve 5A. This
column was used to hold back N2O and keep it from entering the main
column. The second pre-column was the first 5 meters of a 60 m Gaspro
capillary column with the main column consisting of the remaining 55
meters. The analytical pre-columns were held in-line with the main
analytical column for the first 50 seconds of the chromatographic run.
After 35 seconds, all of the compounds of interest were on the main
column and the pre-column was switched out of line and back-flushed
with a relatively high flow of nitrogen gas. This prevented later
eluting compounds from building up on the analytical column,
eventually eluting and causing the detector baseline signal to
increase.

The samples were stored at room temperature and analyzed within 24
hours of collection. Every 12 to 18 measurements were followed by a
purge blank and a standard. The surface sample was held after
measurement and was sent through the process in order to "restrip" it
to determine the efficiency of the purging process.



10.3  Calibration

A gas phase standard, 33780, was used for calibration. The
concentrations of the compounds in this standard are reported on the
SIO 2005 absolute calibration scale. 5 calibration curves were run
over the course of the cruise. Estimated accuracy is ±2%. Precision
for CFC-12, CFC-11, CFC-113 and SF6 was less than 2%. Estimated limit
of detection is 1 fmol/kg for CFC-11, 3 fmol/kg for CFC-12 and
CFC-113, and 0.05 fmol/kg for SF6.





11  UNDERWAY pCO2 ANALYSIS


PI’s
   * Rik Wanninkhof (NOAA/AOML)

   * Richard A. Feely (NOAA/PMEL)

Technicians
   * Charles Featherstone (NOAA/AOML)

   * Dana Greeley (NOAA/PMEL)


An automated underway pCO2 system from AOML was installed in the
Hydro Lab of the RV Roger Revelle. The design of the instrumental
system is based on Wanninkhof and Thoning [Wanninkhof1993] and Feely
et al. [Feely1998], while the details of the instrument and of the
data processing are described in Pierrot, et.al. [Pierrot2009].

The repeating cycle of the system included 4 gas standards, 5 ambient
air samples, and 100 headspace samples from its equilibrator every 3
hours. The concentrations of the standards range from 233 to 463 ppm
CO2 in compressed air. These field standards were calibrated with
primary standards that are directly traceable to the WMO scale. A gas
cylinder of ultra-high purity air was used every 18 hours to set the
zero of the analyzer.

The system included an equilibrator where approximately 0.6 liters of
constantly refreshed surface seawater from the bow or mid-ship intake
was equilibrated with 0.8 liters of gaseous headspace. The water flow
rate through the equilibrator was 1.5 to 2.2 liters/min.

The equilibrator headspace was circulated through a non-dispersive
infrared (IR) analyzer, a LI-COR™ 6262, at 50 to 120 ml/min and then
returned to the equilibrator. When ambient air or standard gases were
analyzed, the gas leaving the analyzer was vented to the lab. A KNF
pump constantly pulled 6-8 liter/min of marine air through 100 m of
0.95 cm (= 3/8") OD Dekoron™ tubing from an intake on the bow mast.
The intake had a rain guard and a filter of glass wool to prevent
water and larger particles from contaminating the intake line and
reaching the pump. The headspace gas and marine air were dried before
flushing the IR analyzer.

A custom program developed using LabView™ controlled the system and
graphically displayed the air and water results. The program recorded
the output of the IR analyzer, the GPS position, water and gas flows,
water and air temperatures, internal and external pressures, and a
variety of other sensors. The program recorded all of these data for
each analysis.

The automated pCO2 analytical system had several issues during the
cruise with the seawater intakes:

1. February  4, 2016 - Start of cruise using the engine room pump
                       (sea chest)

2. February  8, 2016 – Pump strainer cleaning flow thru shut down

3. February 21, 2016 – Engine room pump (sea chest) failure 11:30
                       GMT

4. February 21, 2016 – Started using Bow pump 13:30 GMT

5. February 21, 2016 – Turned off flow to flush system, turned back
                       on 15:00 GMT

6. February 22, 2016 – Cleaned filter during gas calibration 20:20
                       GMT

7. February 27, 2016 – Bow pump failure 08:45 GMT

8. February 27, 2016 – Bow pump failure 10:20 GMT

9. February 28, 2016 – Switched to Engine room pump (sea chest)

10. March 5, 2016 –    Switched to Bow pump 04:31 GMT

11. March 8, 2016 –    Flow turned off, sink was backed up 21:44 GMT

12. March 8, 2016 –    Switched to Engine room pump (sea chest) 23:00
                       GMT

13. March 11, 2016 –   Engine room pump failure (sea chest) switched
                       to Bow pump 01:58 GMT

The system worked well for the remainder of the cruise.


Table 11.1: Standard Gas Cylinders

                       Cylinder# | ppm CO2 
                      =====================
                       6 JAO264  | 233.46  
                      -----------+---------
                       4 JAO226  | 326.18  
                      -----------+---------
                       5 JAO228  | 406.05  
                      -----------+---------
                       0 JAO228  | 463.00  



[Pierrot2009]    Pierrot, D.; Neill, C.; Sullivan, K.;
                 Castle, R.; Wanninkhof, R.; Luger, H.; Johannessen, T.;
                 Olsen, A.; Feely, R.A.; and Cosca, C.E. (2009).
                 *Recommendations for autonomous underway pCO2 measuring
                 systems and data- reduction routines.* Deep-Sea Res.,
                 II, v. 56, pp. 512-522.


[Wanninkhof1993] Wanninkhof, R., and Thoning, K.
                 (1993). *Measurement of fugacity of CO2 in surface
                 water using continuous and discrete sampling
                 methods.* Mar. Chem., v. 44, no. 2-4, pp. 189-205.





12  NITRATE δ15N AND δ18N SAMPLING


Max-Planck Institute of Chemistry

PI
   * Prof. Gerald Haug

   * François Fripiat (ffpripiat@ulb.ac.be)

Samples for Nitrate δ15N and δ18N were taken by the CTD-watch for Haug
and Fripiat. A total of 864 60 ml plastic bottles were used to collect
40 ml samples according to the protocol provided. Items in italics in
the description below indicate an action that was not specifically
indicated in the protocol.

1. The sample bottles came stored in annotated postal boxes
   (15x25x10 cm); with the annotation corresponding to the labels of
   the bottles inside; e.g. MPI 2016 Haug SO 00001 to 00049.

2. The container with the empty sample bottles and documentation
   was kept in the forward bio-lab. Usual before the return of the CTD
   to the deck, but sometimes afterward, the 24 bottle plastic rack
   was filled with the empty bottles. *To keep out the light, the
   bottles were covered with a black towel. Because timing was not
   always optimum, the black towel was kept over the sample bottles in
   the tray at all times prior to storage.*

3. Seawater was taken directly from the Bullister bottles. Sample
   bottles were rinsed 3 times with seawater from the Bullister prior
   to sampling. Each 60 ml sample bottle was filled with approximately
   40 ml of seawater.

4. After sample 24 bottles were filled they were placed in their
   corresponding postal boxes and placed directly in the dark in a
   -20°C freezer[2].

5. The sample ID’s, Bullister bottle numbers and date were recorded
   on the log sheet provided. After all sampling was complete this log
   sheet was converted to the electronic version, also provided.

The original sample plan asked for 24 stations x 36 bottles between
66°S and 38°S sampling every third station (using sampling scheme II).
Assuming 30 nm spacing this would provide 1.0 to 1.2 degree (~90 nm)
spacing. As we were limited by extended station spacing and when the
samples could be taken (i.e. only the night-shift had the available
manpower) the actual station sampling was less regular than the
initial plan. Full profiles with samples from all available Bullister
bottles were taken at 26 stations for a total of 851 samples. Station
spacing ranged from 36 to 150 nm with an average of 97 nm
covering latitudes 66.3°S to 23.3°S.


Table 12.1: Table of Nitrate Nitrogen Isotope Samples

   Stn   |    #    |     ID#s      | Latitude | Longitude | Dist to Next 
         | Samples |               |   (°N)   |    (°E)    | Profile (nm) 
=========================================================================
    5    |    34   | 00001 - 00034 | -66.3    |   78.125  |     80.8     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
    8    |    36   | 00035 - 00070 | -65.1    |   79.607  |    140.8     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   12    |    31   | 00071 - 00101 | -63.003  |   82.01   |     90.2     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   15    |    27   | 00102 - 00128 | -61.5    |   82      |    120       
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   19    |    25   | 00129 - 00153 | -59.5    |   82      |    120.3     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   25    |    36   | 00154 - 00188 | -57.513  |   82.523  |     74       
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   28    |    36   | 00189 - 00224 | -56.484  |   83.77   |    120.4     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   32    |    36   | 00225 - 00260 | -54.786  |   85.664  |     89.4     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   35    |    36   | 00261 - 00296 | -53.526  |   87.024  |     68.5     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   37    |    28   | 00297 - 00324 | -52.531  |   87.954  |    103.5     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   40    |    35   | 00325 - 00359 | -51.037  |   89.35   |    104.4     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   43    |    36   | 00360 - 00395 | -49.543  |   90.747  |    140.5     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   47    |    35   | 00396 - 00430 | -47.551  |   92.609  |    142.1     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   51    |    34   | 00431 - 00464 | -45.559  |   94.47   |    151.2     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   55    |    34   | 00465 - 00498 | -43.068  |   95      |    115.4     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   58    |    36   | 00499 - 00534 | -41.144  |   95      |    129.2     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   62    |    36   | 00535 - 00570 | -38.991  |   94.992  |     59.5     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   64    |    36   | 00571 - 00606 | -37.999  |   95.004  |     90.1     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   67    |    36   | 00607 - 00642 | -36.498  |   95.003  |     89.8     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   70    |    25   | 00643 - 00677 | -35.001  |   95.002  |     89.6     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   73    |    36   | 00678 - 00713 | -33.508  |   95.001  |     90       
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   76    |    36   | 00714 - 00748 | -32.009  |   95.013  |     78.6     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   79    |    24   | 00747 - 00772 | -30.699  |   95.004  |     71       
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   81    |    27   | 00773 - 00799 | -29.515  |   95.006  |     36.2     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   82    |    27   | 00800 - 00826 | -28.911  |   95.002  |     35.6     
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
   83    |    33   | 00827 - 00830,| -28.318  |   95.009  |              
         |         | 00841 - 00864 |          |           |              
---------+---------+---------------+----------+-----------+--------------
 Total   |   851   |               |          |           |              
 Samples 



[2] On March 6th the engineers discovered that the walk-in freezer
    where the sample boxes were being stored had failed. The
    temperature had risen to -10.5°C by the time the samples were
    moved in their boxes (16:00 – 16:15 UTC) to an unused freezer in
    the science hold (temperature in this freezer was set to -20°C).





13  ∆18O SAMPLING


PIs
   * Peter Schlosser (LDEO)

   * Lynne Talley (SIO)

Samples for ∆18O were taken by the CTD-watch for Schlosser and
Talley. A total of 1073 brown glass bottles were used to collect XX ml
samples according to the protocol provided.

1. The sample bottles came stored in annotated boxes that were each
   labeled with a box number (1-20) as it was filled samples.

2. The container with the empty sample bottles and documentation
   was kept in the forward bio-lab. Before the return of the CTD to
   the deck, 36 bottles were prepared with Bullister bottle numbers
   written in the caps. The 24 bottle plastic rack, which sat in a
   plastic basin (both provided) was filled with the empty bottles.
   The 12 extra bottles were placed upright in the basin.

3. Seawater was taken directly from the Bullister bottles using the
   tube provided. Sample bottles were rinsed once with seawater from
   the Bullister prior to sampling.

4. After sampling the 36 bottles were taken back to the forward
   bio- lab where they were dried with paper towels, caps were
   tightened and wrapped in tape, and labels were filled out and
   applied.

5. The sample ID’s, Bullister bottle numbers, date and box number
   were recorded on a log sheet provided. After all sampling was
   complete this log sheet was converted to the electronic version,
   which will be sent to the PIs.

The agreed upon sampling plan followed the basic outline of the I06S
sampling provided by Robert Key (Princeton) with concentrated sampling
at the southernmost stations and less concentrated to the north. The
table below summarizes the sampling.

Note: Note there was a mix up in the assigning ID numbers so there
      are IDs 432A, B and C and 452A, and B.

          | dO18  | dO18 | STA |      |   DATE    |   #   |          |         | DEPTH
dO18 Box  |  ID   |  ID  |  #  | CAST |   (UTC)   | SMPLS |   LAT    |   LON   |  (m) 
======================================================================================
START-END | START | END  |     |      |           |       |          |         |      
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   1-1    |    1  |   19 |   1 |   1  | 19-Feb-16 |  19   | -66.6027 | 78.3815 |  468 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   1-1    |   20  |   40 |   2 |   3  | 19-Feb-16 |  21   | -66.4997 | 78.2986 |  953 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   1-2    |   41  |   67 |   3 |   1  | 19-Feb-16 |  27   | -66.45   | 78.2494 | 1497 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   2-2    |   68  |   98 |   4 |   1  | 19-Feb-16 |  31   | -66.4    | 78.1993 | 1979 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   2-3    |   99  |  132 |   5 |   1  | 20-Feb-16 |  34   | -66.2999 | 78.1253 | 2731 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   3-4    |  133  |  168 |   6 |   1  | 20-Feb-16 |  35   | -66.15   | 78.0102 | 3009 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   4      |  169  |  203 |   7 |   2  | 20-Feb-16 |  35   | -65.6248 | 78.8085 | 3313 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   4-5    |  204  |  239 |   8 |   1  | 20-Feb-16 |  35   | -65.1    | 79.6066 | 3525 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   5-6    |  240  |  275 |   9 |   1  | 21-Feb-16 |  36   | -64.5799 | 80.3926 | 3667 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   6      |  276  |  311 |  10 |   1  | 21-Feb-16 |  36   | -64.05   | 81.2022 | 3700 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   6-7    |  312  |  347 |  11 |   1  | 21-Feb-16 |  35   | -63.535  | 82.0005 | 3450 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   7      |  348  |  378 |  12 |   1  | 21-Feb-16 |  31   | -63.003  | 82.0103 | 2748 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   8      |  379  |  402 |  13 |   1  | 22-Feb-16 |  23   | -62.5003 | 82.0002 | 1919 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   8      |  403  |  429 |  15 |   1  | 22-Feb-16 |  27   | -61.4999 | 82.0002 | 2175 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   8-9    |  430  |  451 |  16 |   1  | 22-Feb-16 |  24   | -61      | 82.0005 | 1858 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   9      |  452  |  475 |  19 |   2  | 23-Feb-16 |  25   | -59.5002 | 82.0003 | 1706 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   9-10   |  476  |  496 |  20 |   2  | 23-Feb-16 |  21   | -59.0001 | 82      | 1291 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   10     |  497  |  518 |  21 |   1  | 24-Feb-16 |  22   | -58.6101 | 82.0101 | 1549 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   11     |  519  |  553 |  25 |   1  | 24-Feb-16 |  35   | -57.5131 | 82.5226 | 4438 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   11     |  554  |  589 |  26 |   1  | 25-Feb-16 |  36   | -57.3209 | 82.7791 | 4240 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   11-12  |  590  |  625 |  29 |   1  | 25-Feb-16 |  36   | -56.058  | 84.2612 | 4822 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   12-13  |  626  |  661 |  32 |   1  | 26-Feb-16 |  36   | -54.7862 | 85.6644 | 4712 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   13     |  662  |  697 |  33 |   1  | 26-Feb-16 |  36   | -54.367  | 86.1421 | 4641 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   13-14  |  698  |  733 |  35 |   1  | 28-Feb-16 |  36   | -53.5264 | 87.0235 | 4602 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   14-15  |  734  |  761 |  37 |   1  | 28-Feb-16 |  28   | -52.531  | 87.954  | 4405 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   15     |  762  |  796 |  40 |   1  |  1-Mar-16 |  35   | -51.037  | 89.3503 | 4141 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   15-16  |  797  |  832 |  43 |   1  |  1-Mar-16 |  36   | -49.5429 | 90.7469 | 3868 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   16-17  |  833  |  868 |  44 |   1  |  2-Mar-16 |  36   | -49.0449 | 91.2121 | 3815 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   17     |  869  |  903 |  47 |   1  |  2-Mar-16 |  35   | -47.551  | 92.6087 | 3616 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   17-18  |  904  |  936 |  48 |   1  |  3-Mar-16 |  33   | -47.053  | 93.0739 | 3490 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   18     |  937  |  970 |  51 |   1  |  3-Mar-16 |  33   | -45.559  | 94.4702 | 3219 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   19     |  971  | 1003 |  52 |   1  |  3-Mar-16 |  33   | -44.992  | 95.0002 | 2903 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   19-20  | 1003  | 1037 |  55 |   1  |  4-Mar-16 |  34   | -43.068  | 95.0001 | 3168 
----------+-------+------+-----+------+-----------+-------+----------+---------+------
   20     | 1038  | 1073 |  58 |   1  |  5-Mar-16 |  36   | -41.1441 | 95.0003 | 3564 





