                                   If symbols do not display correctly change
                                   your browser character encoding to unicode





CRUISE REPORT: AWS020I
(Updated MAR 2014)



Highlights


                          CRUISE SUMMARY INFORMATION

               Section Designation  AWS02I
Expedition designation (ExpoCodes)  32PZ20020715
                  Chief Scientists  Thomas J. Weingartner / U Alaska
                                    Robert S. Pickart / WHOI
                             Dates  2002 JUL 15 - 2002 AUG 13
                              Ship  USCGC Polar Star
                     Ports of call  Dutch Harbor, AK to Barrow, AK

                                                  74° 5' 4.2" N
             Geographic Boundaries  168° 54' 8.3" W           151° 37' 49" W
                                                  70° 41' 59" N

                          Stations  63
      Floats and drifters deployed  0
    Moorings deployed or recovered  13 (5 individual plus an array of 8) 
                                    deployed

                             Contact Information:

                            Thomas J. Weingartner
         Institute of Marine Science • University of Alaska Fairbanks
          115 O'Neill • P.O. Box 757220 • Fairbanks, AK  99775-7220
                Tel: (907) 474-7993 • tjweingartner@alaska.edu

                               Robert S. Pickart
            Department of Physical Oceanography • Clark 3 • MS # 21
         Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution • Woods Hole, MA  02543
                   Tel: (508) 289 2858 • rpickart@whoi.edu








           USCGC Polar Star Arctic West Summer 2002 Cruise Summary:
                           Shelf-Basin Interactions

                              Robert S. Pickart
                    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

                            Thomas J. Weingartner
                       University of Alaska, Fairbanks

The field phase of the Shelf-Basin Interactions Experiment (SBI) began in 
2002 with a series of three cruises to the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. SBI is 
a multi-institutional program investigating how the western Arctic shelves 
communicate with the interior of the Canada Basin, from a coupled 
physical/biochemical perspective. The physical oceanographic (PO) component 
of SBI was carried out on the Coast Guard icebreaker Polar Star, from 
mid-July to mid-August. The primary aim of the PO component is to identify 
and understand the water masses and mechanisms by which shelf waters 
ventilate the western Arctic halocline.

The major goals of the 2002 Arctic West Summer cruise (AWSO2) were to (1) 
deploy a system of moorings that will measure the outflow from the Chukchi 
shelf (the UW/UAF component); (2) deploy a high-resolution moored array 
across the Beaufort slope, downstream of the outflows, to determine how these 
waters are fluxed into the interior (the WHOI component); and (3) conduct a 
hydrographic survey encompassing locations along the Chukchi and Beaufort 
shelfedge. The cruise was a resounding success on all accounts.

The moored instruments will measure currents, temperature, and salinity 
numerous times per day until September, 2003 (at which point they will be 
turned around for a second year-long deployment). A combination of discrete 
sensors and profiling instruments were used. Nearly all hydrostations during 
the cruise included water sample measurements of salinity and nutrients. The 
conductivity/temperature/depth (CTD) package was also outfitted with a 
lowered Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) measuring absolute 
horizontal velocity, a turbidity sensor, and a fluorometer (attached after 
the second CTD section). These additional sensors provided invaluable 
information on the origin and magnitude of the currents in the region.

Brief Synopsis

Polar Star embarked the science party in Dutch Harbor, AK on 15 July and 
sailed on calm seas to the first mooring site in the central Chukchi channel 
(Figure 1). After completing the mooring deployment and CTD section there, we 
proceeded to the 166°W site, which we refer to as the Herald Valley outflow 
site. (Herald Valley actually lies to the west of 166°W in the Russian EEZ. 
We were unable to obtain clearance to work in Russian waters; however, we 
believe that the measurements along 166°W will capture at least a portion of 
the outflow of Pacific-origin water from Herald Valley.) This location 
contained significant ice cover, but there were enough leads to allow the 
deployment of two moorings and occupation of a cross-slope CTD section.

Our next scheduled site was Barrow Canyon in the eastern Chukchi Sea, but 
heavy ice cover prohibited us from deploying our mooring, so we continued to 
the Beaufort slope site. There we did a cross-slope bathymetric survey in 
order to choose the precise mooring sites, but our initial line proved too 
steep to deploy moorings effectively. Thus we moved farther west, onto a 
gentler part of the Beaufort slope (with more favorable ice-conditions as 
well), where we deployed the high-resolution array as desired. The array 
consisted of eight moorings spaced 5 km apart, with an additional 
"whale-listening" mooring deployed for S. Moore of the National Marine Mammal 
Laboratory. A cross-slope CTD/XCTD section was occupied at this site as well.


Figure 1: AWSO2 CTD stations (inverted red triangles) and moorings (cyan 
          circles).


We then steamed back to Barrow Canyon, where the ice situation had improved 
substantially, and deployed our final mooring and occupied a short 
hydrographic section across the head of the Canyon. The final phase of the 
cruise consisted of two high-resolution hydrographic sections-one to the 
west of Barrow Canyon (including XCTDs), and a dogleg section spanning the 
mouth of the canyon. We then steamed back to Dutch Harbor, arriving on 13 
August.

Some Preliminary Results

As seen in Figure 1, our hydrographic survey encompassed the three outflow 
branches of the Chukchi Sea: Herald Valley (Section 2), the central channel 
(Section 1), and Barrow Canyon (Sections 4 and 6). Additionally, we occupied 
sections downstream of both the Herald Valley outflow (Section 5) and Barrow 
Canyon outflow (Section 3). This survey represents the first systematic 
coverage of these outflows, as well as the first high-resolution crossings 
of the shelf and upper slope in this area of the western Arctic. 
Accordingly, our preliminary look at the data has revealed some fascinating 
insights on the origin and fate of the shelfedge boundary currents in this 
important region of the Arctic.


Figure 2: Vertical Sections of Potential Temperature (top panel) and 
          Turbidity (bottom panel) along 166°W (Section 2).


Figure 2 shows the vertical sections of potential temperature and turbidity 
at the Herald Valley outflow site (Section 2). The outer shelf is filled with 
cold, dense Pacific-origin winter water as it flows eastward, forming a 
shelfbreak jet. Note the high turbidity in the bottom layer, likely due to 
sediments drawn into this water mass as it crosses the shelf. The small 
lenses of water at the shelfedge are likely the beginnings of eddies-a view 
which is supported by our downstream measurements. The second hydrographic 
section shown (Figure 3) is at the eastern end of the domain in the Beaufort 
Sea. This transect reveals the presence of a fully-developed subsurface 
anti-cyclonic eddy (centered near stations 28-29), comprised of cold, turbid, 
Pacific-origin winter water. This is the same type of eddy that has been 
observed repeatedly throughout the interior of the Canada Basin. Our sections 
suggest strongly that these features emanate from the shelf-edge boundary 
current. Do all of the eddies come from the Herald valley outflow, or do some 
originate from the Barrow Canyon outflow? How do these outflows vary in water 
composition and transport throughout the year? What are the physics governing 
the formation of the eddies? These are just a few of the questions that we 
hope to answer with this exciting data set. Further information on the cruise 
can be found at http://www.whoi.edu/arcticedge.



Data Documentation

Description of CTD operations and sampling equipment is provided in Appendix 
B; Dr. Robert Pickart's AWS-02 Phase I, SBI, July 15 - August 13, 2002 CTD 
Data Summary.

Salinity

There were 506 salinity samples analyzed.

Equipment and Techniques

Salinity samples were drawn into 200 ml high alumina borosilicate bottles, 
which were rinsed three times with sample prior to filling. The bottles were 
sealed with custom-made plastic insert thimbles and Nalgene screw caps This 
container provides very low container dissolution and sample evaporation.
A Guildline Autosal 8400A #57-396, standardized with IAPSO Standard Seawater 
(SSW) batch P-140, was used to measure the salinities. Prior to the analyses, 
the samples were stored to permit equilibration to laboratory temperature, 
usually 8-20 hours.  The salinometer was modified by Shipboard Technical 
Support/Oceanographic Data Facility (STS/ODF) and contained an interface for 
computer-aided measurement. The salinometer was standardized with a fresh 
vial of standard seawater at the beginning and end of the run.  The SSW vial 
at the end of the run was used as an unknown to check for drift. The 
salinometer cell was flushed until two successive readings met software 
criteria for consistency; these were then averaged for a final result. The 
estimated accuracy of bottle salinities run at sea is usually better than 
0.002 PSU relative to the particular standard seawater batch used.

Laboratory Temperature

The temperature stability in the salinometer laboratory was poor.