14  CDOM


UCSB Global CDOM Group

* Norman Nelson, Earth Research Institute UCSB, PI

* Cara Nissen, ETH-Zürich, Volunteer Graduate Student



14.1  Chromophoric Dissolved Organic Matter (CDOM)

Sampling: We nominally sampled one cast per day, on the cast nearest
the overpass times of the ocean color instrument bearing satellites
Aqua (MODIS) and NPP (VIIRS). Each Niskin bottle would be sampled,
with two randomly selected replicates.

Preparation: The standard method involves collecting 60 mL samples
into glass EPA vials, then filtering the samples at low vacuum
pressure (-0.05 MPa) through 25mm 0.2 micron Nuclepore filters which
have been preconditioned with ultrapure water to remove organic
contaminants. For the underway samples we used 0.2 micron nylon
ZenPure cartridge filters to remove particles. Sample vials are rinsed
with the filtrate and the filtrate is returned to the vial. Filtered
samples are stored at 4°C until analysis ([Nelson2007], [Nelson2009]).

Original plan was to analyze samples at sea using the WPI UltraPath
200cm liquid waveguide cell spectrophotometer system. However the cell
developed an air leak that I could not correct, so we opted to collect
samples to return to UCSB for analysis on a functioning system rather
than fight the heisenbug in the cell. We collected 16 samples and two
replicates on each cast, filtered and stored them. The plan is to
return the samples to UCSB from Fremantle.

We collected samples on 21 stations, for a total of 334 samples and 40
replicates.

Analysis: Filtered seawater samples are analyzed for absorption in the
250-734 nm range using a WPI UltraPath spectrophotometer system. The
UltraPath is a single-beam spectrophotometer system consisting of a
UV-Visible light source, a 200 cm liquid waveguide cell, and a diode
array spectrometer. Samples (appx. 12 mL volume) are injected into the
cell using a peristaltic pump. Light is introduced to the cell via a
fiber-optic and travels the length of the cell because of total
internal reflection, as in a fiber optic filament. Absorbance is
calculated by computing the logarithm of the spectrum of transmitted
light through a sample divided by the spectrum of transmitted light
through a reference solution (in this case ultrapure water prepared
each day with our Barnstead Nanopure Diamond UV system using potable
water as input). Because of the difference in real refractive index
between seawater and ultrapure water the raw data have an apparent
negative absorbance signal that must be removed before computing
absorption coefficient (m^-1) (as absorbance x 2.303/l, where l is the
effective pathlength of the cell, [Nelson2007]).

On this expedition we are testing a new protocol for CDOM absorption
spectra measurement and refractive index correction as part of a NASA
methodological development effort. The protocol involves measuring
standard solutions of Suwanee River Fulvic Acid ~0.25 mg/L and sodium
chloride at 30 and 40 g/L to monitor instrument performance and obtain
data for correction of apparent absorption due to refractive
differences between ultrapure water and seawater.

Selected CDOM absorption data from discrete wavelengths will be
submitted to CCHDO upon completion of quality control. More complete
data sets including raw data and processing code will be available via
the NASA bio-optical field data SeaBASS (seabass.gsfc.nasa.gov).



14.2  Chlorophyll a

Sampling: We collected ~500mL samples from the top 6 depths (usually
~200m), one cast daily, total of approximately 126 samples.

Preparation: Samples were collected into 500mL brown HDPE bottles and
were subsequently filtered onto 25mm 0.45μm pore nitrocellulose
filters. The filters were placed in polypropylene Falcon tubes and
extracted 48 hours at 4°C temperature in 10 mL of 90% acetone (with
Barnstead Nanopure UV prepared water); and were shaken after 24 hours
to ensure complete filter dissolution.

Analysis: The acetone extracts were analyzed using the acidification
technique [Mueller2003] on a Turner Designs AU-10 fluorometer with the
standard chlorophyll fluorescence set. The fluorescence (in relative
units) was measured before (Rb) and after (Ra) acidification with two
drops of 10% HCl. Chlorophylla was computed according to the standard
formula:

            Chla(µg/l) = (τ/τ - 1)Fd(Rb) – (Ra)

Where τis the fluorescence ratio of pure chlorophyll a to pure
phaeophytin a and Fd is the calibration coefficient (μg/L). τand
Fd for each of the three sensitivity ranges of the instrument were
determined in August 2014 by Janice Jones and Nathalie Guillocheau,
UCSB; using solutions of pure Anacystis nidulans chlorophyll a (Sigma)
in 90% acetone.


HIGH Tau =       | 1.9539
-----------------+-------
MED Tau =        | 1.9496
-----------------+-------
LOW Tau =        | 1.8885
-----------------+-------
Med/High Tau =   | 1.9520
-----------------+-------
Low/Med Tau =    | 1.9274
-----------------+-------
overallavg Tau = | 1.9393


               | [Chla] Rb   | [Chla] ((τ/(τ-1)) |   Slope 
               |             |     *(Rb-Ra))     |            
==============================================================
HIGH Fd =      | 0.138925422 |    0.138925422    | 0.142718147
---------------+-------------+-------------------+------------
MED Fd =       | 0.138626676 |    0.138626676    | 0.141249987
---------------+-------------+-------------------+------------
LOW Fd =       | 0.126879138 |    0.126879138    | 0.128316741
---------------+-------------+-------------------+------------
Med/High Fd =  | 0.1388      |    0.138794721    | 0.141417549
---------------+-------------+-------------------+------------
Low/Med Fd =   | 0.1344      |    0.134354844    | 0.141000945
---------------+-------------+-------------------+------------
overallavgFd = | 0.1364      |    0.136411604    | 0.141201691


Instrument performance was checked daily with a Turner Designs solid
fluorescence standard. No apparent trend was observed.

Preliminary Results: Preliminary quality control based on phaeophytin
a to chlorophyll a ratios suggest almost all samples collected to date
from shallower than 200m were good. Samples collected at 200m and
below were effectively zero in most cases, putting a tentative lower
limit for chlorophyll determination at 0.01 mg/m^3. Results show the
expected high latitude shoaling and formation of a subsurface
chlorophyll maximum in the subtropics. Surface chlorophyll
concentrations at the surface at the northernmost part of the transect
were below 0.04 milligrams per cubic meter, amongst the lowest
concentrations of chlorophyll found in the ocean.

Problems: Two samples were possibly acid-contaminated and resulted in
negative computed chlorophyll concentrations (flagged 4). One sample
extract was too concentrated for the fluorometer sensitivity (station
010/1 sample 34) and the extract was diluted by 50% to get it in range
(flagged 3). Four other samples were flagged as 3 because they didn’t
fit in the profile.

All collected CHLORA data were reported to CCHDO during the cruise.
Additional data and raw data will be submitted to the NASA bio-optical
field database SeaBASS (seabass.gsfc.nasa.gov).


Fig. 14.1: Chlorophyll a profiles from Station 2 (65.6S), Station 31
           (55.1S) and station 81 (29.5S).



14.3  CDOM Rosette Fluorometer

Equipment and Techniques: We deployed WETLabs ECO CDOM 6000m
fluorometer FLCDRTD s/n 3117 on the rosette at the outset of the
cruise. This was a replacement for a similar instrument that was lost
with the rosette on Leg 1 of A16N in 2013. This instrument excites
fluorescence with a 380 nm UV light source and monitors fluorescence
at 420 nm.

Sampling and Analysis: Instrument data are saved as analog volts DC
and are vicariously calibrated post cruise using laboratory-measured
fluorescence spectra standardized to quinine sulfate fluorescence
equivalents (ppb) of archived samples using a Horiba Jobin Yvon
Fluoromax-4 ([Nelson2009], [Nelson2016]).

Problems: The instrument suffered from data noise and an offset that
occurred between 1200 and 1500 db pressure on each cast. This is
similar to problems that occurred with the instrument on the A16S and
P16N sections. Since those cruises the instrument returned to WETLabs
for evaluation and they could find no problem with the instrument. The
same problems occurred with different cables and different SeaBird CTD
units, so the problem had to rest with the fluorometer itself. I
currently suspect a mechanical issue, related to pressure, on the
optical face of the instrument. This problem was encountered in the
prototype fluorometer we first deployed in 2006, and apparently has
returned.

The instrument was lost with the rosette on 22 February, so the
mystery will remain unsolved.



14.4  Spectroradiometer casts

Acquisition: Each day near local noon (with one exception; see below)
we deployed a Biospherical C-OPS profiling spectroradiometer system
(system 023) off the port quarter. The instrument measures downwelling
irradiance and upwelling radiance in 19 channels stretching from the
UV-B to the NIR wavebands. The system includes a surface reference
unit with matching channels and a shadowband system for measuring
direct and diffuse contributions to total irradiance. All instruments
acquire data at 15 Hz. The profiler is hand deployed and recovered to
allow drift away from the ship to avoid shadow influence. The maximum
depth reached on every profile was approximately 100 m.

Data Processing: Collected data are subjected to quality control for
tilt and surface irradiance change during the profile [Mueller2003]
and derived products include attenuation coefficient spectra and
water-leaving radiance reflectance (for ocean color remote sensing
data validation). Resulting products will be made available via NASA’s
field bio-optics archive SeaBASS (seabass.gsfc.nasa.gov).


   C-OPS cast summary to 02/29/16

   Station 002/1
   Cast Start: 19-Feb-2016 08:12:40 UT
   Cast End  : 19-Feb-2016 08:26:45 UT
   Max Depth : 55.1 m

   Station 007/1
   Cast Start: 20-Feb-2016 08:46:04 UT
   Cast End  : 20-Feb-2016 09:04:27 UT
   Max Depth : 124.6 m

   Station 010/2
   Cast Start: 21-Feb-2016 08:56:55 UT
   Cast End  : 21-Feb-2016 09:19:13 UT
   Max Depth : 120.8 m

   Station 014/1
   Cast Start: 22-Feb-2016 08:13:07 UT
   Cast End  : 22-Feb-2016 08:32:05 UT
   Max Depth : 118.1 m

   Station 017/1
   Cast Start: 23-Feb-2016 07:21:14 UT
   Cast End  : 23-Feb-2016 07:36:35 UT
   Max Depth : 117.8 m

   Station 023/2
   Cast Start: 24-Feb-2016 07:15:41 UT
   Cast End  : 24-Feb-2016 07:31:44 UT
   Max Depth : 98.2 m

   Station 027/1
   Cast Start: 25-Feb-2016 08:24:17 UT
   Cast End  : 25-Feb-2016 08:38:27 UT
   Max Depth : 85.3 m

   Station 030/1
   Abort (wind 33 kts)

   *period of joyful weather here*

   Station 042/1
   Cast Start: 01-Mar-2016 08:33:36 UT
   Cast End  : 01-Mar-2016 08:49:04 UT
   Max Depth : 100.4 m

   Station 045/2
   Abort heavy current and high ship thrust

   Station 049/2
   Cast Start: 03-Mar-2016 07:53:19 UT
   Cast End  : 03-Mar-2016 08:07:55 UT
   Max Depth : 111.3 m

   Cast 053/2
   Cast Start: 04-Mar-2016 08:16:20 UT
   Cast End  : 04-Mar-2016 08:30:35 UT
   Max Depth : 114.7 m

   Cast 057/2
   Cast Start: 05-Mar-2016 09:52:55 UT
   Cast End  : 05-Mar-2016 10:08:23 UT
   Max Depth : 91.5 m

   Cast 060/2
   Cast Start: 06-Mar-2016 06:36:46 UT
   Cast End  : 06-Mar-2016 06:52:50 UT
   Max Depth : 111.0 m

   Cast 065/1
   Cast Start: 07-Mar-2016 08:38:21 UT
   Cast End  : 07-Mar-2016 08:52:15 UT
   Max Depth : 109.7 m

   Cast 068/2
   Cast Start: 08-Mar-2016 07:28:36 UT
   Cast End  : 08-Mar-2016 07:44:22 UT
   Max Depth : 85.8 m

   Cast 072/1
   Cast Start: 09-Mar-2016 06:20:04 UT
   Cast End  : 09-Mar-2016 06:33:40 UT
   Max Depth : 100.6 m

   Cast 076/1
   Cast Start: 10-Mar-2016 07:23:14 UT
   Cast End  : 10-Mar-2016 07:37:22 UT
   Max Depth : 104.9 m

   Cast 081/1
   Cast Start: 11-Mar-2016 08:47:13 UT
   Cast End  : 11-Mar-2016 09:01:23 UT
   Max Depth : 102.1 m

Problems: Several profiles shallow due to strong sub surface currents.
Twisting in the cable was encountered during several of the casts
which could be attributed to currents or the rate at which line was
paid out.

At the outset of the cruise we had difficulty with the surface
shadowband system. Apparently the temperature was too cold for
effective stepper motor operation. We were able to correct this
problem by increasing the working and rest voltages.

Fig. 14.2: C-OPS 
           443 nm downwelling irradiance (top left) and upwelling radiance 
           (lower left), station 7, cast 1. 443 nm surface irradiance 
           collected at the same moment is shown in cyan. Surface unit (ship) 
           and profiler tilt and roll are shown in the righthand panels. The 
           dip in the profiles near 100m is caused by a cloud passage, as can 
           be seen in the surface reference data. Strong curvature in the 
           profiles (shown on a logarithmic scale) are due to the presence of 
           a chlorophyll maximum near 40m.



14.5  Underway optics system

Equipment and Techniques: We installed our underway inherent optical
property measuring system in the hydro lab and supplied it with ship’s
uncontaminated seawater at appx 10 L/min. The system includes a
computer-controlled valve that switches between whole water and a 0.2
μm filter (ZenPure nylon cartridge) which feeds an MSRC vortex
debubbler. The debubbled water is supplied through a PVC manifold to a
SeaBird TSG and an array of optical instruments: a WETLabs ECO BB3
backscattering sensor installed in a custom light trap [Slade2010], a
WETLabs AC-S hyperspectral absorption and attenuation meter, a Sequoia
Scientific LISST 100X type B laser diffraction particle counter/sizer,
and a Satlantic in-situ FIRe in vivo fluorescence
excitation/relaxation sensor.


Fig. 14.3: Particulate backscattering coefficient from the southernmost
           end of the transit and beginning of the section.
           Note near exact overlap of the section south of 66.3S


Analysis: The system includes a computer-controlled data acquisition
system that automatically switches between filtered and whole water
supply to the instruments on a user-defined schedule. The filtered
seawater baseline is used to correct the instrument data for
calibration and offset drift, variable CDOM, and temperature effects

[Slade2010]. With the system operating in unfiltered mode the
instruments are sampled at 1 Hz and data are generally collected in
one minute bins. It takes around 15 minutes to completely flush the
system following a switch two or from filter mode, so no data
collection takes place during this time period. Approximately five
“filter” periods are scheduled each day. Instruments are also powered
off for one minute in ten to mitigate overheating and to extend lamp
life.

System optics were cleaned each day using isopropanol and the filter
cartridge was changed on alternate days.

Data from the system require extensive post processing and quality
control, which will be performed on land. Resulting data will be made
available via NASA’s field bio-optics archive SeaBASS (seabass.gsfc.nasa.gov).



14.6  SOCCOM sampling

Sampling: The ODF group collected samples for POC and HPLC
phytoplankton pigment analysis on stations where SOCCOM bio-optical
floats were deployed. ODF used our large volume HPLC/AP/POC filtration
rig to filter the samples and the samples were stored in our liquid
nitrogen Dewar during the cruise. We collected ~2 L samples into
polyethylene sample bottles from the surface and chlorophyll maximum
depths at each cast. Information on SOCCOM float deployments and
sample collection is available elsewhere in the cruise report.

Preparation: Samples were filtered onto precombusted 25 mm GF/F glass
fiber filters at <-0.05 MPa vacuum pressure. The filters were folded
into foil packets and immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen. The
samples will be returned to UCSB via liquid nitrogen dry shipper.

Analysis: POC samples will be analyzed for C and N content at the UCSB
Marine Science Institute Analytical Laboratory. Samples are acidified,
combusted at 100 °C and analyzed using a Control Equipment, Inc.
CEC440HA elemental analyzer (http://msi.ucsb.edu/services/analytical-
lab/instruments/organic-elemental-analyzer-chn). Detection limits are
approximately 2 μg carbon and 5 μg nitrogen.

HPLC samples will be analyzed by Crystal Thomas at the NASA Goddard
Spaceflight Center HPLC lab (Greenbelt, MD). The full suite of
measurements, procedures, and quality control information is available
at: http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/cms/



14.7  Phytoplankton Pigments and Particulate Absorption

Sampling: Once daily, in approximate synchronization with our C-OPS
casts and satellite overpasses we collected samples from the ship's
uncontaminated seawater supply for shore analysis of phytoplankton
pigments via HPLC and for particulate absorption spectra (AP). ~2 L
samples were collected into polyethylene sample bottles.

Preparation: Samples were filtered onto 25 mm GF/F glass fiber filters
and frozen in liquid nitrogen [Mueller2003]. The samples will be
returned for analysis to UCSB (AP) and to NASA GSFC (HPLC).

Analysis: Particulate absorption spectra of the AP sample filters are
measured a Shimadzu UV-2401 spectrophotometer with an integrating
sphere attachment, using a moistened GF/F filter as a blank.
Absorbance of filters is converted to absorption coefficient spectra
using the Quantitative Filter Technique [Mueller2003] using multiple
scattering corrections developed by Nelson et al. [Nelson1998].

Samples for phytoplankton pigment analysis will be analyzed at NASA
GSFC by the Ocean Ecology Laboratory Field Support Group
(http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/cms/hplc/). Acetone extracts of the
particles collected on GF/F filters will be separated using an HP HPLC
system with a C8 column, and detected using a diode array
spectrophotometer system to confirm pigment identity. Resulting data
will be made available via NASA’s field bio-optics archive SeaBASS
(seabass.gsfc.nasa.gov).


[Mueller2003] Mueller, J.L., G.S Fargion, and C.R.
              McClain (eds), 2003. Ocean Optics Protocols For
              Satellite Ocean Color Sensor Validation, Revision 4.
              Greenbelt, MD, NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center,
              NASA/TM-2003-211621/Rev4.


[Nelson1998]  Nelson, N.B., D.A. Siegel, and A.F.
              Michaels, 1998. Seasonal dynamics of colored dissolved
              organic matter in the Sargasso Sea. Deep-Sea Res. 45,
              931-957.


[Nelson2007]  Nelson, N.B., D.A. Siegel, C.A. Carlson, C.
              Swan, W.M. Smethie, Jr., and S. Khatiwala,. 2007.
              Hydrography of chromophoric dissolved organic matter in
              the North Atlantic. Deep-Sea Res. 54, 710-731.


[Nelson2009]  Nelson, N.B., and P.G. Coble, 2009. Optical
              analysis of chromophoric dissolved organic matter. In:
              Practical Guidelines for the Analysis of Seawater, Wurl.
              O. (ed). San Diego: CRC Press.


[Nelson2016]  Nelson, N.B., and J.M. Gauglitz, 2016.
              Optical signatures of dissolved organic matter
              transformation in the global ocean. Front. Mar. Sci.
              2:118. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2015.00118.


[Slade2010]   Slade, W.H., E. Boss, G. Dall’Omo, M.R.
              Langner, J. Loftin, M.J. Behrenfeld, C. Roesler, and T.K.
              Westberry, 2010. Underway and Moored Methods for Improving
              Accuracy in Measurement of Spectral Particulate Absorption
              and Attenuation. J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech. 27: 1733-1746.





15  DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON


PI
   Craig Carlson (UCSB)

Technician
   Maverick Carey


Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) samples were collected from all Niskin
bottles at all even numbered stations, as well as station 1. A total
of 1415 samples were collected from 43 stations. At each sampled
station, one duplicate sample was taken from a random depth. Samples
from 500m and shallower in the water column were filtered through a
47mm in-line GF/F filter. All samples were rinsed 3 times with
seawater, collected in 40 mL glass EPA vials, and stored at 4°C. 65µl
of 4N Hydrochloric acid were added to preserve samples.

Sample vials were prepared for this cruise by soaking in 10%
Hydrochloric acid, followed by 3 times rinse with DI water. The vials
were then combusted at 450°C for 4 hours to remove any organic matter.
Vial caps were cleaned by soaking in DI water overnight, followed by a
3 times rinse, and then left out to air dry.

Sampling goals for this cruise were to continue long term monitoring
of DOC distribution throughout the water column, in order to help
better understand biogeochemical cycling in global oceans.





16  LADCP

LADCP data were collected during CTD casts, stations 1-13 and 28-83
During stations 1-13 a dual head system was used consisting of a
downlooker and an uplooker. From station 14-27 no data was collected
due to loss of the CTD package at station 14. During stations 28-83
only a downlooker was available. Preliminary processing was performed
onboard. All profiles were sent to A. Thurnherr for shore-based
processing. A full QC will be carried out after the cruise.

The ADCPs and a lead acid battery pack were affixed to the CTD
package. Three different ADCP WH300 instruments were used during the
cruise.

              Stations | DownLooker    | UpLooker       
              ==========================================
              1 - 13   | WH300 sn: 149 | WH300 sn: 13330
              ---------+---------------+----------------
              14 - 27  |               |                
              ---------+---------------+----------------
              28 - 83  | WH300 sn: 150 |                


At the start of station 14 the package was lost. The secondary package
was readied and deployed after a several hour delay. The backup LADCP
was not installed until station 28, downlooker only. Compass problems
within the unit from station 28 resulted in poor data. On station 59
the termination slipped and the package struck the side rail. The
impact resulted in the compass to function properly.

ADCP programming and data acquisition were carried out using the LDEO
acquire software running on a Mac computer.

Post-cruise processing is necessary and will be conducted at LDEO. At
that point it will be determined which profiles are of sufficient
quality for inclusion in the final CLIVAR ADCP archives.





17  Chipods



17.1  System Configuration and Sampling

Initially, four Chipods were mounted on the rosette to measure
temperature (T), its time derivative (dT/dt), and x and z (horizontal
and vertical) accelerations at a sampling rate of 50 Hz. Two Chipods
were oriented with sensors pointing upwards (circled in green in the
figure below), and are referred to as *uplooking*. The other two
pointed downwards and are referred to as *downlooking* (circled in
blue at the bottom of the rosette in Figure below). The Chipod
pressure case, containing the logger board and batteries, is circled
in red in the figures below. Ideally, the chipod sensors need to sense
an undisturbed stream of fluid passing over the thermistor tip. For
this reason the uplooking sensors are mounted as far from the rosette
as possible whilst the downlooking sensors are mounted as close to the
bottom of the rosette as possible but still above the base frame so as
to not be damaged on deployment and recovery. The downlooking chipods
generally obtain better (less noisy) data on the downcast and the
uplooking sensors record better data on the upcast. Chipod data was
downloaded daily or every second day. Raw data was plotted for a quick
quality check and to ensure chipods were working correctly. After the
primary rosette was lost, three backup chipod loggers were installed
on the backup rosette (one downlooking and two uplooking). This
configuration is shown in Chipod Figure 2.


Fig.17.1: Chipod Figure 1

Fig.17.2: Chipod Figure 2



17.2  Data Collection and Equipment Changes

A summary of the Chipod logger serial numbers, their associated sensor
serial numbers and the station/cast range for which data was collected
is provided in Table 1. In total, data from 66 stations was recorded
by two uplooking Chipods whilst data from 9 stations was recorded by
two downlooking Chipods and data from 53 stations was recorded by one
downlooking Chipod. A more comprehensive summary is provided below.

Chipod loggers SN2003 and SN2020 were uplooking and recorded data from
stations 1 to 10 (10 stations). Chipod logger SN2004 was downlooking
and recorded data from stations 2 to 10. SN2004 was not logging data
during the first station. This was rectified for station 2. Chipod
logger SN2001 was downlooking and recorded data from stations 1 to 10.
The last data download for these four chipods was on the 21th February
after station 10. The rosette was lost on 22nd February, during
deployment at station 14. Data from stations 11 to 13 was recorded by
loggers but not downloaded and thus was lost with rosette. No data was
collected by any Chipods during stations 14 to 27. The three remaining
Chipod loggers were installed on 25th February prior to station 28.
SN2002 was downlooking and recorded data from stations 28 to 30 and
from 35 to 36. For an unknown reason SN2002 did not record any data
during stations 31 to 34. The temperature derivative signal from the
sensor (13-05 D) on SN2002 became noisy on 3rd March at approximately
10:00 UTC time. Sensor was swapped for 14-32 D on 8th March. This
improved the noise signal in dT/dt data. SN2009 and SN1013 were both
uplooking and recorded data from stations 28 to 83. The pole on which
the uplooking sensors were mounted, was hit by the hangar door on
recovery at station 33. The pole was bent outwards and for station 34
which means the sensors were not mounted vertically. This may impact
data quality of SN2009 and SN1013 on that station. The sensors were
remounted on a vertical pole prior to station 35. Sensor cable 24-4-2
(connected to SN2009) was caught on the hook during recovery at
station 040 and was torn. Cable was replaced for 24-4-10 and data
quality was not impacted.


Table 17.1: Chipod logger data showing serial numbers, orientation of logger 
            and which stations data was collected from.

              | Sensor  |  Sensor  |             |               | Nbr
Chipod Logger | Serial  |  Cable   | Orientation | Station/Cast  | of
Serial Number | Number  |  Serial  |             |     Range     | stns
=======================================================================
    SN2003    | 11-24 D | 24-04-3  | Uplooking   | 00101 - 01001 |  10 
--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------------+-----
    SN2020    | 14-28 D | 24-06-1  | Uplooking   | 00101 - 01001 |  10 
--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------------+-----
    SN2004    | 13-02 D | 24-06-7  | Downlooking | 00201 - 01001 |   9 
--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------------+-----
    SN2001    | 10-01MP | 24-06-19 | Downlooking | 00101 - 01001 |  10 
--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------------+-----
    SN2002    | 13-05 D | 24-06-19 | Downlooking | 02801 - 03001 |  37 
              |         |          |             | 03501 - 06801 |     
--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------------+-----
    SN2002    | 14-32 D | 24-6-19  | Downlooking | 06901 - 08301 |  15 
--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------------+-----
    SN2009    | 11-25 D | 24-04-2  | Uplooking   | 02801 - 04001 |  13 
--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------------+-----
    SN2009    | 11-25 D | 24-04-10 | Uplooking   | 04101 - 08301 |  43 
--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------------+-----
    SN1013    | 14-34 D | 24-04-11 | Uplooking   | 02801 - 08301 |  56 





18  STUDENT STATEMENTS



Sarah Bercovici

   [image]

On the GO-SHIP I08S cruise, I was the student assistant for the on
board analysis of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) and sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6), working for Jim Happell and Charlene Grall. As the CFC
assistant, I learned technical and analytical skills, such as how to
sample for CFCs on the CTD and how to run the samples on the gas
chromatographer. I additionally was taught by my supervisors to
recognize which compound was which on the resultant gas chromatogram,
which allowed me to view trends in the data. From the large amount of
data we were generating daily, I witnessed the ventilation of the
different water masses near the Antarctic shelf slope and in the
Southern Ocean. For example, I saw an increase of CFCs in the newly
formed Antarctic Bottom Water (AABW) near the Amery shelf slope, while
there were substantially less CFCs in the overlying circumpolar
waters. These trends show that AABW has had more recent contact with
the atmosphere (i.e. it shows that this AABW was derived from most
likely the nearby Antarctic shelf waters). Through observing the data,
I also recognized where intermediate and mode waters were being formed
near the Polar Front, due to an influx of CFCs reaching down around
1000 m depth. I additionally saw that CFC concentrations in the
surface waters south of the Polar Front were much higher than those as
we reached lower latitudes due to the solubility of gases in the
colder waters. Overall, running CFCs in the Southern Ocean was a
rewarding experience that taught me about the exciting processes that
are occurring in this remote region of the world.