Figure 3: Vertical Sections of Potential Temperature (top panel) and 
          Turbidity (bottom panel) across the Beaufort slope (Section 3).


Nutrients

There were 501 nutrient samples analyzed.

Equipment and Techniques

Nutrient analyses (phosphate, silicate, nitrate+nitrite, and nitrite) were 
performed on an ODF-modified 4-channel Technicon AutoAnalyzer II, generally 
within a few hours after sample collection.  Occasionally samples were 
refrigerated for longer periods. The analog outputs from each of the four 
channels were digitized and logged automatically by computer (PC) at 2-second 
intervals.  Protocols, in general, followed procedures outlined for the World 
Ocean Circulation Experiment by Gordon et al. (1993). These protocols allow 
for standardizing using techniques that require strict linearity or for 
techniques that can deal with any non-linearity in calibration curves. We use 
the latter approach and correct for non-linearity using polynomial equations 
when appropriate. We also do not correct for "carryover", but instead 
minimize this source by appropriate design of the flow characteristics of our 
system and by running samples in order of depth whenever possible. 
Silicate was analyzed using the technique of Armstrong et al., (Armstrong, 
1967). The sample was passed through a 15mm flowcell and the absorbance 
measured at 660nm.

A modification of the Armstrong et al. (Armstrong 1967) procedure was used 
for the analysis of nitrate and nitrite. For the nitrate plus nitrite 
analysis, the seawater sample was passed through a cadmium reduction column 
where nitrate was quantitatively reduced to nitrite. The stream was then 
passed through a 15mm flowcell and the absorbance measured at 540nm.  The 
same technique was employed for nitrite analysis, except that the cadmium 
column was bypassed, and a 50mm flowcell was used for measurement.
Phosphate was analyzed using a modification of the Bernhardt and Wilhelms 
(Bernhardt 1967.) technique. The reaction product was heated to ~55ºC to 
enhance color development, then passed through a 50mm flowcell and the 
absorbance measured at 820m.


Nutrient Standards

The silicate (Na2SiF6) and nitrite (NaNO2) primary standards were obtained 
from Johnson Matthey Company's Aesar Division and the supplier reported 
purities of  >98% and 97% respectively.  Primary standards for nitrate (KNO3) 
and phosphate (KH2PO4) were obtained from Fisher Scientific and the supplier 
reported purities of 99.999%.

Sampling and Data Processing

Nutrient samples were drawn into 45 ml polypropylene, screw-capped "oak-ridge 
type" centrifuge tubes. The tubes were cleaned with 10% HCl and rinsed with 
sample three times before filling. Standardizations were performed at the 
beginning and end of each group of analyses (typically 5-40 samples) with an 
intermediate concentration mixed nutrient standard prepared prior to each run 
from a secondary standard in a low-nutrient seawater matrix. The secondary 
standards were prepared aboard ship by dilution from primary standard 
solutions.  Dry standards were pre-weighed at the laboratory at ODF, and 
transported to the vessel for dilution to the primary standard. Sets of 6-7 
different standard concentrations covering the range of sample concentrations 
were analyzed periodically to determine the deviation from linearity, if any, 
as a function of concentration for each nutrient analysis.  A correction for 
non-linearity was applied to the final nutrient concentrations when 
necessary. 

There were some errors in the original calculations preformed on the ship.  
The raw data files were reprocessed at ODF after the cruise.  The original 
data files were processed to produce other files containing response factors, 
baseline values, and absorbances. Concentrations were then calculated and any 
non-linear corrections applied. Computer-produced absorbance readings were 
checked for accuracy against values taken from a strip chart recording, which 
is produced simultaneously with the computer. 

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

Data Quality Notes

General Comments: 

The initial nutrient (nitrate, nitrite, phosphate and silicate) data reported 
from this cruise contained significant errors. This version (July 2003) of 
the data should be free from major errors. Users are encouraged to report any 
suspicious values to Lou Codispoti (codispoti@hpl.umces.edu). Users should 
also be aware that as noted in the initial cruise report, bottle flushing was 
a problem during this cruise, and apparent depth offsets between bottle and 
CTD salinities could, at times, be on the order of 10 m.  A comparison of 
companion CTD and bottle salinities can help to assess the effects of 
insufficient flushing.  The user should also be aware that rosette tripping 
problems also arose during this cruise, and that ship effects may impact data 
from the upper ~10 m of the water column. Further comments on data quality 
are available the chief scientist's (Dr. R. Pickart's, Woods Hole 
Oceanographic Institution) CTD data summary report for this cruise.

Post cruise editing of the nutrient data from this cruise consisted of:

1) The entire original nutrient data suite were thoroughly re-examined, 
   edited and recalculated by ODF personnel (primarily Susan Becker).  This 
   editing process included a major revision of the original silicate 
   concentrations due to an initial calculation error.
2) Upon completion of this re-calculation and re-editing of the data, Lou 
   Codispoti examined the corrected data and with the help of Susan Becker,  
   and made some additional corrections. His examination consisted of 
   reviewing the cruise notes written by the onboard nutrient analyst, a 
   review and edit of the strip chart peaks, examination of the calibration 
   factors and index of refraction corrections, a review of the tabular data, 
   comparison of the tabular nutrient data from this cruise with data 
   collected during the second SBI 2002 process cruise (HLY 02-03), and 
   calculation of the parameter N* (Gruber and Sarmiento, 1997).  A listing 
   of the changes to the data arising from SB and LC's editing is given later 
   in this report.
3) We believe that this version of the Polar Star nutrient data per se is 
   generally free of major errors and should prove useful to SBI PIs.  For 
   example, deep (~750 db and deeper) nutrient values compare reasonably well 
   with data collected on the Healy, the range of nutrient values seems 
   reasonable, and calculations of the parameter N* (Gruber and Sarmiento, 
   1997) appeared to yield reasonable results.  These data are not, however, 
   of the quality of the nutrient data collected from the Healy during the 
   SBI 2002 process cruises.  In part, this is because, during the Polar Star 
   cruise, bottle flushing was a problem whereas we took special precautions 
   on the Healy to promote bottle flushing.  Given the high degree of 
   hydrographic and ecosystem stratification that can occur in the upper 
   layers of Arctic waters during the seasons when ice is melting, the bottle 
   flushing issue could prove to be significant in some cases. In addition, 
   manpower limitations during the Polar Star cruise did not allow for the 
   same level of shipboard QA/QC, and it is possible that some minor 
   systematic errors still exist in the Polar Star data.


Specific corrections/problems:

The nitrite refractive index correction of 0.018 was used for all stations.

STATION  BOTTLE     COMMENTS
-------  ---------  ---------------------------------------------------------
003      04         (run id = 00101) all data questionable and not included.
016      3-6 and 9  (run ids = 00301 and 00401) nitrite lost.  Samples were 
                    rerun and all the rerun data looked ok.  The rerun data 
                    was reported for all nutrients.
015      02         (run id = 00301) nitrate value looks low but peak height 
                    was low.
020      03-06      Shipboard processors assigned the bottle salinities 
                    incorrectly. Suspect that the surface bottle, 06, was 
                    not drawn and 03 was drawn. Corrected assignment for 03-
                    06.
027                 (run ids =00901 and 01001) there was a problem with 
                    nitrite in the original run so all samples were re-run.  
                    The phosphate, silicate and nitrite plus nitrate data 
                    compared reasonable well with the first run.  
028                 There was some confusion because there was a missing 
                    nutrient level.  According to the run sheet the surface 
                    nutrient was missing.  The data did not agree with this 
                    and it was assumed the missing level was the deep 
                    sample.  All the values were shifted up one level.
046      06         (run id = 04201) nitrite value lost, nitrate value 
                    reported is nitrate plus nitrite.
049-052             (run id = 04901) the nitrate response factor changed 
                    over the course of the run but everything else looks ok.  
                    The data are somewhat questionable.
053      03 and 04  bottle salt value needs checking. Appears to have been 
                    switched with bottle 03. Values have been corrected. 
063      08         (run id = 06201) phosphate value lost.
067      04         (run id = 06601) nitrite lost and nitrate is actually 
                    nitrate plus nitrite.
068      03 and 04  (run id = 06601) nitrite lost and nitrate is actually 
                    nitrate plus nitrite.


Data Distribution 

The data discussed here can be obtained through the NCAR/Earth Observing 
Laboratory (formerly JOSS [Joint Office for Science Support/UCAR]) website, 
http://www.eol.ucar.edu/projects/sbi and the CLIVAR and Carbon Hydrographic 
Data Office website, http://cchdo.ucsd.edu.  The data are reported using the 
WHP-Exchange (WOCE Hydrographic Program) format and the quality coding 
follows those outlined by the WOCE program (Joyce, 1994). 