In addition to being the CFC student assistant, I collected samples
for radiocarbon of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), which is a student
project that I proposed for this cruise. I brought enough bottles for
four 12-point profiles, and chose to space the profiles out evenly
throughout the transect at approximately 55°S, 45°S, 35°S, and 28°S
(see 14C-DOC cruise report for exact sampling locations). This spacing
is observed in the dashed lines on the figure below (data on figure is
from the previous occupation of I08S) and will give a good
representation of the different water masses present, including
capturing the northward flowing lower circumpolar deep water (LCDW)
/AABW which fills the basin of the Indian Ocean; and the southward
flowing Indian Deep Water (IDW), derived from the mixing of upwelled
LCDW with the anoxic intermediate waters near the bay of Bengal (as
seen in the high apparent oxygen utilization (AOU) signature of IDW in
the figure below). These samples will be analyzed soon on shore using
accelerator mass spectrometry.

   [image]



18.2  Hannah Dawson

   [image]

I’ve had a fantastic time participating in the 2016 occupation of I08S
on the Revelle. It’s been a great introduction to life at sea and in-
the-field data collection. On this particular cruise I participated as
a CTD watch-stander and chipod tech. The CTD watch-stander job
involved prepping the rosette, operating the computer console during
casts and taking water samples for various analyses including
salinity, radiocarbon and δO18 isotope content. My other role involved
downloading data from chipod instruments and providing maintenance
where needed. Overall, the experience was a fantastic one with many
highs and of course some lows.

We spent over a week transiting south to our first station just inside
the Antarctic Circle. This was the first time I’d been on a ship in
the open ocean for a long period of time and we had some rough weather
which made the adjustment really tough. From the time we crossed 60°S
however, everything improved (or perhaps I just became more accustomed
to the rolling ocean...). We started to see an incredible array of
wildlife including seabirds, whales and penguins. Seeing ice bergs
inside the Antarctic Circle was really exciting and watching the
Aurora Australis from the bridge of the ship was definitely a
highlight for me. Another one of my favourite moments was watching the
giant albatross glide over the ocean waves without ever seeming to
flap their wings.

Early on in the trip we lost the first rosette to the depths of the
ocean. It was a pretty sad day but everyone on shift banded together
and we had the backup one working and were on our way again, less than
8 hours later. Losing a rosette is not an experience that I’m eager to
repeat but it was great to see everyone working together and it
definitely solidified friendships. My fellow CTD watch-standers,
scientists and crew members were fantastic people to be onboard a ship
with. I really enjoyed meeting people from different universities all
over the world and it was great to learn about the various research
interests of everyone on board and how different samples are taken and
analysed. It’s been a great trip and I’m looking forward to the next
opportunity to partake in a research cruise.



18.3  Natalie Freeman

What an amazing time I’ve had aboard the Revelle! These 6 weeks have
flown by, full of experiences that far exceeded my expectations. As a
CTD watch-stander, my 12-hour shifts were filled with a mix of hard
work interspersed with moments of overwhelming appreciation of my
surreal circumstances and surroundings. The thrilling anxiety that
comes with playing 'sample cop' amid the backdrop of a sunrise in
shades of pink and blue I had never seen before! Trying to keep pace
with sampling for salts, alkalinity, nitrates, radiocarbon, and/or
d18O, bobbing and weaving around others to/from the rosette, but with
a near-constant smile from the joking and camaraderie among my fellow
night-shifters. The pelting icy rain and gusty winds out on deck
followed by the satisfaction of tying my first bowline knot and a
successful 'hook' of the rosette. The necessity of working on various
to-dos from 'back home' after/on top of a 12-hour shift but the
excitement of getting the phone call from the bridge to come witness
the dancing Aurora Australis! The butterflies during each 'bottom
approach' or the worry of a misfired bottle but taking turns leaving
the console to run out to take pictures of an iceberg or baby shark or
penguin or rainbow or sea snake or flying fish... . Regretting the
decision to go to bed much too late many nights but the elation I felt
when there was STILL ripe cantaloupe at breakfast (right up until the
last days of the leg!). The constant go-go-go associated with tightly
spaced AND shallow stations and then getting that first real break and
filling it with a quick game of cribbage/quiddler/scrabble, or that
third cup of tea and a tasty pastry. The shock of losing a rosette to
the sea followed by the unique opportunity to learn more about the
bits/bobs, ins/outs of a rosette and getting to do 'deck work' after
all.

Most certainly the ups and downs of I08S 2016 have taught me the
dedication and resilience of the people that appreciate and observe
our oceans. Thanks to all science and crew for their kindness and
company and a special thanks to Alison Macdonald for sharing her
wealth of knowledge and experience and helping make my participation
possible. I will surely miss the sea – until next time...



18.4  Seth Travis

Fig. 18.1: During the CTD cast, monitoring the descent of the rosette.
           (Photo credit: J. Gum)

On this cruise, my primary responsibility was as a CTD watchstander.
The tasks required for this position include preparing the rosette for
deployment at roughly half an hour before each cast, monitoring the
descent of the rosette and determining the stopping point for the
maximum depth, and firing the rosette bottles during ascent for sample
collection. Due to technical issues, CTD watchstander’s also needed to
be responsible for the guidelines on the rosette during the initial
deployment, as well as hooking the rosette and using the guidelines
during recovery of the rosette.

For my shift (the day shift), I was also responsible for sampling for
the alkalinity group. This was as simple as taking samples on the
bottles told to me by the alkalinity group. The sampling consisted of
taking a sample bottle, filling and rinsing the bottle twice with
sample water, refilling the bottle, and poisoning the sample with
mercuric chloride. After these samples were taken, I helped to take
salinity samples, which simply required me to rinse the sample bottles
three times, and refill the bottle, leaving just a little head room at
the top of the bottle.

Beyond these assigned responsibilities, I also worked to provide
updated maps of wind and wave forecasts, with the current and future
ship positions overlaid onto the maps. Once the Matlab program was
developed, which does this task, the daily workload for this was
fairly simple. I simply needed to update the files (forecast maps,
completed ship position, proposed ship track) each day, rerun the
program, and print off a selected forecast map (I usually selected a
time for each day which would be close to the change between the day
and night shift).

This cruise was my first experience in being part of an extended
research cruise. While I have had previous field and ship experience,
this was my first of such length. I have definitely gained a greater
appreciation for what goes on during field sampling and processing,
and all the pitfalls involved. I now better understand the frantic
energy of the situation when problems arise and how a steady hand is
needed to direct that energy towards solving the problems; likewise, I
also understand the preferred monotony of a smoothly running system. I
was also able to observe the systems used for measurement and analysis
of various oceanic parameters. While I was impressed by the systems, I
must admit that I mostly did not know what each system did, or how
they worked. While I was present for many sample collections, I knew
little about the actual analysis was, and what happened to those
samples after.

Overall, it has been a positive experience. I learned much about
seagoing oceanography, the sampling process, all the challenges that
can arise, and the impressive speed and perseverance of the whole team
to come together to solve those challenges.



18.5  David Webb

   [image]

I've had a great time onboard the Revelle and it has turned into one
of the best experiences of my life. The scenery in itself was amazing;
from the southern lights and spectacular sunsets above numerous
icebergs, to the range of marine-life surrounding us and encroaching
on the ship – including the bird that decided to fly into the back of
my head when I turned to help deploy the rosette. Disregarding the
aesthetically pleasing environment and kamikaze birds, the time
onboard was still an exciting experience. The first week was a little
testing due to the cold that spread, on top of rough seas that
amplified any sea-sickness that was felt. Although after a long
transit of stomach hardening brutality things were only uphill in my
personal experience.

My role on the cruise involved uploading and downloading data from the
LADCP instruments sent down with the rosette, as well as standard CTD
watch duties, and collection of water samples for various analysis
testing for properties such as salinity, alkalinity and δO^18 isotope
content. As a new student to physical oceanography (and being focused
around modeling), it was great to gain some practical experience in
the field and be a part of the ever so needed data collection while
facing all the challenges that come with it. The loss of the first
rosette along with numerous issues with the winch and a close call
with the second rosette made for an interesting few weeks. Although
these were obviously significant setbacks, it personally enhanced my
experience because we had to adapt to the situation and in the process
I have come out learning more than I would have otherwise.

Aside from work and scenery, it was a real pleasure to be in a
shipmate environment – building strong working relationships and
friendships, all whilst contributing to the larger scientific
community. It is definitely something I would recommend and look
forwards to doing again in the future.



18.6  Earle Wilson

   [image]Photo credit: Cara Nissen

On this cruise, I mainly served as a CTD watch stander. In this role,
I assisted with all stages of the rosette’s launch, recovery and
sampling. I was also the caretaker of six Argo floats, which I helped
to deploy throughout the cruise. Additionally, I maintained a blog
(https://floatdispenser.blogspot.com/) where I chronicled the events
around me as well as my experiences onboard.

Overall, my time onboard the Revelle for the 2016 I08S cruise was an
exciting and fulfilling experience. As someone who relies heavily on
ocean data collected by others, I am thankful for the opportunity to
witness and experience the challenges of doing fieldwork at sea. I
don’t think I will ever complain about gaps in my data again!

This cruise was not all sunshine and happiness though. There were
stretches where we (the CTD watch) had to work long hours, for days on
end, while fighting sea sickness and sleep deprivation. But in the
end, I think the good overwhelmingly outweighed the bad. Never have I
learned and accomplished so much over such a short period of time.
Even the worst aspects of my experience can be viewed as positives in
their own right. I believe those adversities helped to further my
growth both as a scientist and as an individual.

Of all the things I am grateful for on this cruise, what I will
cherish the most are my interactions with the people onboard. In
particular, I am grateful to have met my fellow CTD watch standers.
The bonds and friendships that I developed on this cruise are ones
that I will hold dear for the rest of my life.





19  SOCCOM FLOAT DEPLOYMENT

On this cruise, we successfully deployed six [1] Argo floats for the
Southern Ocean Carbon Climate Ocean and Modeling (SOCCOM) project.
Each float is equipped with sensors to measure temperature, salinity,
oxygen, nitrate, pH, chlorophyll and backscatter. With these
measurements, we hope to further our understanding of the processes
that contribute to carbon export in the Southern Ocean; this is one of
the core missions of the SOCCOM project.

We released our floats at stations 11, 25, 36, 41, 48 and 56. The
exact time and location of each deployment are summarized in the log
table below. Each deployment was done at the end of their respective
CTD cast, immediately after the rosette was secured onboard. We
launched each float by lowering the instrument over the stern of the
ship as the vessel was moving 1-2 knots over water. Each float was
deployed with the assistance and supervision of the on-duty res-tech.

At each deployment station, we took samples for HPLC and POC analyses.
These were 2-liter samples from the surface and the chlorophyll
maximum, with duplicates at the surface (6 liters in total). These
samples will be shipped to the US for analysis. Samples for pH,
alkalinity, oxygen, salinity, and nutrients (including nitrate) were
also collected and analyzed on-board by personnel from SIO in the
Dickson lab and STS/ODF. Additionally, DIC samples were collected and
analyzed by personnel from AOML and PMEL.

We have now received at least one profile from all of the floats we
deployed on this cruise. These data are preliminary, but each float
appears to be functioning properly. As an example, we have
included a plot that compares the first profile from Float 9602 with
CTD/bottle data from station 36.

We would like to express our gratitude to all the members of the
science party and shipboard crew who facilitated our deployments. We
extend special thanks to chief scientist Alison Macdonald for ensuring
that our floats were deployed within a few nautical miles of their
target deployment locations, despite all the delays and setbacks we
encountered on this cruise.


Fig. 19.1: Float 9602 Comparison

   The above plot compares the first profile from the Argo float 9602
   with preliminary data from station 36. The plain solid lines
   represent the float profiles. The broken blue and green lines show
   the temperature and salinity data from the station 36 CTD cast. The
   red and magenta lines with circular markers show nitrate and oxygen
   concentrations measured from station 36 bottle samples.


[1] We had originally planned to deploy seven floats for the
    cruise, but one float was deemed "dead on arrival" while we were
    in port. This float (UW ID 9642) was shipped back to Seattle prior
    to the cruise.


Table 19.1: This table summarizes the deployment time and location of each 
            float.

Nominal  | Float | Sensors |  I8S   |      Deployment      |   Lat.  |   Lon.  |    Name   
location | UW ID |         | Sta. # |   Date   | Time      |         |         | (deployer)
 (°S, °E) |       |         | Cast#  |          |           |         |         |           
===========================================================================================
63.525S, | 0564  |  IONpF  | 11/02  | Feb. 21, | 16:08 UTC | 63.535S | 82.000E | E.        
82.00E   | Navis |         |        | 2016     |           |         |         | Wilson/J. 
         |       |         |        |          |           |         |         | Manger    
---------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------
57.61S,  | 0510  |  IONpF  | 25/02  | Feb. 24, | 20:31 UTC | 57.512S | 82.521E | E. Wilson/
82.38E   | Navis |         |        | 2016     |           |         |         | J.        
         |       |         |        |          |           |         |         | Calderwood
---------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------
53.12S,  | 9602  |  IONpF  | 36/02  | Feb. 28, | 07:16 UTC | 53.028S | 87.48E  | E.        
87.50E   | Apex  |         |        | 2016     |           |         |         | Wilson/J. 
         |       |         |        |          |           |         |         | Manger    
---------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------
50.57S,  | 9637  |  ONpF   | 41/03  | Mar. 1,  | 05:35 UTC | 50.48S  | 89.84E  | E.        
90.03E   | Apex  |         |        | 2016     |           |         |         | Wilson/J. 
         |       |         |        |          |           |         |         | Manger    
---------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------
47.14S,  | 9650  |  ONpF   | 48/02  | Mar. 3,  | 01:52 UTC | 47.05S  | 93.07E  | E. Wilson/
93.14E   | Apex  |         |        | 2016     |           |         |         | J.        
         |       |         |        |          |           |         |         | Calderwood
---------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------
42.512S, | 9600  |  ONpF   | 56     | Mar. 5,  | 3:33 UTC  | 42.43S  | 95.00E  | E.        
95.0E    | Apex  |         |        | 2016     |           |         |         | Wilson/D. 
         |       |         |        |          |           |         |         | Webb      
---------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------
35.0S,   | 9642  |  ONpF   | N/A    |   N/A    |    N/A    |   N/A   |   N/A   |    N/A    
95.0E    | Apex  |         |        |          |           |         |         |           



Table 19.2: Table of deployment comments

            Float UW ID | Comments                                          
            ================================================================
            0564 Navis  | Line got snagged on first two attempts. Float was 
                        | not harmed during recoveries.                     
            ------------+---------------------------------------------------
            0510 Navis  | Deployment was smooth.                            
            ------------+---------------------------------------------------
            9602 Apex   | Deployed at Station 36 instead of 37. Process was 
                        | smooth. Several albatrosses flocked around the    
                        | float while it was still at the surface. The float
                        | was likely OK.                                    
            ------------+---------------------------------------------------
            9637 Apex   | Deployed at station 41 instead of 43. No issues   
                        | with deployment.                                  
            ------------+---------------------------------------------------
            9650 Apex   | Deployed at station 48 instead of 51. No issues   
                        | with deployment.                                  
            ------------+---------------------------------------------------
            9600 Apex   | Deployed at station 56 instead of 63. No issues   
                        | with deployment.                                  
            ------------+---------------------------------------------------
            9642 Apex   | Dead on arrival. Sent back to Seattle.            