General rules for WHP-exchange data files:

1) Each line must end with a carriage return or end-of-line.
2) With the exception of the file type line, lines starting with a "#" 
   character, or including and following a line which reads "END_DATA", each 
   line in the file must have exactly the same number of commas as do all 
   other lines in that file.
3) The name of a quality flag always begins with the name of the parameter 
   with which it is associated, followed by an underscore character, followed 
   by "FLAG", followed by an underscore, and then followed by an alphanumeric 
   character, W. 
4) The "missing value" for a data value is always defined as -999, but 
   written in the decimal place format of the parameter in question. For 
   example, a missing salinity would be written -999.0000 or a missing 
   phosphate -999.00.
5) The first four characters of the EXPOCODE are the U.S. National 
   Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) country-ship code, then followed by up 
   to an 8 characters expedition name of cruise number, i.e. 32PZAWS02I.


CTD Data

CTD data was acquired and processed by the Woods Hole Oceanographic 
Institution (WHOI) Pickard group.  A detailed description of their methods 
can be found in Appendix B, CTD Data Summary.  WHOI CTD files were 
reformatted by the Oceanographic Data Facility (ODF) to comply with WHP-
Exchange format standards.  WHP-Exchange formatted CTD data is located in 
file 32PZAWS02I_ct1.zip.  This file contains ssscc_ct1.csv files for each 
station and cast where sss=3 digit station identifier and cc=2 digit cast 
identifier.

Description of ssscc_ct1.csv file layout.

1st line     File type, here CTD, followed by a comma and a DATE_TIME stamp

             YYYYMMDDdivINSwho
             
             YYYY   4 digit year
             MM     2 digit month
             DD     2 digit day
             div    division of Institution
             INS    Institution name
             who    initials of responsible person

# lines      A file may include 0-N optional lines at the start of a data 
             file, each beginning with a "#" character and each ending with 
             carriage return or end-of-line.  Information relevant to file 
             change/update history may be included here, for example.
2nd line     NUMBER_HEADERS = n (n = 10 in this table and the example_ct1.csv 
             file.)
3rd line     EXPOCODE = [expocode] The expedition code, assigned by the user.
4th line     SECT_ID = [section] The SBI station specification. Optional.
5th line     STNNBR = [station] The originator's station number
6th line     CASTNO = [cast] The originator's cast number
7th line     DATE = [date] Cast date in YYYYMMDD integer format.
8th line     TIME = [time] Cast time that CTD was at the deepest sampling 
             point.
9th line     LATITUDE = [latitude] Latitude as SDD.dddd where "S" is sign 
             (blank or missing is positive), DD are degrees, and dddd are 
             decimal degrees. Sign is positive in northern hemisphere, 
             negative in southern hemisphere
10th line    LONGITUDE = [longitude] Longitude as SDDD.dddd where "S" is sign 
             (blank or missing is positive), DDD are degrees, and dddd are 
             decimal degrees. Sign is positive for "east" longitude, negative 
             for "west" longitude
11th line    DEPTH = [bottom] Reported depth to bottom. Preferred units are 
             "meters" and should be specified in Line 2. In general, 
             corrected depths are preferred to uncorrected depths. 
             Documentation accompanying data includes notes on methodology of 
             correction. Optional.
next line    Parameter headings.
next line    Units.
data lines   A single _ct1.csv CTD data file will normally contain data lines 
             for one CTD cast.
END_DATA     The line after the last data line must read END_DATA, and be 
             followed by a carriage return or end of line.
other lines  Users may include any information they wish in 0-N optional 
             lines at the end of a data file, after the END_DATA line.


Parameter names, units, format, and comments 

Parameter       Units   Format  Comments
--------------  ------  ------  --------------------------------------
CTDPRS          DB      F7.1    CTD pressure, decibars
CTDPRS_FLAG_W           I1      CTDPRS quality flag
CTDTMP          ITS-90  F8.3    CTD temperature, degrees C (ITS-90)
CTDTMP_FLAG_W           I1      CTDTMP quality flag
CTDTMP2         ITS-90  F8.3    CTD temperature from secondary sensor, 
                                degrees C (ITS-90)
CTDTMP2_FLAG_W          I1      CTDTMP2 quality flag
CTDSAL                  F8.3    CTD salinity 
CTDSAL_FLAG_W           I1      CTDSAL quality flag
CTDSAL2                 F8.3    CTD salinity from secondary sensor
CTDSAL2_FLAG_W          I1      CTDSAL2 quality flag
FLUOR           MG/L    F5.4    Fluorometer, microgram per Liter
FLUOR_FLAG_W            I1      FLUOR quality flag
TURBITY         VOLTS   F5.4    Turbidity, volts
TURBITY_W_FLAG                  TURBITY quality flag


Quality Flags

CTD data quality flags were assigned to the CTDTMP (CTD temperature), CTDSAL 
(CTD salinity) and XMISS (Transmissivity) parameters as follows:

  2  Acceptable measurement.
  3  Questionable measurement. The data did not fit the station profile or 
     adjacent station comparisons (or possibly bottle data comparisons). The 
     data could be acceptable, but are open to interpretation.
  4  Bad measurement. The CTD data were determined to be unusable.
  5  Not reported. The CTD data could not be reported, typically when CTD 
     salinity is flagged 3 or 4.
  9  Not sampled. No operational sensor was present on this cast

WHP CTD data quality flags were assigned to the FLUOR (Fluorometer) and 
TURBITY (Turbidity) parameters as follows:

  1  Not calibrated. Data are uncalibrated.
  9  Not sampled. No operational sensor was present on this cast. Either the 
     sensor cover was left on or the depth rating necessitated removal.


Description of 32PZAWS02.1_hy1.csv file layout.

1st line     File type, here BOTTLE, followed by a comma and a DATE_TIME 
             stamp
             YYYYMMDDdivINSwho

             YYYY     4 digit year 
             MM       2 digit month 
             DD       2 digit day 
             div      division of Institution 
             INS      Institution name 
             who      initials of responsible person 
             example: 20000711WHPSIOSCD 
#lines       A file may include 0-N optional lines, typically at the start of 
             a data file, but after the file type line, each beginning with a 
             "#" character and each ending with carriage return or end-of-
             line. Information relevant to file change/update history of the 
             file itself may be included here, for example.
2nd line     Column headings. 
3rd line     Units. 
Data lines   As many data lines may be included in a single file as is 
             convenient for the user, with the proviso that the number and 
             order of parameters, parameter order, headings, units, and 
             commas remain absolutely consistent throughout a single file. 
END_DATA     The line after the last data line must read END_DATA.
other lines  Users may include any information they wish in 0-N optional 
             lines at the end of a data file, after the END_DATA line.


Header columns

Parameter      Format  Description notes
-------------  ------  ------------------------------------------------------
EXPOCODE       A12     The expedition code, assigned by the user. 
SECT_ID        A7      The SBI station specification. Optional.
STNNBR         A6      The originator's station number. 
CASTNO         I3      The originator's cast number. 
BTLNBR         A7      The bottle identification number.
BTLNBR_FLAG_W  I1      BTLNBR quality flag.
DATE           I8      Cast date in YYYYMMDD integer format. 
TIME           I4      Cast time (UT) as HHMM
LATITUDE       F8.4    Latitude as SDD.dddd where "S" is sign (blank or 
                       missing is positive), DD are degrees, and dddd are 
                       decimal degrees. Sign is positive in northern 
                       hemisphere, negative in southern hemisphere
LONGITUDE      F9.4    Longitude as SDDD.dddd where "S" is sign (blank or 
                       missing is positive), DDD are degrees, and dddd are 
                       decimal degrees. Sign is positive for "east" 
                       longitude, negative for "west" longitude
DEPTH          I5      Reported depth to bottom. Preferred units are "meters" 
                       and should be specified in Line 2. In general, 
                       corrected depths are preferred to uncorrected depths. 
                       Documentation accompanying data includes notes on 
                       methodology of correction. Optional.


Parameter names, units, and comments:

Parameter      Units    Format  Comments
-------------  -------  ------  --------------------------------------
CTDPRS         DB       F9.1    CTD pressure, decibars
CTDPRS_FLAG_W           I1      CTDPRS quality flag
SAMPNO                  A7      Cast number *100+BTLNBR. Optional
CTDTMP         ITS-90   F9.4    CTD temperature, degrees C, (ITS-90)
CTDTMP_FLAG_W           I1      CTDTMP quality flag
CTDCOND        MS/CM    F9.4    CTD Conductivity, 
                                  milliSiemens/centimeter
CTDCOND_FLAG_W          I1      CTDCOND quality flag
CTDSAL                  F9.4    CTD salinity 
CTDSAL_FLAG_W           I1      CTDSAL quality flag
SALNTY                  F9.4    bottle salinity
SALNTY_FLAG_W           I1      SALNTY quality flag
SIGMA          THETA    F9.4    Sigma Theta
SIGMA_FLAG_W            I1      Sigma Theta quality flag
SILCAT         UMOL/KG  F9.2    SILICATE, micromoles/kilogram 
SILCAT_FLAG_W           I1      SILCAT quality flag
SILCAT         UMOL/L   F9.2    SILCATE, micromoles/liter
SILCAT_FLAG_W           I1      SILCAT quality flag
NITRAT         UMOL/KG  F9.2    NITRATE, micromoles/kilogram 
NITRAT_FLAG_W           I1      NITRAT quality flag
NITRAT         UMOL/L   F9.2    NITRATE, micromoles/liter
NITRAT_FLAG_W           I1      NITRAT quality flag
NITRIT         UMOL/KG  F9.2    NITRITE, micromoles/kilogram 
NITRIT_FLAG_W           I1      NITRIT quality flag
NITRIT         UMOL/L   F9.2    NITRITE, micromoles/liter
NITRIT_FLAG_W           I1      NITRIT quality flag
PHSPHT         UMOL/KG  F9.2    PHOSPHATE, micromoles/kilog ram
PHSPHT_FLAG_W           I1      PHSPHT quality flag
PHSPHT         UMOL/L   F9.2    PHOSPHATE, micromoles/liter
PHSPHT_FLAG_W           I1      PHSPHT quality flag
BTL_LAT                 F8.4    Latitude at time of bottle trip, 
                                  decimal degrees
BTL_LONG                F9.4    Longitude at time of bottle trip, 
                                  decimal degrees
JULIAN                  F8.4    Julian day and time as fraction of day 
                                  of the bottle trip.


Quality Codes

The WHP quality codes for the water bottle itself are: 
1  Bottle information unavailable.
2  No problems noted.
3  Leaking.
4  Did not trip correctly.
5  Not reported.
9  Samples not drawn from this bottle.

The WHP bottle parameter data quality codes are: 
1  Sample for this measurement was drawn from water bottle but analysis not 
   received. Should be received at a later date. 
2  Acceptable measurement.
3  Questionable measurement.
4  Bad measurement.
5  Not reported.
9  Sample not drawn for this measurement from this bottle.



References

Armstrong, F. A. J., Stearns, C. R., and Strickland, 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).
Bernhardt, Wilhelms A., "The continuous determination of low level iron, 
    soluble phosphate and total phosphate with the AutoAnalyzer", Technicon 
    Symposia, I,  pp. 385-389 (1967).
Gordon, L.I., Jennings, J.C., Ross, A.A. and J.M. Krest, "A Suggested 
    Protocol for Continuous Flow Automated Analysis of Seawater Nutrients in 
    the WOCE Hydrographic Program and the Joint Global Ocean Fluxes Study," 
    WOCE Hydrographic Programs Office, Methods Manual WHPO 91-1 (1993). 
Gruber, N. and J. L. Sarmiento. (1997). Global patterns of marine nitrogen 
    fixation and denitrification.  Global Biogeochem. Cycles. 11:235-266.
Joyce, T. ed., and Corry, C. ed., "Requirements for WOCE Hydrographic 
    Programme Data Reporting," Report WHPO 90-1, WOCE Report No. 67/91 3.1, 
    pp. 52-55, WOCE Hydrographic Programme Office, Woods Hole, MA, USA (May 
    1994, Rev. 2), UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT 



                     APPENDIX A: Bottle Quality Comments

Remarks for deleted samples, missing samples, PI data comments, and WOCE 
codes other than 2 fromUSCGC Polar Star, AWS02.1. Comments from the Sample 
Logs and the results of ODF's investigations are included in this report. 
Investigation of data may include comparison of bottle salinity and oxygen 
data with CTD data, review of data plots of the station profile and adjoining 
stations, and rereading of charts (i.e. nutrients). Units stated in these 
comments are degrees Celsius for temperature, Practical Salinity Units for 
salinity, and unless otherwise noted, milliliters per liter for oxygen and 
micromoles per liter for Silicate, Nitrate, Nitrite, Phosphate and Urea and 
Ammonium, if appropriate. The first number before the comment is the cast 
number (CASTNO) times 100 plus the bottle number (BTLNBR).


Station 003.001
104 All nutrient data are questionable and are not included. Footnote 
silicate, nitrate, nitrite and phosphate not reported.

Station 005.001
101-102 Shipboard: "Bottle vents not closed, samples not taken."

Station 010.001
101 Suspect no nutrient samples drawn. No sample log to confirm.
102 Shipboard: "One bottle tripped on the fly, sample not taken." Shorebased 
processor found nutrient sample drawn from this bottle. No salinity sample.

Station 016.001
107-108 Shipboard: "Bottles compromised, samples not taken."
Cast 1 Nutrients: "Samples were rerun; rerun data looks good for all 
samples."

Station 020.001
103 Shipboard: "One bottle (salinity) with no sample."

Station 023.001
108 Itappears that salinity was not drawn.
Cast 1 Shipboard: "8 tags, 7 bottles, don't know which bottle is missing."

Station 025.001
101 Suspect no samples drawn. No sample log to confirm.
102 Suspect no samples drawn. No sample log to confirm.
103 Suspect no samples drawn. No sample log to confirm.
105 Suspect no samples drawn. No sample log to confirm.

Station 027.001
101 NO2data not reported due to autoanalyzer error.
102 NO2data not reported due to autoanalyzer error.
Cast 1 Nutrients: Problem with nitrite in the original run, so all samples 
were re-run. The phospahte, silicate and nitrite plus nitrite data compared 
reasonably will with the first run. Data from the second run was reported for 
all nutrients. Shipboard: "Bottle from last station is really from this 
station." Not certain what this comment refers to, suspect salinity.

Station 028.001
101 Nutrients: there was some confusion because there was a missing nutrient 
level. According to the run sheet the surface nutrient was missing. The data 
did not agree with this and it was assumed the missing level was the deep 
sample. All the values were shifted up one level. Nutrients were not drawn.
110 Shipboard: "Air vent not tight." Salinity was not drawn, but nutrients 
were drawn and appear acceptable.
114 Shipboard: "Salinity sample missing." Footnote salinity not drawn. Cast 1 
Shipboard: "At 260db the package was relowered to 380db and then raised 
again. The bottle below 250db may have leaked due to compression during 
lowering."

Station 030.001
114 Shipboard: "Salinity sample missing."

Station 031.001
115-120 Shipboard: "Salinity samples accidentally dumped."

Station 046.001
106 Nutrients: Nitrite value lost, nitrate value reported is nitrate plus 
nitrite.

Station 049.001
101-105 Nutrients: The nitrate response factor changed over the course of the 
run, Stations 049-052, but everything else looks okay. The data are somewhat 
questionable. Code nitrate questionable.

Station 050.001
101-106 Nutrients: The nitrate response factor changed over the course of the 
run, Stations 049-052, but everything else looks okay. The data are somewhat 
questionable. Code nitrate questionable.

Station 051.001
101-104 Nutrients: The nitrate response factor changed over the course of the 
run, Stations 049-052, but everything else looks okay. The data are somewhat 
questionable. Code nitrate questionable.

Station 052.001
101-106 Nutrients: The nitrate response factor changed over the course of the 
run, Stations 049-052, but everything else looks okay. The data are somewhat 
questionable. Code nitrate questionable.

Station 053.001
103-104 Salinities appear to be switched, changed the data.

Station 063.001
108 Phosphate value lost.

Station 067.001
104 Nutrients: Nitrite value lost, nitrate value reported is nitrate plus 
nitrite.

Station 068.001
103-104 Nutrients: Nitrite value lost, nitrate value reported is nitrate plus 
nitrite.