20  DRIFTER DEPLOYMENTS

PI
   Shaun Dolk (AOML)

Ten drifters were deployed on I08S for the Global Drifter Program. The
deployment process was simple. All the plastic wrapping, and only the
plastic wrapping, was removed from the drifter. After permission was
obtained from the bridge for deployment, the drifter was then carried
out to the stern. Carrying usually required two people, one of whom
was the res-tech on duty, the other was a member of the CTD watch. A
third person was usually in the lab, ready to take a snapshot of the
tabulated GPS display as the drifter was dropped in. The time,
position, and estimated height of the drop was then recorded on the
log sheet. The log sheets were return to Shaun Dolk at AOML. At last
word all 10 drifters had reported back. The table below indicates the
particulars for each deployment.


Table 20.1: Table of deployments

DRIFTER | STA |  DATE    | TIME  | LATITUDE | LONGITUDE |  SHIP   | SIDE OF   |  HEIGHT  
  ID    |  #  |  (UTC)   | (UTC) | (DEG     | (DEG      |  SPEED  |  STERN    | ABOVE MEAN
        |     |          |       |   MIN S) |    MIN E) | (knots) | DEPLOYED  | SEA LEVEL 
        |     |          |       |          |           |         |  FROM     |    (m)    
==========================================================================================
139844  |  19 | 02/23/16 | 16:34 | 59 29.93 | 82 00.00  |   3.4   | Starboard | 5         
--------+-----+----------+-------+----------+-----------+---------+-----------+-----------
139849  |  22 | 02/24/16 | 04:50 | 58 14.23 | 82 00.35  |   1     | Starboard | 6         
--------+-----+----------+-------+----------+-----------+---------+-----------+-----------
139843  |  24 | 02/24/16 | 14:22 | 57 36.52 | 82 23.08  |   6.4   | Starboard | 4.5       
--------+-----+----------+-------+----------+-----------+---------+-----------+-----------
139847  |  28 | 02/25/16 | 16:37 | 56 28.79 | 83 46.58  |   7.2   | Starboard | 4 to 4.5  
--------+-----+----------+-------+----------+-----------+---------+-----------+-----------
139845  |  31 | 02/26/16 | 12:56 | 55 11.52 | 85 11.57  |   7.2   | Starboard | 7         
--------+-----+----------+-------+----------+-----------+---------+-----------+-----------
132656  |  33 | 02/27/16 | 01:27 | 54 21.78 | 86 8.58   |   10    | Starboard | 8         
--------+-----+----------+-------+----------+-----------+---------+-----------+-----------
115013  |  35 | 02/28/16 | 00:55 | 53 31.51 | 87 1.37   |   2     | Port      | 8         
--------+-----+----------+-------+----------+-----------+---------+-----------+-----------
114800  |  38 | 02/29/16 | 04:49 | 52 01.77 | 88 25.52  |   4.7   | Port      | 6         
--------+-----+----------+-------+----------+-----------+---------+-----------+-----------
115016  |  39 | 02/29/16 | 16:08 | 51 32.10 | 88 53.09  |   2     | Starboard | 4.5       
--------+-----+----------+-------+----------+-----------+---------+-----------+-----------
115017  |  40 | 02/29/16 | 22.55 | 51 1.91  | 89 21.23  |   9.6   | Port      | 5 to 6    
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Height above mean sea level was estimated as: 3 meter freeboard + 1 meter rail + estimated wave height.


ABBREVIATIONS

AOML       Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory
AP         Particulate Absorbtion Spectra
CDOM       Chromophoric Dissolved Organic Matter
CFCs       Chloroﬂuorocarbons
CTDO       Conductivity Temperature Depth Oxygen
DIC        Dissolved Inorganic Carbon
DOC        Dissolved Organic Carbon
ETHZ       Edgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
HPLC       High-Performance Liquid Chromatography
LDEO       Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory - Columbia University 
LADCP      Lowered Accoustic Doppler Proﬁler
NOAA       National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration 
MBARI      Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
ODF        Ocean Data Facility
OSU        Oregon State University
PMEL       Paciﬁc Marine Environmental Laboratory
POC        Particulate Organic Carbon
Princeton  Princeton University
RSMAS      Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science - UM 
SF6        Sulfur Hexaﬂuoride
SIO        Scripps Institution of Oceanography
SOCCOM     The Southern Ocean Carbon and Climate Observations and Modeling project
           http://soccom.princeton.edu/
STS        Shipboard Technical Support - SIO
TAMU       Texas Agricultural and Mechanical Engineering University 
TDN        Total Dissolved Nitorgen
U Colorado University of Colorado
UCSB       University of California Santa Barbara
UCSD       University of California San Diego 
UH         University of Hawaii
UM         University of Miami
UNSW       University of New South Wales
UW         University of Washington
UWA        University of Western Australia
VUB        Vrije Universiteit Brüssel
WHOI       Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution



BIBLIOGRAPHY



[Armstrong1967] 
    Armstrong, F.A.J., Stearns, C.A., and Strickland, J.D.H., “The measurement of 
    upwelling and subsequent biological processes by means of the Technicon 
    Autoanalyzer and associated equipment,” Deep-Sea Re-search, 14, pp.381-389 
    (1967).

[Atlas1971] 
    Atlas, E.L., Hager, S.W., Gordon, L.I., and Park, P.K., “A Practical Manual for 
    Use of the Technicon AutoAnalyzer in Seawater Nutrient Analyses Revised,” 
    Technical Report 215, Reference 71-22, p.49, Oregon State University, 
    Department of Oceanography (1971).

[Aoyama2006] 
    Aoyama, M., 2006: 2003 Intercomparison Exercise for Reference Material for 
    Nutrients in Seawater in a Seawater Matrix, Technical Reports of the 
    Meteorological Research Institute No.50, 91pp, Tsukuba, Japan.

[Aoyama2007] 
    Aoyama, M., Susan B., Minhan, D., Hideshi, D., Louis, I. G., Kasai, H., Roger, 
    K., Nurit, K., Doug, M., Murata, A., Nagai, N., Ogawa, H., Ota, H., Saito, H., 
    Saito, K., Shimizu, T., Takano, H., Tsuda, A., Yokouchi, K., and Agnes, Y. 
    2007. Recent Comparability of Oceanographic Nutrients Data: Results of a 2003 
    Intercomparison Exercise Using Reference Materials. Analytical Sciences, 23: 
    1151-1154.

[Aoyama2008] 
    Aoyama M., J. Barwell-Clarke, S. Becker, M. Blum, Braga E. S., S. C. Coverly,E. 
    Czobik, I. Dahllof, M. H. Dai, G. O. Donnell, C. Engelke, G. C. Gong, Gi-Hoon 
    Hong, D. J. Hydes, M. M. Jin, H. Kasai, R. Kerouel, Y. Kiyomono, M. Knockaert, 
    N. Kress, K. A. Krogslund, M. Kumagai, S. Leterme, Yarong Li, S. Masuda, T. 
    Miyao, T. Moutin, A. Murata, N. Nagai, G.Nausch, M. K. Ngirchechol, A. Nybakk, 
    H. Ogawa, J. van Ooijen, H. Ota, J. M. Pan, C. Payne, O. Pierre-Duplessix, M. 
    Pujo-Pay, T. Raabe, K. Saito, K. Sato, C. Schmidt, M. Schuett, T. M. Shammon, 
    J. Sun, T. Tanhua, L. White, E.M.S. Woodward, P. Worsfold, P. Yeats, T. 
    Yoshimura, A.Youenou, J. Z. Zhang, 2008: 2006 Intercomparison Exercise for 
    Reference Material for Nutrients in Seawater in a Seawater Matrix, Technical 
    Reports of the Meteorological Research Institute No. 58, 104pp.

[Bernhardt1967] 
    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).

[Carter2013] 
    Carter, B.R., Radich, J.A., Doyle, H.L., and Dickson, A.G., “An Automated 
    Spectrometric System for Discrete and Underway Seawater pH Measurements,” 
    Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 2013.

[Dickson2007] 
    Dickson, A.G., Sabine, C.L. and Christian, J.R. (Eds.), (2007): Guide to Best 
    Practices for Ocean CO2 Measurements. PICES Special Publication 3, 191 pp.

[DOE1994] 
    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. Ed. A. G. Dickson and C. Goyet. Carbon Dioxide Information 
    Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.

[Feely1998] 
    Feely, R.A., R. Wanninkhof, H.B. Milburn, C.E. Cosca, M. Stapp, and P.P. Murphy 
    (1998): “A new automated underway system for making high precision pCO2 
    measurements aboard research ships.” Anal. Chim. Acta, 377, 185-191.

[Gordon1992] 
    Gordon, L.I., Jennings, J.C., Ross, A.A., 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).

[Hager1972] 
    Hager, S.W., Atlas, E.L., Gordon L.I., 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).

[Hydes2010] 
    Hydes, D.J., Aoyama, M., Aminot, A., Bakker, K., Becker, S., Coverly, S., 
    Daniel, A.,Dickson, A.G., Grosso, O., Kerouel, R., Ooijen, J. van, Sato, K., 
    Tanhua, T., Woodward, E.M.S., Zhang, J.Z., 2010. Determination of Dissolved 
    Nutrients (N, P, Si) in Seawater with High Precision and Inter-Comparability 
    Using Gas-Segmented Continuous Flow Analysers, In: GO-SHIP Repeat Hydrography 
    Manual: A Collection of Expert Reports and Guidelines. IOCCP Report No. 14, 
    ICPO Publication Series No 134.

[Johnson1985] 
    Johnson, K.M., A.E. King, and J. McN. Sieburth (1985): “Coulometric DIC 
    analyses for marine studies: An introduction.” Mar. Chem., 16, 61-82.

[Johnson1987] 
    Johnson, K.M., P.J. Williams, L. Brandstrom, and J. McN. Sieburth (1987): 
    “Coulometric total carbon analysis for marine studies: Automation and 
    calibration.” Mar. Chem., 21, 117-133.

[Johnson1992] 
    Johnson, K.M. (1992): Operator’s manual: “Single operator multiparameter 
    metabolic analyzer (SOMMA) for total carbon dioxide (CT) with coulometric 
    detection.” Brookhaven National Laboratory, Brookhaven, N.Y., 70 pp.

[Johnson1993] 
    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 continuous gas extraction system and coulometric 
    detector.” Mar. Chem., 44, 167-189.

[Johnson1999] 
    Johnson, K.M., Körtzinger, A.; Mintrop, L.; Duinker, J.C.; and Wallace, D.W.R. 
    (1999). Coulometric total carbon dioxide analysis for marine studies: 
    Measurement and internal consistency of underway surface TCO2 concentrations. 
    Marine Chemistry 67:123–44.

[Kerouel1997] 
    Kerouel, R., Aminot, A., “Fluorometric determination of ammonia in sea and 
    estuarine waters by direct segmented ﬂow analysis.” Marine Chemistry, vol 57, 
    no. 3-4, pp. 265-275, July 1997.

[Lewis1998] 
    Lewis, E. and D. W. R. Wallace (1998) Program developed for CO2 system 
    calculations. Oak Ridge, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/co2rprt.html

[Liu2011] 
    Liu, X., Patsavas, M.C., Byrne R.H., “Puriﬁcation and Characterization of meta 
    Cresol Purple for Spectrophotometric Seawater pH Measurements,” Environmental 
    Science and Technology, 2011.

[Lueker2000] 
    Lueker, T.J., Dickson, A.G., Keeling, C.D. “Ocean pCO2 calculated from 
    dissolved inorganic carbon, alkalinity, and equations for K1 and K2: validation 
    based on laboratory measurements of CO2 in gas and seawater at equilibrium,” 
    Marine Chemistry, 2000.

[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. 
    Tech. Soc., La Jolla, Ca. (1982).

[Mueller2003] 
    Mueller, J.L., G.S Fargion, and C.R. McClain (eds), 2003. Ocean Optics 
    Protocols For Satellite Ocean Color Sensor Validation, Revision 4. 
    

[Nelson1998] 
    Nelson, N.B., D.A. Siegel, and A.F. Michaels, 1998. Seasonal dynamics of 
    colored dissolved organic matter in the Sargasso Sea. Deep-Sea Res. 45, 931-
    957.

[Nelson2007] 
    Nelson, N.B., D.A. Siegel, C.A. Carlson, C. Swan, W.M. Smethie, Jr., and S. 
    Khatiwala,. 2007. Hydrography of chromophoric dissolved organic matter in the 
    North Atlantic. Deep-Sea Res. 54, 710-731.

[Nelson2009] 
    Nelson, N.B., and P.G. Coble, 2009. Optical analysis of chromophoric dissolved 
    organic matter. In: Practical Guidelines for the Analysis of Seawater, Wurl. O. 
    (ed). San Diego: CRC Press.

[Nelson2016] 
    Nelson, N.B., and J.M. Gauglitz, 2016. Optical signatures of dissolved organic 
    matter transformation in the global ocean. Front. Mar. Sci. 2:118. doi: 
    10.3389/fmars.2015.00118.

[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).

[Patsavas2013] 
    Patsavas, M.C., Byrne, R.H., and Liu X. “Puriﬁcation of meta-cresol purple and 
    cresol red by ﬂash chromatography: Procedures for ensuring accurate 
    spectrophotometric seawater pH measurements,” Ma-rine Chemistry, 2013.