                                  APPENDIX B: 

                AWS-02 Phase I, SBI, July 15 - August 13, 2002
                               CTD Data Summary

Contents

1.      Introduction
2.      Station List
3.      Data Files
4.      CTD Package
5.      Data Acquisition and Processing Procedure
6.      Processing Water Samples
7.      CTD Sensor Accuracy
8.      Data Issues
  8.1.  Bottle Flushing
  8.2.  Bottle Salinity Quality
  8.3.  Nutrient Data
  8.4.  Data Spikes at High Winch Speeds
  8.5.  Rosette Water Sampler Malfunction
9.      Data Quality
  9.1.  Uncontrolled
  9.2.  Density Inversions
  9.3.  Data Spikes
10.     Combining Nutrient Water Samples with CTD Data
11.     XCTD
12.     Individual Station Notes
13.     Individual Station Notes on Bottle Specific Issues


1.  Introduction

This report describes the hydrographic sampling program carried out on the 
2002 Western Arctic Shelf-Basin Interactions (SBI) mooring cruise. SBI is a 
multi-institutional, inter-disciplinary program studying the manner in which 
the shelves and open Arctic communicate with each other, and how this might 
be influenced by climate variability. The cruise took place from 15 July-13 
August on the USCGC Polar Star. The chief scientist was Tom Weingartner of 
the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). The co-PI was Robert Pickart of the 
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), who was in charge of the 
hydrographic operations. The instrumentation (CTDs, water sampler, frame, 
bottles) was provided by the Polar Star. Processing of the CTD data was 
carried out by WHOI, and nutrients were done by the University of Washington 
(UW), both under subcontract from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
(SIO). The water sample salinity program was carried out by SIO. Additionally 
there was a WHOI lowered ADCP program (not described in this report).

In total, 90 CTD casts were completed comprising 6 cross-sections within the 
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas (Figure 1). Most of the sections crossed the outer 
shelf / upper slope with a station resolution of 5 km (occasionally XCTDs 
were used to increase the resolution). This data set represents the first 
such high-resolution survey of this portion of the western Arctic Ocean.

The Seabird 911+ system delivered high quality data and, except for a few 
stations, required only basic processing. Pre- and post-cruise calibrations, 
dual sensor comparisons and bottle salinity calibrations were used to 
determine the accuracy of the temperature and salinity. Except for the very 
fresh water, the sensors met or exceeded the stated accuracy for the 
instrument. The temperature accuracy was 0.001°C and the salinity accuracy 
was 0.002 in the saltier water (34.8) to 0.007 in the fresh water (30). High 
salinity gradients and poor bottle flushing prevented calibration with bottle 
salinities of the fresher water but the saltier water calibrations showed the 
CTD sensors were very stable and required no adjustments to the pre-cruise 
calibration. CTD and bottle salinity comparisons show poor bottle flushing 
resulted in water samples with up to 10m depth displacement. This should be 
taken into account when using the bottle data. No bottle data exist for the 
aborted station 24. Nutrient analyses was skipped for stations 26 and 29 to 
balance spatial resolution and time constraints of analyses. Stations 69 to 
90 are without bottle data due to a major technical problem with the water 
sampler. Because we were near the end of the cruise, the ship's alternate 
water sampler was not installed in order to save time for the additional CTD 
casts.


2.  Station List

Station Numbers Section Comments
Stations 1-2 Tests
Stations 3-8 Section 1 Chukchi Sea
Stations 9-23 Section 2 West Chukchi Slope
Stations 24 Aborted cast
Stations 25-39 Section 3 East Beaufort Slope
XCTD 1-8 Section 3 XCTDs between CTDs
XCTD 9-21 Section 3a Adjacent to Section 3
Stations 40-41 Section 3a Extention of XCTD line
Prior to Station 42 Wire Retermination
Stations 42-52 Section 4 Barrow Canyon Head
Stations 53-66 Section 5 East Chukchi Slope
XCTD Section 5 XCTDs between CTDs
Stations 67-90 Section 6 Barrow Canyon Mouth

Figure 1 shows the locations of the CTD stations.


3.  Data Files

For the cruise there is one summary file of the time and location of all the 
CTD and XCTD casts, and mooring deployments. Per station there are three 
files, a 1 db averaged downtrace file, a 1 db averaged uptrace file, and a 
bottle file containing the water sample information. Bottle files include 
water sample salinity, nutrients and uptrace CTD data.
sbisum_master.txt Event summary of all CTD, XCTD, and moorings.
sbi020##.dcc 1db averaged downtrace CTD file per station
sbi020##.ucc 1db averaged uptrace CTD file per station
sbi020##.nut Bottle data per station
C3_000##.edf XCTD data, 1 file per XCTD station


4.  CTD Package

A Seabird 911+ CTD system was used with two temperature sensors, two 
conductivity sensors, and a Benthos PSA900d altimeter set for a 30m range. 
There were two water pumps, one for each temperature-conductivity sensor 
pair. In addition, a Wetlab's light scattering sensor to measure turbidity 
(stations 9 to 90) and a Seapoint chlorophyll fluorometer (stations 24 to 90) 
were attached to the Seabird underwater unit. The underwater unit was 
connected to a 24 position water sampler with 10-liter bottles. Separate from 
the CTD system but also mounted on the CTD frame, were upward and downward 
looking LADCPs and their common battery pack.

Serial Number of Sensors:
Pressure:                57473 in CTD 09P12377-0416
Temperature Primary:     2015
Conductivity Primary:    1549
Temperature Secondary:   2498
Conductivity Secondary:  1115
Altimeter:               Benthos (ex. Datasonics) PSA 900d specially set to 
                         0-5v. We set dipswitches to have 30m range. 
                         Altimeter height = [(300* voltage/scale factor) + 
                         offset], where scale factor = full scale voltage * 
                         300/full scale range. Here full scale voltage = 5v 
                         and full scale range = 30m so scale factor of 50 was 
                         used.
Light Scattering Sensor: Wetlab. Recording voltage. Deck test measured 0.3 
                         with no blockage and 5V with a hand in front of it. 
                         The sensor was added to the CTD at Station 9.
Fluorometer:             Seapoint Chorophyll Fluorometer with 10x cable. 
                         Sensitivity is 0.33 V/ug/l and Range is 15 ug/l. 
                         [Concentration = (V*30/gain) + offset] where gain = 
                         10 and offset = 0. Added at Station 24.


5.  Data Acquisition and Processing Procedure
 
Operationally, after the CTD was brought out of the hanger to the launching 
deck it was powered on and data acquisition begun. The CTD was lowered to 5m 
and after the water pumps activated the CTD was brought back to the near-
surface and then lowered at 30m/minute. After reaching a depth of over 150m 
the speed was increased to 60m/minute. The CTD was brought within 1-2m of the 
sea-floor if conditions were suitable for a near bottom approach. After 
closing a bottle, the package was raised to the surface with a variable 
number of stops for bottle closures along the way. Nutrients and salinity 
were sampled from the bottles. The data acquisition was ended after the CTD 
package was brought back on deck. The data collection started and ended with 
the CTD out of the water so that CTD and LADCP records could be combined 
based on the times the sensors entered and exited the water.

The 24Hz CTD data were collected in real time though the conducting sea-
cable, modified through the deck unit and output to a PC computer. Seabird 
software running under Microsoft Windows ( Seasoft-Win32 v.5.18 for stations 
1 to 24 and Seasoft-Win32 v.5.24 for stations 25 to 90) was used for 
acquisition. Data were transferred through the ship's network to a second PC 
for post-station processing.

Seabird's DOS based processing software, Seasoft v.4.249 was used for batch 
processing files from the single scan binary data to 1 db averaged ascii 
files. The standard processing steps were: sensor alignment through advancing 
conductivity; spike removal; a correction for the thermal mass of the 
temperature sensors; filtering; removal of pressure reversals; averaging to 1 
db levels; calculation of derived properties; and finally the file separation 
between downcast and upcast. Starting and ending surface pressures were 
recorded to monitor pressure sensor drift. In addition, time based, 1 second 
averaged ascii files were output for use in LADCP data processing.

Following the Seabird processing steps the data were brought into Matlab, 
which allowed for further computation and data visualization. With multiple 
programs centered around WHOI software written by Deborah West-Mac, both CTD 
1dbar averaged files and water sample salinity data were imported, plotted, 
remaining spikes catalogued and removed using linear interpolation, CTD 
salinity calibrated to the bottle salinities and any particular data quality 
or station problem addressed. Corrections for temperature sensor drift, 
determined from the drift between previous laboratory calibrations, can also 
be applied with this software. In this case both sensors received no such 
correction because the trend was not trustworthy for one sensor, and in the 
other the value was near zero. The final output of this program were 1 db 
calibrated files which were put back onto the ship's network for use among 
the science party. After the cruise, two more finishing steps were 
implemented. First, remaining density inversions were removed. Secondly, the 
water sample nutrient and salinity data were merged with CTD data from the 
bottle stops into bottle files (*.nut). Due to the nonstandard format of the 
nutrient data, special procedures, described below, were used to merge the 
data.


6.  Processing Water Samples

Phosphate, Nitrate, Silicate, and Nitrite were collected for all stations 
except 1 and 2 (test stations), 24, 26, 29 and 69-90(no bottles). These 
nutrients were analyzed on board by the UW group, who produced listings of 
the measured values at the nominal depths recorded as bottles were fired 
during the CTD cast. Salinities were collected for all stations except 1 and 
2 (test stations), 24 and 69-90. The salt samples were analyzed on board by 
the SIO group using a Guildline Autosalinometer. Temperature drift in the 
autosalinometer water bath was corrected for, based on standard samples run 
at the start and end of each tray of salt samples. The salts were listed by 
Niskin bottle number in one file per station (*.sal).


7.  CTD Sensor Accuracy

The manufacturer's specified CTD sensor accuracy is 0.003mS/cm for 
conductivity, 0.001°C for temperature and 0.015% of the full scale for 
pressure. The CTD sensors received laboratory calibrations in May 2002, prior 
to the cruise which were applied during the data processing. In addition to 
bottle salinity comparisons the dual sensors were compared at sea to 
investigate any sensor drift. After the cruise, laboratory calibrations were 
performed, between October and December, 2002. The post cruise calibrations 
were not applied to the data but used to show the small amount of drift in 
the sensors and verify that no additional corrections were needed. We found 
the temperature accuracy was better than 0.001°C, conductivity ranged from 
0.001 mS/cm at higher conductivity (29 mS/cm) and based on sensor differences 
was 0.004 mS/cm at lower (below 25 mS/cm) conductivity.

Consistent with the combined temperature and conductivity accuracy, the 
higher salinity (34.8) was better than 0.002 based on bottle calibrations and 
the lower salinity (below 34.5) showed sensor differences of 0.007.

Pre- and post-cruise calibrations show both temperature sensors were very 
stable with less than 0.001°C shift between calibrations. The primary 
temperature changed 0.0003°C and the secondary temperature changed 0.0008°C. 
The changes are even less if only the calibration points between -2 to 6°C, 
the temperature range of the data, are examined. The difference between the 
sensors is in agreement with the difference found by comparing station data 
during the cruise, less than 0.001°C. The sensors' drifts are less than the 
stated accuracy of the sensors and no adjustments needed to be made to the 
data.

The conductivity sensors were also quite stable from the pre- to post-cruise 
calibrations. The primary conductivity increased 0.002 mS/cm and the 
secondary conductivity decreased 0.0004 mS/cm. 'Increased' here means the 
pre-cruise calibration was reading too high by the time of the post-cruise 
calibration. Examining the calibration points between 20 and 32 mS/cm, the 
range of the data, show the primary conductivity increased by only 0.001 
mS/cm and the secondary sensor did not change. These results are consistent 
with the at-sea sensor comparisons for the higher conductivity, a 0.001 mS/cm 
difference in water over 29 mS/cm; however, the larger sensor difference of 
0.004 mS/cm in water with lower conductivity, below 25 mS/cm, is not seen in 
the calibration data. This may be due to the lack of calibration points for 
the lower conductivity water which skip from 0 to 28 mS/cm.

The CTD salinity differences between primary and secondary sensors result 
from a combination of the temperature and conductivity differences. The 
differences were 0.002 in the saltier water (34.8-34.9) and up to 0.007 in 
the fresh waters (30). The water sample salinities from the bottles in the 
saline (34.8-34.9) homogenous Atlantic Layer show the 0.002 difference in the 
34.8-34.9 range is due to the primary sensors salinity reading +0.0005 to 
+0.001 higher than the bottles and the secondary sensors salinity reading -
0.001 lower than the bottles. This 0.001 correction was not made to the CTD 
data. Because there are no meaningful bottle calibrations for salinity in the 
high gradient waters the accuracy of the lower salinity water must be based 
on the laboratory calibrations and the sensor comparisons. The pre- and post-
cruise calibrations show the primary salinity may be +0.001 because of a 
change in the conductivity sensor and the secondary salinity may be -0.001 
due to the change in the temperature sensor. However, the at-sea salinity 
data show a difference of 0.007. Thus, the best estimate is then around 
0.007.


8.  Data Issues

8.1.  Bottle Flushing

High salinity gradients in the upper 200m were responsible for large salinity 
signals as well as large differences between the bottle and CTD samples. 
Tests performed at sea indicate the CTD package wake effects and lack of 
bottle flushing (even after using 1 minute bottle stops) were responsible for 
the discrepancies between CTD sensors and bottle samples in the large 
gradient regions. Although the water sample values were within 10m of the CTD 
values, the differences were large enough to prevent their use in 
calibrations.

Waiting times and tests:
Station 25 and up: waiting 15 sec at bottle stop before firing bottle
Station 29: drew duplicate samples from each Niskin bottle
Station 57-68: increased waiting time to 1 minute before firing bottle
Station 57+58: fired a bottle after 15seconds and then again after total of 1 
minute wait.


8.2.  Bottle Salinity Quality

Unstable room temperatures throughout the cruise led to unstable 
autosalinometer water bath temperatures, which in turn decreased the accuracy 
of the measured salinities. However, the results of the tests (duplicate 
samples and increased waiting times) show the major discrepancy between CTD 
salinity and the water samples was caused by the lack of bottle flushing not 
the autosalinometer readings.


8.3.  Nutrient Data

Because CTD versus water sample salinity differences do indicate up to a 10m 
separation between the water in the bottle and the location of the bottle 
stop, the nutrient data should be viewed with a +10m error range.


8.4.  Data Spikes at High Winch Speeds

Noisy CTD data was generated by high winch speeds. The spikes in the data 
were removed by the standard processing de-spiking programs and were not a 
concern for the final output. The source of the problem, determined on the 
following cruise, was cross- talk between the data cable and the winch power 
cable which had been laid too close to each other. Separation of the cables 
solved the problem.


8.5.  Rosette Water Sampler Malfunction

Beginning with station 62 we had problems with bottle firing. There were 
confirmed fires that did not close bottles and unconfirmed fires that did 
close bottles. There appeared to be a pattern to the bottles that did close 
and this pattern was used successfully for the next few stations. When the 
problem increased further on station 68 it was decided to stop water sampling 
altogether during the CTD casts. The ship had a spare water sampler that 
could have been swapped in, but it was decided to save the time for 
additional CTD casts, because this was near the end of the cruise. The 
pattern for successful bottle firing was for every-other three bottles to 
close (Bottles 1-3, 7-9, 13-15, 19-21). Although during station 68 this 
pattern deteriorated. The bottle firing problem persisted through manual 
firing using the deck unit, cable replacement between the underwater unit and 
the water sampler and on deck tests while the CTD was in the hanger.


9.  Data Quality

9.1.  Uncontrolled

Bottle salinity and nutrients have not been quality controlled. The 
temperature and salinity from the secondary CTD sensors, the fluorometer and 
the light scattering sensor data have not been quality controlled. The 
quality words in the down and up 1 db averaged files have not been adjusted 
to reflect interpolations or edits. The quality word remains at its default 
setting of '2' for pressure, and primary and secondary temperature and 
salinity.


9.2.  Density Inversions

Deep density inversions appeared in some of the CTD profiles. To identify 
these, profiles of density versus pressure were made for all of the casts. It 
was determined that five stations needed to have bad temperature and salinity 
values removed manually. Erroneous temperature and salinity values for sensor 
1 were replaced with the missing value flag, -9.00000. Temperature and 
salinity values for sensor 2 were left unchanged.

Stations 7 and 10 had density inversions in the shallow water that were 
corrected through interpolation. They are listed in section 9.3.