[Pierrot2009] 
    Pierrot, D.; Neill, C.; Sullivan, K.; Castle, R.; Wanninkhof, R.; Luger, H.; 
    Johannessen, T.; Olsen, A.; Feely, R.A.; and Cosca, C.E. (2009). 
    Recommendations for autonomous underway pCO2 measuring systems and data-
    reduction routines. Deep-Sea Res., II, v. 56, pp. 512-522.

[Sato2010] 
    Sato, K., Aoyama, M., Becker, S., 2010. RMNS as Calibration Standard Solution 
    to Keep Comparability for Several Cruises in the World Ocean in 2000s. In: 
    Aoyama, M., Dickson, A.G., Hydes, D.J., Murata, A., Oh, J.R., Roose, P., 
    Woodward, E.M.S., (Eds.), Comparability of nutrients in the world’s ocean. 
    Tsukuba, JAPAN: MOTHER TANK, pp 43-56.

[Slade2010] 
    Slade, W.H., E. Boss, G. Dall’Omo, M.R. Langner, J. Loftin, M.J. Behrenfeld, C. 
    Roesler, and T.K. Westberry, 2010. Underway and Moored Methods for Improving 
    Accuracy in Measurement of Spectral Particulate Absorption and Attenuation. J. 
    Atmos. Ocean. Tech. 27: 1733-1746.

[UNESCO1981] 
    UNESCO 1981. Background papers and supporting data on the Practical Salinity 
    Scale, 1978. UNESCO Technical Papers in Marine Science, No. 37 144.

[Wanninkhof1993] 
    Wanninkhof, R., and Thoning, K. (1993). Measurement of fugacity of CO2 in 
    surface water using continuous and discrete sampling methods. Mar. Chem., v. 
    44, no. 2-4, pp. 189-205.

[Wilke1993] 
    Wilke, R.J., D.W.R. Wallace, and K.M. Johnson (1993): “Water-based gravimetric 
    method for the determination of gas loop volume.” Anal. Chem. 65, 2403-2406




BOTTLE QUALITY COMMENTS


Table B.1: Carbon, Oxygen, and Nutrient Quality Comments

Stn  Cast  Btl   Param  Code  Comment
  2    3    6    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
  2    3   10    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
  2    3   11    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
  3    1    2    PH_TMP   3   High baseline absorbance (Ao=-0.009)
  3    1    2    PH_TOT   3   High baseline absorbance (Ao=-0.009)
  3    1   14    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
  3    1   24    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
  3    1   26    PH_TMP   3   Difference between replicates was 0.0013
  3    1   26    PH_TOT   3   Difference between replicates was 0.0013
  5    1   17    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
  5    1   33    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
  6    1    1    PH_TMP   3   High baseline absorbance (Ao=0.009)
  6    1    1    PH_TOT   3   High baseline absorbance (Ao=0.009)
  6    1   17    ALKALI   3   Operator thinks the sampling pipette might     not
                              have been properly filled.
  6    1   27    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
  6    1   28    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
  6    1   32    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value is a little high compared with profile.
                              No feature to support the divation on this trace. Code 
                              questionable.
  7    2   12    ALKALI   3   No issues found with analyses but values for 12-15
                              jump back and forth. Irregular pattern. Sampled 
                              incorrectly?   
  7    2   13    ALKALI   3   No issues found with analyses but values for 12-15
                              jump back and forth. Irregular pattern. Sampled 
                              incorrectly?   
  7    2   14    ALKALI   3   No issues found with analyses but values for 12-15
                              jump back and forth. Irregular pattern. Sampled 
                              incorrectly?   
  7    2   15    ALKALI   3   No issues found with analyses but values for 12-15
                              jump back and forth. Irregular pattern. Sampled 
                              incorrectly?   
  7    2   21    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
  7    2   24    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
  7    2   25    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
  7    2   26    ALKALI   2   Values for 26 and 27 appear to be switched.  Will
                              tell samplers to double check bottle and niskin 
                              numbers when sampling.
  7    2   26    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
  7    2   27    ALKALI   3   Values appears high
  7    2   31    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
  8    1   16    ALKALI   3   Value appears low
  8    1   18    ALKALI   2   Values for 16 and 18 appear to be switched.  Will
                              tell samplers to double check bottle and niskin  
                              numbers when sampling.
  8    1   22    OXYGEN   4   Bottle value does not match profile. Code bad.
  8    1   28    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
  8    1   30    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value between downcast and upcast.  Code
                              questionable.
  8    1   32    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
  8    1   33    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
  8    1   35    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value between downcast and upcast.  Code
                              questionable.
  9    1    9    ALKALI   3   Value appears a couple units low.
  9    1   11    ALKALI   3   Value appears a couple units low.
  9    1   14    ALKALI   3   Value appears a couple units low.
  9    1   20    ALKALI   3   Value appears a couple units high
  9    1   21    ALKALI   3   Value appears a couple units low.
  9    1   24    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
  9    1   27    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
  9    1   28    ALKALI   2   A litle unusual 28 is so close to 29.
  9    1   29    ALKALI   2   A litle unusual 28 is so close to 29.
  9    1   30    ALKALI   2   A little unusual that 30 is so close to 31. Don’t
                              think 31 could have been sampled three times though.   
  9    1   31    ALKALI   6   Duplicate average great.
  9    1   31    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
  9    1   34    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value is a little high compared with profile.
                              No feature to support the divation on this trace. Code 
                              questionable.
 10    1   23    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 10    1   26    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 10    1   27    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 10    1   31    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 10    1   34    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 12    1   25    PHSPHT   4   bad_peak
 13    1   22    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 13    1   22    PH_TMP   3   Baseline absorbance (Ao) = 0.03
 13    1   22    PH_TOT   3   Baseline absorbance (Ao) = 0.03
 14    3    1    PH_TMP   3   High baseline absorbance (Ao=0.01) due to bubble.
 14    3    1    PH_TOT   3   High baseline absorbance (Ao=0.01) due to  bubble.
 15    1   27    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value between downcast and upcast.  Code
                              questionable.
 15    1   28    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value between downcast and upcast.  Code
                              questionable.
 15    1   32    ALKALI   2   Second duplicate thrown out.
 16    1    7    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 16    1   21    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 18    1   17    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 21    1   20    ALKALI   5   Operator lost sample due to system error.
 23    2   21    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value is a little high compared with profile.
                              No feature to support the divation on this trace. 
                              Code questionable.
 24    1   22    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 24    1   25    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value is a little high compared with profile.
                              No feature to support the divation on this trace. 
                              Code questionable.
 25    1   26    OXYGEN   4   Bottle value does not match profile. Code bad.
 26    1   27    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 26    1   28    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 26    1   30    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 27    1   20    ALKALI   3   Could  be  a  couple  units  low?    Samples  were
                              dumped after being ran to keep up with incoming 
                              sampling. This sample could have been reran but 
                              the salinity values were not up to check the 
                              data after the initial run.
 27    1   22    ALKALI   3   Could  be  a  couple  units  low? Samples were
                              dumped after being ran to keep up with incoming 
                              sampling. This sample could have been reran but the   
                              salinity values were not up to check the data after   
                              the initial run.
 27    1   28    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 27    1   29    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 27    1   30    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 27    1   31    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. High gradient region. Code good.
 27    1   35    ALKALI   3   Value looks reasonable but electrode plot was off
                              and the sample should have been reran.
 27    1   36    OXYGEN   2   CTD O2 trace does not match bottle value,  CTD
                              value seems to be from pre-10m wait. Code good.
 28    1   18    PHSPHT   3   bad_peak
 28    1   24    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 28    1   26    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 28    1   29    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. High gradient region. Code good.
 29    1   25    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value is a little high compared with profile.
                              No feature to support the divation on this trace. 
                              Code questionable.
 29    1   28    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value is a little high compared with profile.
                              No feature to support the divation on this trace. 
                              Code questionable.
 30    1   20    NH4      2   all nutrients high_o2 low_good
 30    1   20    NITRAT   2   all nutrients high_o2 low_good
 30    1   20    NITRIT   2   all nutrients high_o2 low_good
 30    1   20    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value is a little high compared with profile.
                              No feature to support the divation on this trace. 
                              Code questionable.
 30    1   20    PHSPHT   2   all nutrients high_o2 low_good
 30    1   20    PH_TMP   3   Possible misfire? Value deviates from profile.
 30    1   20    PH_TOT   3   Possible misfire? Value deviates from profile.
 30    1   20    SILCAT   2   all nutrients high_o2 low_good
 30    1   28    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value is a little low compared with profile.
                              No feature to support the divation on this trace. 
                              Code questionable.
 30    1   29    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 30    1   31    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 30    1   32    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 31    3   25    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 31    3   26    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 32    1   21    ALKALI   3   mis-trip
 32    1   21    PH_TMP   4   Niskin misfire
 32    1   21    PH_TOT   4   Niskin misfire
 32    1   29    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 32    1   30    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 32    1   33    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 32    1   34    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value is a little low compared with profile.
                              No feature to support the divation on this trace. 
                              Code questionable.
 33    1   28    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 33    1   32    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 33    1   33    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value does not match downcast or  upcast.
                              High gradient region. Code questionable.
 34    1   21    ALKALI   3   mis-trip
 34    1   21    PH_TMP   4   Niskin misfire
 34    1   21    PH_TOT   4   Niskin misfire
 34    1   25    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value does not match downcast or  upcast.
                              High gradient region. Code questionable.
 34    1   27    ALKALI   3   mis-trip
 34    1   27    PH_TMP   4   Niskin misfire
 34    1   27    PH_TOT   4   Niskin misfire
 36    1   22    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value is a little high compared with profile.
                              Code questionable.
 36    1   24    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value is a little high compared with profile.
                              Code questionable.
 36    1   27    OXYGEN   4   Bottle value does not match profile. Code bad.
 36    1   29    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value between downcast and upcast.  Code
                              questionable.
 37    1    1    ALKALI   3   Value appears ~2 units high
 37    1   20    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value between downcast and upcast.  Code
                              questionable.
 38    1   23    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value between downcast and upcast.  Code
                              questionable.
 39    1    2    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 39    1   15    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 39    1   22    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 39    1   23    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 39    1   25    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 39    1   26    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 39    1   27    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 40    1   21    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 40    1   22    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 40    1   29    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value does not match downcast or  upcast.
                              High gradient region. Code questionable.
 40    1   30    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value does not match downcast or  upcast.
                              High gradient region. Code questionable.
 42    2   28    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 43    1    2    PH_TMP   3   Difference between duplicates was 0.0017.
 43    1    2    PH_TOT   3   Difference between duplicates was 0.0017.
 43    1   19    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 43    1   21    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 43    1   24    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 44    1   19    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 44    1   33    ALKALI   2   Seems a like it could be a little high but the rerun
                              was spot on.
 45    1   19    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 45    1   22    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 46    1   30    PH_TMP   3   Difference between replicates was 0.0010.
 46    1   30    PH_TOT   3   Difference between replicates was 0.0010.
 48    1   24    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 49    1   26    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 50    1   22    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 51    1   17    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 51    1   27    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 52    1   24    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value between downcast and upcast.  Code
                              questionable.
 52    1   26    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value between downcast and upcast.  Code
                              questionable.
 52    1   27    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value between downcast and upcast.  Code
                              questionable.
 53    1   26    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 53    1   27    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 54    1   23    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 54    1   31    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 55    1   17    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 55    1   34    OXYGEN   2   Trace does not match bottle value at surface/mixed
                              layer. Code good.
 56    1   23    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 57    1   24    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 59    1   28    PH_TMP   5   LabView  program crashed during  measurement.
                              Lost data.
 59    1   28    PH_TOT   5   LabView  program crashed during  measurement.
                              Lost data.
 61    1   27    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value between downcast and upcast.  Code
                              questionable.
 62    1   17    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 62    1   34    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 62    1   36    PH_TMP   3   Difference between replicates was 0.001.
 62    1   36    PH_TOT   3   Difference between replicates was 0.001.
 63    1   24    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 63    1   25    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 64    1   24    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value follows nutrient samples, CTD temp,
                              salinity data, o2 trace looks bad. Code good.
 64    1   25    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value follows nutrient samples, CTD temp,
                              salinity data, o2 trace looks bad. Code good.
 64    1   26    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value follows nutrient samples, CTD temp,
                              salinity data, o2 trace looks bad. Code good.
 64    1   36    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value follows nutrient samples, CTD temp,
                              salinity data, o2 trace looks bad. Code good.
 65    2    8    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 65    2   35    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 67    1   12    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 68    1    2    PH_TMP   3   A large bubble formed in the water bath tubing
                              and stopped circulation. Measurement tempera- 
                              ture is questionable.
 68    1    2    PH_TOT   3   A large bubble formed in the water bath tubing
                              and stopped circulation. Measurement tempera- 
                              ture is questionable.
 68    1   30    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 69    1   17    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 69    1   21    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 69    1   28    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 71    1   17    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 72    2   34    OXYGEN   4   Bottle value does not match profile.  O2  detector
                              problem while running analysis. Code bad.
 73    1   32    OXYGEN   4   Bottle value does not match profile. Code bad.
 74    1   24    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 75    1   20    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 75    1   24    PH_TMP   3   Difference between replicates was 0.001.
 75    1   24    PH_TOT   3   Difference between replicates was 0.001.
 76    2   29    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 76    2   30    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 76    2   32    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 76    2   33    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 78    1   15    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 79    1   21    OXYGEN   2   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 80    1    6    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value between downcast and upcast.  Code
                              questionable.
 80    1    7    OXYGEN   3   Bottle value does not match downcast, does match
                              upcast. Code good.
 82    1   26    PH_TMP   3   Difference between duplicates was 0.0013.
 82    1   26    PH_TOT   3   Difference between duplicates was 0.0013.
  