This table lists the records that were changed in stations 28, 30, 32, 65, 
and 66.

sbi02028.dcc: 884.0 -9.00000 0.12410 -9.00000 34.87338 0.0469 0.0357 29.42 17
22222111
sbi02028.dcc: 885.0 -9.00000 0.12220 -9.00000 34.87341 0.0329 0.0351 29.42 23
22222111
sbi02028.dcc: 886.0 -9.00000 0.12030 -9.00000 34.87343 0.2709 0.0288 29.42 25
22222111
sbi02028.dcc: 931.0 -9.00000 0.07060 -9.00000 34.87715 0.0891 0.0339 29.42 25
22222111
sbi02028.dcc: 934.0 -9.00000 0.06430 -9.00000 34.87737 0.0352 0.0365 29.42 25
22222111
sbi02028.dcc: 1124.0 -9.00000 -0.08240 -9.00000 34.88905 0.0702 0.0394 29.08 51
22222111
sbi02028.dcc: 1152.0 -9.00000 -0.09860 -9.00000 34.83081 7.9497 3.2596 29.83 143
22222111
sbi02030.dcc: 948.0 -9.00000 0.08980 -9.00000 34.87582 0.2005 0.0505 29.42 20
22222111
sbi02030.dcc: 1014.0 -9.00000 0.07200 -9.00000 34.87755 0.0419 0.0562 29.42 26
22222111
sbi02030.dcc: 1064.0 -9.00000 0.04100 -9.00000 34.87949 0.0725 0.0850 29.42 48
22222111
sbi02032.dcc: 398.0 -9.00000 0.53530 -9.00000 34.82113 0.0703 0.0861 29.43 24
22222111
sbi02032.dcc: 399.0 -9.00000 0.53520 -9.00000 34.82140 0.0681 0.0837 29.43 24
22222111
sbi02032.dcc: 435.0 -9.00000 0.53710 -9.00000 34.82402 0.0787 0.1188 29.43 24
22222111
sbi02065.dcc: 676.0 -9.00000 0.43590 -9.00000 34.85579 0.0289 0.0377 29.41 26
22222111
sbi02066.dcc: 801.0 -9.00000 0.14170 -9.00000 34.87160 0.0282 0.0312 29.41 20
22222111
sbi02066.dcc: 1210.0 -9.00000 -0.07650 -9.00000 34.88772 0.0272 0.0232 29.41 46
22222111
sbi02066.dcc: 1211.0 -9.00000 -0.07650 -9.00000 34.88769 0.0290 0.0264 29.41 54
22222111
sbi02066.dcc: 1212.0 -9.00000 -0.07640 -9.00000 34.88771 0.0275 0.0257 29.41 58
22222111


9.3.  Data Spikes

Spikes in the CTD data that were not removed by the automated processing 
steps are listed below. Linear interpolation was used to correct these. Two 
of the stations had density inversions instead of spikes. They were corrected 
through interpolation instead of the above method (9.2) simply because they 
were edited in an earlier round of processing. All interpolations were of 4m 
or less except for one station with an interpolation of 8m.

             Station  Beginning Pressure  Ending Pressure  Property
             -------  ------------------  ---------------  --------
                84             90               94            3
                41            972              976            3
                40            825              828            2
                31            448              451            3
                28            883              886            3
                28            898              901            3
                10              3               11            4
                 7             17               20            4

             Property key is 2= Temperature, 3=Salinity, 4=Density
                             inversion (no spike)


10.  Combining Nutrient Water Samples with CTD Data

Phosphate, Nitrate, Silicate, and Nitrite were collected for all stations 
except 1 and 2 (test stations), 24, 26, 29 and 69-90(no bottles). These 
nutrients were analyzed on board by the UW group, who produced listings of 
the measured values at the nominal depths recorded as bottles were fired 
during the CTD cast. A final product of the Matlab-based CTD processing 
program is a file containing nutrient data merged with uptrace CTD pressure, 
temperature, and salinity at sample depths. Merging these data required extra 
care since the nutrient file format did not conform to the CTD processing 
program's expectation that a record exist for each bottle fired (i.e., first 
record of nutrient file should match first bottle tag in CTD .btl file, 
second should match second, and so on.) The .btl file, a product of the 
Seabird stage of processing, contains CTD Salinity, Pressure, Temperature, 
and Conductivity, and time information for each bottle fired.

Sample of a portion of a .btl file:

Bottle Date Sal00 Sal11 Pr T090 T190 C0mS/cm C1mS/cm
Position Time
1 Jul 20 2002 32.9768 32.9730 50.469 -1.4147 -1.4162 26.385620 26.381657 (avg)
01:11:06 0.031 0.0003 0.0004 0.000345 0.000351 (sdev)
2 Jul 20 2002 32.9749 32.9714 36.625 -1.4023 -1.4024 26.388010 26.385348 (avg)
01:13:08 0.040 0.0005 0.0004 0.000394 0.000279 (sdev)
3 Jul 20 2002 32.4475 32.4801 16.869 -0.6377 -0.6690 26.604463 26.603608 (avg)
01:15:25 0.041 0.0456 0.0195 0.002989 0.002629 (sdev)
4 Jul 20 2002 31.1452 31.1397 12.076 3.1626 3.1902 28.624506 28.642007 (avg)
01:16:38 0.050 0.0160 0.0387 0.006194 0.022741 (sdev)
5 Jul 20 2002 31.0635 31.0637 3.774 3.5147 3.5033 28.835734 28.826695 (avg)
01:18:22 0.028 0.0084 0.0088 0.004542 0.006046 (sdev)

Sample SIO nutrient file (.txt) :

Actual Pressure uM Phosphate uM Nitrate uM Silicate uM Nitrite Bottle # Seq. #
3.7 0.29 0.00 12.40 0.02 10 5
12 0.31 0.00 12.86 0.02 8 4
16.9 0.48 0.01 19.32 0.06 6 3
-9 -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 -9 -9
-9 -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 -9 -9

By first comparing the number of records in each nutrient file with the 
number of bottle tags in the .btl file, it was possible to determine if it 
was necessary to insert blank records in the nutrient file to get the order 
correct. In the above sample (station 5), two blank records were inserted to 
fill bottle positions 4 and 5 for which nutrients were not sampled. Files 
that required insertion of blank records were from stations 5, 10, 16, 25, 
28, 34, and 36.

After this, the CTD_GUI module for incorporating nutrients, which was 
customized for this data format, was run to produce the final .nut file.

Sample final .nut file for station 5:

AWS-02 Phase 1 Station Number: 5 Bottle Data (pre-CTD calibration)
CTD CTD CTD CTD CTD CTD CTD CTD Meas
Bottle Pres. T1(90) T2(90) TH1(68) TH2(68) SAL1 SAL2 SAL PO4 NO3
SIL NO2 QUAL
Number (db) (oC) (oC) (oC) (oC) (psu) (psu) (psu) (umol/L) (umol/L) (umol/L)
(umol/L) *****
1 50.5 -1.4147 -1.4162 -1.4161 -1.4176 32.9768 32.9730 -9.0000 -9.000 -9.00 -9.00
-9.00 222221192222
2 36.6 -1.4023 -1.4024 -1.4034 -1.4035 32.9749 32.9714 -9.0000 -9.000 -9.00 -9.00
-9.00 222221192222
3 16.9 -0.6377 -0.6690 -0.6383 -0.6696 32.4475 32.4801 32.1714 0.480 0.01 19.32
0.06 222221122222
4 12.1 3.1626 3.1902 3.1627 3.1903 31.1452 31.1397 31.2070 0.310 0.00 12.86
0.02 222221122222
5 3.8 3.5147 3.5033 3.5153 3.5039 31.0635 31.0637 31.0899 0.290 0.00 12.40
0.02 222221122222

Overlayed profiles of the .txt files and .btl files data were made to verify 
the accuracy of the matching.




11.  XCTD

XCTD Use:

1 used in test
9 used in Section 3 (8 good, 1 fail)
15 used in Section 3a (13 good, 2 fail)
8 used in Section 5 (7 good, 1 fail)

The depth in the XCTD data and the actual depth disagree by varying amounts 
depending on the station. As explained by the Sippican help page, the depth 
calculation for the XCTD-1 (1100m) is hard coded. Four coefficients are 
listed in the header but only the first two are used in a quadratic equation: 
depth = a*time + b*time*time. Thus the depth is not as accurate as the ship's 
depth (Knudsen) or the CTD.

The coefficients given in the ascii out files (*.edf) are

                            Depth Equation : Standard
                            Depth Coeff. 1 :  0.0
                            Depth Coeff. 2 :  3.425432
                            Depth Coeff. 3 : -0.00047
                            Depth Coeff. 4 :  0.0

The XCTD data were not processed farther, nor have they been quality 
controlled.


12.  Individual Station Notes

Station 1 
Test station. One large pressure spike and deck unit turned off mid-cast. 
Deck unit fuses were blown. Cause was later determined to be a short in the 
termination. The old splice was removed and moisture was noticed in the 
seabird end of the cable. No moisture seen in the conducting wire end by the 
technician. The wire was not cut back. Only the splice was redone using a new 
seabird cable.

Station 2 
Test station. Water sampler modem connection not working from deck unit to 
the PC. The water sample was tripped by manual fire and a marker file made 
for the bottle trips. No samples were taken so no need to process the bottle 
file. Jiggling computer cable after cast 'fixed' it until it died again later 
at station 12 during which the cable was replaced with one from Jim Schmidt 
(SIO). Lat and Lon only in header.

Station 3 
Latitude and Longitude added to the acquisition configuration.

Station 4 
Added Bottom tracker (however there was no change needed in the *.con file). 
Line was 5m but it didn't switch on until we touched (very lightly!). 
Altimeter, groundtruthed, is accurate. CTD read 1.7m off bottom when 
altimeter said 1.75m.

Station 6 
Altimeter signal cleaner than before- we believe its because of reduced 
interference from the ship's V850 fathometer. We suspect V850 was changed 
from 200kHz to 50kHz.

Station 7 
Altimeter even cleaner after ships V850 turned off. It became standard 
practice to turn off V850 for all subsequent stations.

Station 9 
Changed *.CON file to include Wet Labs Light Scattering Sensor. Also added a 
user polynomial (slope =1) for flourometer if we decide to add it.

Station 24 
Changed *.CON to include Seapoint Fluorometer and removed user polynomial. 
This Station was the first, at the seaward end, of the originally planned 
Beaufort Slope Line. Because of the steep topography on the line the section 
was repositioned to the west. Ice conditions were heavy. The cast was aborted 
after 200m (bottom depth was 2150m) due to closing ice. In addition the J-
Frame was leaking oil quickly due to missing set screws. Screws were replaced 
after the cast fixing the J-frame. No bottles taken.

Station 25 
Acquisition computer died prior to cast. May be due to trouble with the modem 
connection for the water sampler that ran through a comm. port to USB 
converter. The conversion was necessary since the acquisition PC only had one 
comm port and one USB port. Computer would boot, Seasave would load but when 
acquisition started the computer would turn off. Set up Dave Leech's laptop 
to acquire station data without modem. Manually fired bottles from deck unit 
and put mark tags into data. This got messy. Bottles may be difficult to ID. 
In addition to problems with confirmation (confirmation light began with 
sequence off -on -off for a bottle fire. It then changed to on-off-on at the 
fourth bottle), there were also missing bottles on the frame so when we 
thought we were tripping the 6th bottle we may have been tripping the 7th 
bottle.

Handmade the bottle-tag (*.bl) file from the mark tags and scan numbers where 
the CTD was stopped for bottle closures. The CTD data from the possible water 
stops were compared with water sample salinities to determine the actual 
bottle-stops. Bottle firing- started waiting 15 seconds at bottle-stop before 
firing bottle.

Station 26 
Jim Schmidt (SIO) let us set up one of his computers that has 2 serial ports. 
However some means of exporting data was needed. CD writer software was added 
by ship's crew. New version of SEASAVE was added: v.5.25.

Station 28 
On upcast there was danger of getting caught in ice. At 260db the package was 
relowered to 380db and then raised again. This means the bottles below 250 db 
may have leaked due to compression during relowering.

Station 37 - 39 
Jelly-fish in the water. They were first seen in station 37. The package 
caught jellyfish parts on these three casts.

Station 42 
Prior to cast: Retermination. The wire was cut back to first appearance from 
winch, about 30 ft, and pull-tested to 2000 pounds.

O-ring seal on the secondary conductivity unit at the connection of the 
secondary conductivity outflow to the pump tubing was replaced. O-ring had 
started to crumble. Secondary temperature sensor protector (clear plastic 
disk and spout) that encases the thermister was missing one of the plastic 
screws that held it in place. This allows the protective cover to wobble as 
it flows through the water, potentially changing the temperature reading 
and/or calibration. The protector was removed and replaced with a functional 
cover from the spare sensor. Note this changing of protective covers may have 
changed the calibration.
Cable between water sampler and CTD has been worn near water sampler. 
Probably due to wear against a sharp corner on LADCP battery pack mounted 
directly below. Cable was repositioned to prevent further wear.

Station 62 
+962 Water sampler had problems firing bottles. There were confirms but no 
trips and also no confirms. The cast was stopped on the upcast after 4 
bottles fired and restarted, calling the rest of the cast station 62a. This 
may be a problem since the file name is now 9 characters long.

The second file, sbi02062a was renamed sbi02962 and the station name within 
the header of the files *.dat and *.bl was also changed. *.dat and *.bl are 
the initial unprocessed files generated by the Seabird software. The data 
were processed and the two uptraces spliced together into a new sbi02062.cup 
and a new sbi02062.btl. The original unmodified station 62 files were renamed 
sbi02062_original.

Bottles 1-3, 7-9, 13-15,19-21 (every other three) would fire and the rest 
would not. This was tested from the deckunit and computer. Cable between 
water sampler and underwater unit replaced due to wear and signs of 
corrosion. Cable looked bad, particularly the neck of the cable attaching to 
the water sampler. But even with new cable the problem persisted. The next 
stations however were fine.

Station 64 
Bottle file had too many tags and had to be edited.

Station 65 
Brief temperature increase seen at 30m is seen by both sensors and a shadow 
of it appears on uptrace. Kept this anomaly because it looked real.

Station 67 
Water sampler worked

Station 68 
Pump had turned on at 10m, at start of cast, but as CTD was brought back to 
the surface the pump turned off and did not turn on again until at 50m. 
Downtrace 0 to 50m temperature and salinity was replaced with the uptrace 
data. Water sampler sampled 4 bottles and then stopped working.

Stations 69-90 
Water sampler option turned off 13. Individual Station Notes on Bottle 
Specific Issues

Station 5 
Two bottles vents not closed, samples not taken.

Station 10 
One bottle tripped on the fly, sample not taken.

Station 12 
Bottle file is in upcast station 912, no bottles in down cast file.

Station 16 
Two bottles compromised, samples not taken.

Station 20 
One bottle with no sample.

Station 23 
Mystery! 8Tags, 7bottles, we don't know which bottle is missing.

Station 24 
No Bottles

Station 25 
Bottles taken, but no bottle file. Hand made a bottle-tag file (*.bl) based 
on mark file and scan numbers of places where the CTD package was stopped for 
bottle-closers.

Station 26 
One bottle with air vent not tight. No salt drawn. Bottle 29 should be at 50m 
and bottle 30 should be at the surface but it appears the 50m niskin was 
skipped and sample bottle 29 filled from the surface niskin. Sample bottle 30 
was used at the start of sampling on the following station. Repositioned 
bottle 29 as the last sample in 026.sal and copied salt info from bottle 30 
in 026.sal to 027.sal.

Station 27 
Bottle from last station is really from this station.

Station 28 
One bottle with air vent not tight. Salt sample missing for 88m, water sample 
#26, Niskin#15, Sequence #14.

Station 30 
Salt sample missing from 175m, water sample #1, Niskin #15, Sequence # 14.
Station 31 
Salt samples accidentally dumped from 0 to 125m, water samples #23 to 28.

Station 62 
3 bottles in first sbi02062.btl and 1 bottle in the following sbi02962.btl 
file. The files were merged so that there is one sbi02062.btl file with 4 
bottle tags to match the 4 water samples.

Station 64 
Too many tags in *.btl file. Saved original *.btl and made new one with the 
correct number of tags.

Station 69+ 
No Bottles 





CCHDO Data Processing Notes

Date        Person          Data Type  Action          Summary
----------  --------------  ---------  --------------  ----------------------
2010-09-07  Fields, Justin  BTL        Website Update  Copied from CARINA 
                                                       collection
            This bottle file was part of the CARINA collection compiled by 
            Bob Key.

2010-09-08  Fields, Justin  BTL        Note            Data originally 
                                                       obtained from ODF 
            These data were originally provided by ODF in 2007.

2014-03-07  Kappa, Jerry    CrsRpt     Website Update  new PDF version online
            I've placed a new PDF version of the cruise report: 
              32PZ20020715do.pdf
            into the directory: 
              http://cchdo.ucsd.edu/data/co2clivar/arctic/32PZ20020715/ .
            It includes all the reports provided by the cruise PIs, summary 
            pages and CCHDO data processing notes, as well as a linked Table 
            of Contents and links to figures and tables.

2014-05-15  Kappa, Jerry    CrsRpt     Website Update  new TXT version online
            I've placed a new TXT version of the cruise report: 
              32PZ20020715do.txt
            into the directory: 
              http://cchdo.ucsd.edu/data/co2clivar/arctic/32PZ20020715/ .
            It includes all the reports provided by the cruise PIs, summary 
            pages and CCHDO data processing notes.
.