  
  
Table  B.2: Bottle, CTD, and Salinity Quality Comments
  

  Stn    Btl     Param    Code  Source  Comment
001/01   101  Bottle       3     cms    Leaking.
011/01   101  Ref T        3     cms    SBE35 value does not match profile or  
                                        adjacent casts. Code questionable.  
011/01   133  Ref T        3     cms    Unstable temperature in all 3 sensors. Code  
                                        questionable.  
011/01   133  CTD T1 Temp  3     cms    Unstable temperature in all 3 sensors. Code 
                                        questionable.  
011/01   133  CTD T2 Temp  3     cms    Unstable temperature in all 3 sensors. Code 
                                        questionable.  
011/01   134  Ref T        3     cms    Unstable temperature in all 3 sensors. Code 
                                        questionable.  
011/01   134  CTD T1 Temp  3     cms    Unstable temperature in all 3 sensors. Code 
                                        questionable.  
011/01   134  CTD T2 Temp  3     cms    Unstable temperature in all 3 sensors. Code 
                                        questionable.  
012/01   102  Salinity     4     cms    Salinity  value  high  vs  DCTC1/CTDC2  for 
                                        this part of profile. Value better matches 
                                        level 3. Pos- sible mis-sample. code bad.
012/01   128  CTD T2 Temp  4     cms    CTDT2 high vs CTDT1/SBE35. Code bad.
012/01   129  Salinity     2     cms    Salinity value high vs CTDC1/CTDC2. High 
                                        gradient. Matches upcast. Code good.
013/01   122  Salinity     2     cms    Salinity value high vs CTDC1/CTDC2. High 
                                        gradient. Matches upcast. Code good.
014/03   303  Bottle       3     slog   Bottle leaking. Bad.
014/03   305  Bottle       3     slog   Bottle slow flow. Possible blocked spigot.
014/03   306  Bottle       3     slog   Bottle leaking. Top air vent left open.
014/03   318  Bottle       3     slog   Bottle leaking. Bad.
014/03   331  Bottle       3     slog   Bottle leaking. Bad.
015/01   104  Bottle       2     slog   Grease on spigot.
015/01   105  Bottle       3     slog   Bottle slow flow. Possible blocked air vent.
015/01   118  Bottle       3     slog   Bottle leaking. Possible top end cap.    
                                        Replaced top end cap after cast.
016/01   108  Bottle       3     slog   Bottle leaking. Top o-ring not seated 
                                        correctly.
016/01   118  Bottle       3     slog   Bottle leaking. Replaced Bottletle after 
                                        cast.
016/01   122  Ref T        4     cms    SBE35 value high vs CTDT1/CTDT2.  High gra-
                                        dient. Sensor needed more time to 
                                        equilibrate. Code bad.
016/01   122  Salinity     2     cms    Salinity value high vs CTDC1/CTDC2. High 
                                        gradient. Matches upcast. Code good.
017/01   110  Bottle       3     slog   Leaking from Bottletom end cap.
017/01   122  Bottle       3     slog   Leaker
018/01   118  CTD T1 Temp  3     cms    CTDT1 low vs CTDC2/SBE35. Code questionable.
018/01   119  Salinity     2     cms    CTDT1 low vs CTDC2/SBE35. Salinity value 
                                        matches upcast.
018/01   122  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value anomalously high. Code bad.
019/02   221  Ref T        3     CMS    Unstable temperature in all 3 sensors. Code 
                                        questionable.
019/02   221  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    Unstable temperature in all 3 sensors. Code 
                                        questionable.
019/02   221  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    Unstable temperature in all 3 sensors. Code 
                                        questionable.
019/02   222  Ref T        3     CMS    Unstable temperature in all 3 sensors. Code 
                                        questionable.
019/02   222  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    Unstable temperature in all 3 sensors. Code 
                                        questionable.
019/02   222  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    Unstable temperature in all 3 sensors. Code 
                                        questionable.
002/03   321  Salinity     2     CMS    Salinity value low vs CTDC1/CTDC2.   Matches
                                        upcast data. Code good.
022/01   103  Bottle       3     slog   Bottle had slight leak before vent opened.
022/01   106  Bottle       2     slog   Lanyard broken then replaced after sampling.
023/02   222  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 value low vs CTDT1/CTDT2.  Sensor did
                                        not equilibrate.
023/02   222  Salinity     2     CMS    Salinity value low vs CTDC1/CTDC2.  High 
                                        gradient. Matches up-cast. Code good.
024/01   127  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 value low vs CTDT1/CTDT2. High gradi-
                                        ent. Sensor likely not equilibrated.
024/01   127-129  Bottle   2     slog   Nutrient  sampler  skipped  ahead  of  CFCS 
                                        sampling.
025/01   103  Bottle       3     slog   Bottle had slight leak before vent opened.
025/01   134  Bottle       2     slog   Bottle ran out of water prior to HPLC, 
                                        nutrient and Salinity sample draw.
026/01   113  Bottle       2     slog   13 has a lot of grease on the cap.
026/01   131  Bottle       2     slog   31 clip on lanyard does not close properly.
026/01   135  Salinity     2     CMS    Salinity value high vs CTDT1/CTDT2. High 
                                        gradient.Salinity matches up-cast. Code 
                                        good.
029/01   103  Bottle       3     slog   Leak.
030/01   103  Bottle       3     slog   Leaking. Vent not closed tight.
030/01   107  Bottle       2     slog   Bottle is loose.
030/01   125  Bottle       3     slog   Leaking. Vent not closed tight.
031/03   307  CTD T2 Temp  4     CMS    CTDT2  lower  vs  CTD1/SBE35.  Anomalous.
                                        Code bad
032/01   110  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value high vs CTDC1/CTDC2. Low gra-
                                        dient. Code bad.
032/01   115  Bottle       2     slog   Lanyard caught on 15 during recovery. Not 
                                        sure if opened.
032/01   121  Bottle       4     CMS    Mis-trip.
032/01   121  Salinity     3     CMS    Mis-trip.
032/01   129  CTD T1 Temp  4     CMS    CTDT1  lower  vs  CTD2/SBE35.  Anomalous.
                                        Code bad
033/01   101  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value does not match Bottletom of 
                                        profile. Value matches Bottle 35. May have 
                                        been mis- sampled.
033/01   102  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value does not match Bottletom of 
                                        profile. Code bad.
033/01   111  Ref T        4     CMS    Tripped on the fly due to weather. SBE35 did 
                                        not equilibrate.
033/01   116  Ref T        4     CMS    Tripped on the fly due to weather. SBE35 did 
                                        not equilibrate.
033/01   121  Bottle       4     CMS    Mis-trip
033/01   121  Salinity     3     CMS    Mis-trip
033/01   130-134  Ref T    4     CMS    Tripped on the fly due to weather. SBE35 
                                        did not equilibrate. 40 dbar change in 
                                        pressure depth of thermocline from beginning 
                                        of cast to end of cast.
034/01   103  Bottle       3     slog   Leaker. Vent was not closed.
034/01   117  Bottle       3     slog   Leaker. Vent was not closed.
034/01   125  Bottle       3     slog   Leaker. Vent was not closed.
034/01   131  Ref T        4     CMS    Tripped on the fly due to weather. SBE35 did 
                                        not equilibrate.
034/01   121  Bottle       4     CMS    Mis-trip
034/01   121  Salinity     3     CMS    Mis-trip
034/01   127  Bottle       4     CMS    Mis-trip
034/01   127  Salinity     3     CMS    Mis-trip
035/01   108  Ref T        4     CMS    Tripped on the fly due to weather. SBE35 did 
                                        not equilibrate.
035/01   123  CTD T1 Temp  4     CMS    CTDT1 high vs CTDT2/SBE35. Code bad.
035/01   124-125  Ref T    4     CMS    Tripped on the fly due to weather. SBE35 did 
                                        not equilibrate.
035/01   128  CTD T2 Temp  4     CMS    CTDT2 high vs CTDT1/SBE35. Code bad.
035/01   133  CTD T1 Temp  4     CMS    CTDT1 low vs CTDT2/SBE35. Code bad.
035/01   130-131  Ref T    4     CMS    Tripped on the fly due to weather. SBE35 did 
                                        not equilibrate.
036/01   126  Ref T        4     CMS    Tripped on the fly due to weather. SBE35 did 
                                        not equilibrate.
036/01   128  Ref T        4     CMS    Tripped on the fly due to weather. SBE35 did 
                                        not equilibrate.
036/01   130  Ref T        4     CMS    Tripped on the fly due to weather. SBE35 did 
                                        not equilibrate.
036/01   131  CTD T1 Temp  4     CMS    CTDT1 low vs CTDT2/SBE35. Code bad.
037/01   104  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 value does not fit profile. Bottle 
                                        tripped on the fly. Sensor did not 
                                        equilibrate. Code bad.
037/01   123  CTD T1 Temp  4     CMS    CTDT1 high vs CTDT2/SBE35. Code bad.
037/01   124  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 value does not fit profile. Bottle 
                                        tripped on the fly in high gradient. Sensor 
                                        did not equilibrate. Code bad.
038/01   103  Bottle       3     CMS    Leaker.
038/01   103  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity     value  high  vs  CTDC1/CTDC2  
                                        for this depth. Code bad.
038/01   132  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value high vs SBE35/CTDT1. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
039/01   134  Bottle       3     slog   Almost all water lost on btl 34. O-ring not 
                                        seated correctly. Enough water was left to 
                                        collect nutrients.
039/01   103  Bottle       3     slog   Leaker. Air vent not seated correctly.
004/01   130  Salinity     2     CMS    Salinity value high vs CTDC1/CTDC2.  Matches
                                        upcast data. Code good.
004/01   129  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value high vs CTDC1/CTDC2.
040/01   107  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value does not match this part of 
                                        the profile. Possibly mis-sampled or run out 
                                        of order.
040/01   112  Bottle       2     slog   Lanyard snapped on recovery.
040/01   112  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value does not match this part of 
                                        the profile. Possibly mis-sampled or run out 
                                        of order.
040/01   136  Bottle       2     slog   Bottle might have been fired out of the 
                                        water due to winch display problems.
041/02   211  Bottle       3     slog   Leaking. Vent was not closed tightly.
041/02   227  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 low  vs CTDT1/CTDT2.   Sensor  did not
                                        equilibrate. Code bad.
041/02   231  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 low  vs CTDT1/CTDT2.   Sensor  did not
                                        equilibrate. Code bad.
042/02   211  Bottle       3     slog   Leaking. Top vent was cracked replaced after 
                                        cast.
042/02   219  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 value low vs CTDT1/CTDT2.  Some in-
                                        terleaving. Sensor likely not equilibrated. 
                                        Code bad.
042/02   223  Ref T        3     CMS    Unstable temperatures in all three sensors.   
                                        Code questionable.
042/02   223  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    Unstable temperatures in all three sensors.   
                                        Code questionable.
042/02   223  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    Unstable temperatures in all three sensors.   
                                        Code questionable.
043/01   105  Bottle       3     slog   Leaking  from  Bottletom  end  cap.   
                                        Lanyard adjusted after sampling.
043/01   107  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value low vs SBE35/CTDT1. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
043/01   130  Ref T        3     CMS    Unstable temperature values in all three  
                                        sensors. Code questionable.
043/01   130  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    Unstable temperature values in all three  
                                        sensors. Code questionable.
043/01   130  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    Unstable temperature values in all three  
                                        sensors. Code questionable.
044/01   117  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT1 reads low vs SBE35/CTDT2.    Variation
                                        around feature. code questionable.
044/01   131  Salinity     4     cms    Bottle value is too high vs CTDC1/CTDC2. Value
                                        better matches sample at level ~127 dbar. 
                                        This salinity sample appears to have been 
                                        sampled from Bottletle number 30.
045/01   130  Salinity     5     CMS    Bottle was skipped during sampling. Not re-
                                        ported.
045/01   117  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT1 reads low vs SBE35/CTDT2. Variation
                                        around feature. code questionable.
046/01   104  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 value high vs CTDT1/CTDT2 for this 
                                        part of profile. Low gradient. Wait time 
                                        probably not observed for sensor to 
                                        equilibrate. Code bad.
046/01   108  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value high for this part if 
                                        profile. Matches trip level 7. Possible mis-
                                        sample. Code bad.
047/01   106  Salinity     4     CMS    Sample value does not match this part of  
                                        profile. Appears to have been mis-sampled or 
                                        run out of order.
047/01   115  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value high vs CTDT1/CTDT2. Code bad.
047/01   122  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value low vs CTDT1/SBE35. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
047/01   124  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value low vs CTDT1/SBE35. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
047/01   132  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value low vs CTDT1/SBE35. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
047/01   134  Bottle       3     CMS    Broken o-ring. No water coming out of 
                                        petcock.
048/01   102-123  Salinity 4     CMS    Unstable lab temperatures.
048/01   132  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 low vs SBE35/CTDT1. Code questionable.
048/01   134  Bottle       4     CMS    Bottle did not fire.
049/01   101-129  Salinity 4     CMS    Unstable lab temperatures.
049/01   121  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 low vs CTDT1/CTDT2. Code bad.
049/01   125  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT1 low vs SBE35/CTDT2. Code questionable.
049/01   126  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 high vs CTDT1/CTDT2. High gradient,
                                        sensor not equilibrated. Code bad.
049/01   127  CTD T1 Temp  4     CMS    CTDT1 low vs SBE35/CTDT2. Code questionable.
005/01   119  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 value high vs CTDT1/CTDT2.  Some in-
                                        terleaving. Sensor likely not equilibrated. 
                                        Code bad.
005/01   133  Salinity     2     CMS    Salinity value low vs CTDC1/CTDC2.   Matches
                                        up cast. Code good.
050/01   133  CTD T2 Temp  4     CMS    CTDT2 high vs SBE35/CTDT1. Code bad.
050/01   135  CTD T2 Temp  4     CMS    CTDT2 low vs SBE35/CTDT1. Code bad.
050/01   115  CTD T1 Temp  4     CMS    CTDT1 low vs SBE35/CTDT2. Code bad.
051/01   104  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT1 high vs CTDT2/SBE35. Code bad.
051/01   133  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 high vs CTDT1/SBE35. Code questionable.
052/01   119  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 low vs SBE35/CTDT1. Code questionable.
052/01   118  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value does not match this part of 
                                        profile. Value better matches btl 19. 
                                        Possibly mis- sampled.
053/01   129  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 low vs SBE35/CTDT1. Code questionable.
053/01   130  Ref T        3     CMS    Unstable temperatures in all 3 sensors. Code 
                                        questionable.
053/01   130  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    Unstable temperatures in all 3 sensors. Code 
                                        questionable.
053/01   130  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    Unstable temperatures in all 3 sensors. Code 
                                        questionable.
054/01   103  Bottle       3     slog   Leaking. Vent not tight.
054/01   115  Bottle       4     CMS    Bottle mis-trip.
054/01   115  Salinity     3     CMS    Bottle mis-trip.
054/01   129  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 low vs SBE35/CTDT1. Code questionable.
054/01   130  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 low vs SBE35/CTDT1. Code questionable.
055/01   131  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 value low vs CTDT1/CTDT2. High gradi-
                                        ent, sensor not equilibrated. Code bad.
056/01   112  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 value low vs CTDT1/CTDT2.  Slight gra-
                                        dient and feature. Sensor likely not 
                                        equilibrated. Code questionable.
056/01   131  Ref T        3     CMS    Unstable temperatures in all three sensors.   
                                        High gradient. Code questionable.
056/01   131  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    Unstable temperatures in all three sensors.   
                                        High gradient. Code questionable.
056/01   131  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    Unstable temperatures in all three sensors.   
                                        High gradient. Code questionable.
057/01   103  Bottle       3     slog   Leaking. Top vent not tight enough.
057/01   111  Salinity     4     CMS    Bottle value does not match this part of 
                                        cast. Value resembles level 13. Probably 
                                        mis-sampled.
057/01   116  CTD T2 Temp  4     CMS    CTDT2 value high vs CTDT1/SBE35.  Code un-
                                        usable.
057/01   119  CTD T2 Temp  4     CMS    CTDT2 value high vs CTDT1/SBE35.  Code un-
                                        usable.
057/01   132  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 value low vs CTDT1/CTDT2. High gradi-
                                        ent. Sensor not equilibrated. Code unusable.
058/01   117  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value low vs SBE35/CTDT1.  Some gra-
                                        dient. Code questionable.
058/01   119  Ref T        3     CMS    Unstable temperatures in all three sensors.   
                                        High gradient. Code questionable.
058/01   119  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    Unstable temperatures in all three sensors.   
                                        High gradient. Code questionable.
058/01   119  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    Unstable temperatures in all three sensors.   
                                        High gradient. Code questionable.
059/01   115  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 high vs CTDT1/CTDT2.  Some  gradient.
                                        Sensor likely did not equilibrate. Code bad.
059/01   118  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 high vs CTDT1/CTDT2.   High  gradient.
                                        Sensor did not equilibrate. Code bad.
006/01   115  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT1 reads low vs SBE35/CTDT2.    Variation
                                        around slight feature. code questionable.
006/01   135  Bottle       3     CMS    Leaking due to chipod cable. Cable moved.
060/01   106  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value low vs SBE35/CTDT1. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
060/01   114  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value high vs SBE35/CTDT1. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
060/01   120  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT1 high vs SBE35/CTDT2.   High  gradient.
                                        Code unusable.
060/01   121  Ref T        3     CMS    SBE35 did not equilibrate. Code questionable.
060/01   121  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value
060/01   133  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 high vs SBE35/CTDT1.   High  gradient.
                                        Code unusable.
061/01   119  Ref T        4     CMS    High gradient.  SBE35 did not equilibrate.   
                                        Code unusable.
061/01   122  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 high vs SBE35/CTDT1.   High  gradient.
                                        Code unusable.
061/01   133  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT1 high vs SBE35/CTDT2.   High  gradient.
                                        Code unusable.
062/01   118  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT1 low vs SBE35/CTDT2.   High   gradient.
                                        Code questionable.
062/01   119  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 high vs SBE35/CTDT1.   High  gradient.
                                        Code questionable.
062/01   120  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT1 low vs SBE35/CTDT2.   High   gradient.
                                        Code questionable.
062/01   132  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 high vs SBE35/CTDT1.   High  gradient.
                                        Code questionable.
062/01   133  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 low vs SBE35/CTDT1.   High   gradient.
                                        Code questionable.
062/01   134  Ref T        3     CMS    High gradient.  Unstable temperatures in all 
                                        three sensors. Code unusable.
062/01   134  Ref T        3     CMS    High gradient.  Unstable temperatures in all 
                                        three sensors. Code unusable.
062/01   134  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    High gradient.  Unstable temperatures in all 
                                        three sensors. Code unusable.
062/01   134  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    High gradient.  Unstable temperatures in all 
                                        three sensors. Code unusable.
063/01   117  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value high vs SBE35/CTDT1.  Gradient.
                                        Code questionable.
063/01   118  CTD T1 Temp  4     CMS    CTDT1 low vs SBE35/CTDT2.  Gradient.   Code
                                        unusable.
063/01   120  CTD T2 Temp  4     CMS    CTDT2 low vs SBE35/CTDT1.  Gradient.   Code
                                        unusable.
063/01   134  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 high vs SBE35/CTDT1.   High  gradient.
                                        Code questionable.
064/01   133  Ref T        3     CMS    High gradient.  Unstable temperatures in all 
                                        three sensors. Code questionable.
064/01   133  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    High gradient.  Unstable temperatures in all 
                                        three sensors. Code questionable.
064/01   133  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    High gradient.  Unstable temperatures in all 
                                        three sensors. Code questionable.
065/02   215  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value high vs CTDT1/SBE35. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
065/02   216  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value high vs CTDT1/SBE35. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
065/02   218  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 high vs CTDT1/CTDT2.   High  gradient.
                                        Sensor did not equilibrate. Code bad.
065/02   231  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value high vs CTDT1/SBE35.  Code un-
                                        usable.
065/02   234  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 value high vs CTDT1/CTDT2.  High gra-
                                        dient, sensor did not equilibrate. Code 
                                        unusable.
066/01   121  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value low vs SBE35/CTDT1. High gradi-
                                        ent. Code questionable.
067/01   133  CTD T2 Temp  4     CMS    CTDT2 value high vs SBE35/CTDT1.  Code un-
                                        usable.
067/01   135  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT1 value high vs SBE35/CTDT2. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
068/01   115  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value high vs SBE35/CTDT1. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
068/01   118  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value high vs SBE35/CTDT1. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
068/01   130  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT1 value high vs SBE35/CTDT2. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
068/01   132  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value high vs SBE35/CTDT1. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
068/01   134  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value high vs SBE35/CTDT1. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
068/01   134  ctdc1        3     CMS    CTDC1 value high vs SALT/CTDC2. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
068/01   134  ctdc2        3     CMS    CTDC2 value high vs SALT/CTDC1. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
069/01   117  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value low vs CTDC1/CTDC2. Value 
                                        batter matches trip level 19. Likely mis-
                                        sampled. Code bad.
069/01   136  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT1 value high vs SBE35/CTDT2. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
007/02   206  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value low vs CTDC1/CTDC2 and  
                                        better matches trip level 8. Possibly mis-
                                        sampled. Code bad.
007/02   228  Bottle       3     CMS    Small leak.
007/02   228  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity     value  high vs CTDC1/CTDC2.  
                                        Leak noted on Bottle. Code bad.
007/02   235  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity     value  low  vs  CTDC1/CTDC2. 
                                        Surface value. Code bad.
070/01   108  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 high vs CTDT1/CTDT2. Sensor likely not
                                        equilibrated. Code unusable.
070/01   133  Ref T        3     CMS    High gradient.  Unstable temperatures in all 
                                        three sensors. Code questionable.
070/01   133  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    High gradient.  Unstable temperatures in all 
                                        three sensors. Code questionable.
070/01   133  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    High gradient.  Unstable temperatures in all 
                                        three sensors. Code questionable.
070/01   134  Salinity     2     CMS    Salinity     value  high  vs  CTDC1/CTDC2.   
                                        Value matches up-cast not down-cast. Code 
                                        good.
071/01   121  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 value high vs CTDT1/CTDT2.  Gradient;
                                        sensor likely not equilibrated. Code 
                                        unusable.
071/01   131  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value high vs SBE35/CTDT2. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
071/01   133  Ref T        3     CMS    High gradient.  Unstable temperatures in all 
                                        three sensors. Code questionable.
071/01   133  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    High gradient.  Unstable temperatures in all 
                                        three sensors. Code questionable.
071/01   133  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    High gradient.  Unstable temperatures in all 
                                        three sensors. Code questionable.
071/01   134  Ref T        3     CMS    High gradient.  Unstable temperatures in all 
                                        three sensors. Code questionable.
071/01   134  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    High gradient.  Unstable temperatures in all 
                                        three sensors. Code questionable.
071/01   134  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    High gradient.  Unstable temperatures in all 
                                        three sensors. Code questionable.
071/01   136  Salinity     2     CMS    Salinity     value  high  vs  CTDC1/CTDC2.   
                                        Value matches up-cast not down-cast. Code 
                                        good.
072/02   201  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value high vs CTDC1/CTDC2. Value 
                                        better matches trip level 3. Possibly mis-
                                        sampled. Code bad.
072/02   219  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 value high vs CTDT1/CTDT2.  Gradient;
                                        sensor likely not equilibrated. Code 
                                        unusable.
072/02   234  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value high vs SBE35/CTDT1. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
073/01   105  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value low vs CTDC1/CTDC2. Code bad.
073/01   106  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value high vs SBE35/CTDT1. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
073/01   117  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT1 value high vs SBE35/CTDT2.  Code un-
                                        usable.
074/01   101  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value high vs CTDC1/CTDC2 and    
                                        low for Bottom part of profile. AutoSal cell 
                                        likely not flushed well for first initial 
                                        sample. Code bad.
075/01   136  Ref T        5     CMS    Not reported. Data over written.
076/02   201-236  Ref T    5     CMS    Not reported. Data over written.
077/01   101-132  Ref T    5     CMS    Not reported. Data over written.
078/01   101-121  Ref T    5     CMS    Not reported. Data over written.
079/01   103  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value low vs CTDC1/CTDC2 and low 
                                        for Bottom part of profile. Code bad.
079/01   105  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value low vs CTDC1/CTDC2 and low 
                                        for Bottom part of profile. Code bad.
079/01   110  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 value high vs CTDT1/CTDT2. Sensor not
                                        equilibrated. Code bad.
079/01   121  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35 value high vs CTDT1/CTDT2. Sensor not
                                        equilibrated. Code bad.
008/01   103  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value low cs CTDC1/CTDC2 and  
                                        better matches trip level 1. Possibly mis-
                                        sampled. Code bad.
008/01   104  Salinity     3     CMS    Salinity value  low  vs  CTDC1/CTDC2.  Code
                                        questionable.
008/01   109  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value low vs CTDC1/CTDC2 and  
                                        better matches trip level 8. Possibly mis-
                                        sampled. Code bad.
008/01   110  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value low vs CTDC1/CTDC2 and  
                                        better matches trip level 9. Possibly mis-
                                        sampled. Code bad.
008/01   133  Ref T        3     CMS    High gradient. Sensor not equilibrated. Code 
                                        bad.
008/01   133  Salinity     2     CMS    Salinity high vs CTDC1/CTDC2.  High 
                                        gradient. Matches up-cast feature. Code 
                                        good.
080/01   110  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35  value  high  vs  CTDT1/CTDT2.  Sensor
                                        likely not equilibrated. Code bad.
080/01   116  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT1 value high vs SBE35/CTDT2. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
081/02   201  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value high CTDC1/CTDC2 at Bottom
                                        of water column. Code bad.
081/02   205  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT2 value high vs CTDT1/SBE35. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
081/02   218  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35  value  high  vs  CTDT1/CTDT2.  Sensor
                                        likely not equilibrated. Code bad.
082/01   118  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35  value  high  vs  CTDT1/CTDT2.  Sensor
                                        likely not equilibrated. Code bad.
082/01   126  Ref T        3     CMS    High gradient.  Unstable temperatures in all 
                                        three sensors. Code unusable.
082/01   126  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    High gradient.  Unstable temperatures in all 
                                        three sensors. Code unusable.
082/01   126  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    High gradient.  Unstable temperatures in all 
                                        three sensors. Code unusable.
083/01   114  Salinity     4     CMS    Salinity value high vs CTDC1/CTDC2. Code 
                                        bad.
083/01   118  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT1 value high vs SBE35/CTDT2. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
083/01   131  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    CTDT1 value low vs SBE35/CTDT2. Code ques-
                                        tionable.
083/01   132  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35  value  high  vs  CTDT1/CTDT2.  Sensor
                                        likely not equilibrated. Code bad.
083/01   133  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35  value  low vs CTDT1/CTDT2.  Sensor
                                        likely not equilibrated. Code bad.
083/01   134  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35  value  low vs CTDT1/CTDT2.  Sensor
                                        likely not equilibrated. Code bad.
083/01   135  Ref T        4     CMS    SBE35  value  low vs CTDT1/CTDT2.  Sensor
                                        likely not equilibrated. Code bad.
009/01   135  Ref T        3     CMS    Unstable temperature in all 3 sensors. Code 
                                        questionable.
009/01   135  CTD T1 Temp  3     CMS    Unstable temperature in all 3 sensors. Code 
                                        questionable.
009/01   135  CTD T2 Temp  3     CMS    Unstable temperature in all 3 sensors. Code 
                                        questionable.

 










 
CCHDO DATA PROCESSING NOTES



  File Merge SEE
33RR20160208_ct1.zip (download) #fc18a
Date: 2016-04-26
Current Status: merged



  CTD exchange and netcdf formats online SEE 
Date: 2016-04-26
Data Type: CTD
Action: Website Update
Note: 
I08 2016 33RR20160208 processing - CTD/merge - CTDPRS,CTDTMP,CTDSAL,CTDOXY,CTDNOBS,
XMISS,FLUOR,CDOMF,TRBDTY,RINKO,CTDETIME

2016-04-26

SEE


Submission

filename             submitted by  date       id  
-------------------- ------------  ---------- -----
33RR20160208_ct1.zip Andrew Barna  2016-04-12 12194

Changes
-------

33RR20160208_ct1.zip
    - added UNITS comments
    - renamed ct1.csv files to CCHDO filename format.
    - renamed FLUORC to FLUOR 
    - renamed CDOM to CDOMF 
    - renamed TRANS to XMISS 
    - included RINKO and TRBTY,  which are not yet defined as Exchange parameters.


Conversion
----------

file                    converted from       software               
----------------------- -------------------- -----------------------
33RR20160208_nc_ctd.zip 33RR20160208_ct1.zip hydro 0.8.2-47-g3c55cd3




Updated Files Manifest
----------------------

file                    stamp            
----------------------- -----------------
33RR20160208_ct1.zip    20160426CCHSIOSEE
33RR20160208_nc_ctd.zip 20160426CCHSIOSEE

:Updated parameters: CTDPRS,CTDTMP,CTDSAL,CTDOXY,XMISS,FLUOR,CDOMF,CTDETIME,
CTDNOBS,RINKO,TRBDTY

opened in JOA with no apparent problems:
     33RR20160208_ct1.zip
     33RR20160208_nc_ctd.zip

opened in ODV with no apparent problems:
     33RR20160208_ct1.zip


					
  File Online Carolina Berys
33RR20160208_do.pdf (download) #9638d
Date: 2016-04-12
Current Status: unprocessed



  File Online Carolina Berys
33RR20160208_do.txt (download) #787f7
Date: 2016-04-12
Current Status: unprocessed



  File Online Carolina Berys
33RR20160208_ct1.zip (download) #fc18a
Date: 2016-04-12
Current Status: merged



  File Online Carolina Berys
33RR20160208_hy1.csv (download) #45ed7
Date: 2016-04-12
Current Status: unprocessed



  File Submission Andrew Barna
33RR20160208_do.pdf (download) #9638d
Date: 2016-04-12
Current Status: unprocessed



  File Submission Andrew Barna
33RR20160208_do.txt (download) #787f7
Date: 2016-04-12
Current Status: unprocessed



  File Submission Andrew Barna
33RR20160208_ct1.zip (download) #fc18a
Date: 2016-04-12
Current Status: merged



  File Submission Andrew Barna
33RR20160208_hy1.csv (download) #45ed7
Date: 2016-04-12
Current Status: unprocessed


