CRUISE REPORT: IN2015_V01
(Updated Jul 2016)




Highlights


                          Cruise Summary Information

               Section Designation  IN2015_V01 (SOTS)
Expedition designation (ExpoCodes)  096U20150321
                  Chief Scientists  Dr Tom Trull / CSIRO, Eric Schulz /BOM
                             Dates  2015-03-21 - 2015-03-30 
                              Ship  R/V Investigator
                     Ports of call  Hobart

                                                  46° 40' 1.2" S
             Geographic Boundaries  141° 34' 7" E               144° 1' 12" E
                                                   47° 9' 5" S

                          Stations  3 ctd stations
      Floats and drifters deployed  2 autonomous profiling floats deployed 
    Moorings deployed or recovered  3 moorings deployed, 1 recovered

                             Contact Information:

             Professor Thomas Trull               Eric Werner Schulz
         Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems   Australian Bureau of Meteorology
          Cooperative Research Centre         Oceanography, Meteorology
               Hobart, Tasmania
            Phone: (03) 6226 2988
             tom.trull@csiro.au                  E.Schulz@bom.gov.au









           Marine
            National Facility


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Voyage Summary

OBJECTIVES AND BRIEF NARRATIVE OF VOYAGE

    Scientific objectives                                     1
    Voyage objectives                                         1
        ancillary projects                                    2
    Results                                                   3
    Voyage Narrative                                          4
    Summary                                                   6
    Principal Investigators                                   6
    Moorings, Bottom Mounted Gear And Drifting Systems        7
    Summary Of Measurements And Samples Taken                 7
    Curation Report                                           8
    Personnel List                                            8
    Marine Crew                                               9
    Acknowledgements                                          9
    Appendices                                                9


CTD PROCESSING REPORT

  1  Summary                                                 12

  2  Voyage Details                                          13
    2.1 Title                                                13
    2.2 Principal Investigators                              13
    2.3 Voyage Objectives                                    13
    2.4 Area of operation                                    13

  3  Processing Notes                                        13
    3.1  Background Information                              13
    3.2  Pressure and temperature calibration                14
    3.3  Conductivity Calibration                            14
    3.4  Dissolved Oxygen Sensor Calibration                 15
    3.5  Other sensors                                       16
    3.6  Bad data detection                                  16
    3.7  Averaging                                           17

  4  References                                              17


HYDROHEMISTRY DATA PROCESS REPORT

  1  Itinerary                                               18

  2  Key personnel list                                      19

  3  Summary                                                 19
    3.1  Hydrochemistry                                      19
    3.2  Rosette and CTD                                     19
    3.3  Nutrients                                           19
    3.4  Salinities                                          20
    3.5  Dissolved oxygen                                    20

  4  Detailed processing                                     20
    4.1  Procedure                                           21
    4.2  Nutrients                                           21
    4.3  Salinities                                          23
    4.4  Dissolved oxygen                                    23
    4.5  CTD vs Hydro salinities                             23
    4.6  CTD vs Hydro Oxygens                                23
    4.7  Plots (see pdf version)                             23
    4.8 Quality Control                                      24
      4.8.1  Silicate RMNS Chart (see pdf version)             
      4.8.2  Phosphate RMNS Chart (see pdf version)           
      4.8.3  NOx RMNS Chart (see pdf version)                  
      4.8.4  Duplicates                                      24
    4.9 Investigation of missing data and actions required   24

  5  Appendix                                                24
    5.1  Nutrient Reference Materials                        24
    5.2  Salinity Reference Material                         24
    5.3  Go-Ship Specifications                              24
    5.4  Temperature change over nutrient analyses (see pdf) 25

CCHDO DATA HISTORY NOTES                                     25






RV Investigator Voyage Summary


Voyage #         IN2015_VO1
Voyage title:    IMOS Southern Ocean Time Series automated moorings for
                 climate and carbon cycle studies southwest of Tasmania
Mobilisation:    Hobart, Friday, 20 March 2015
Depart:          0900, Hobart, Saturday, 21 March 2015
Return:          0900, Hobart, Monday, 30 March 2015
Demobilisation:  Hobart, Monday, 30 March 2015

Voyage Manager:  Max McGuire     Contact details: max.mcguire@csiro.au
Chief Scientist: Tom Trull
Affiliation:     CSIRO O&A       Contact details: tom.trull@csiro.au
Co-PI:           Eric Schulz
Affiliation:     Bureau of       Contact details: E.Schulz@bom.gov.au
                 Meteorology


OBJECTIVES AND BRIEF NARRATIVE OF VOYAGE

Scientific objectives

The Southern Ocean has a predominant role in the movement of heat and carbon 
dioxide into the ocean interior moderating Earth's average surface climate. 
The Southern Ocean Time Series observatory (SOTS) uses a set of three 
automated mooring to measure these processes under extreme conditions, where 
they are most intense and have been least studied. The atmosphere-ocean 
exchanges occur on many timescales, from daily insolation cycles to ocean 
basin decadal oscillations and thus high frequency observations sustained 
over many years are required. The current context of anthropogenic forcing 
of rapid climate change adds urgency to the work.

Voyage objectives

The primary objective was to deploy a full set of SOTS moorings (SOFS, 
Pulse, and SAZ) and to obtain ancillary information of the oceanographic 
conditions at the time of deployment using CTD casts, underway measurements, 
the Triaxus towed body, and deployment of autonomous profiling "Bio-Argo" 
floats. Each of the SOTS moorings delivers to specific aspects of the 
atmosphere-ocean exchanges, with some redundancy:

• the Southern Ocean Flux Station (SOFS) focuses on air properties, ocean 
  stratification, waves, and currents.

• the Pulse biogeochemistry mooring focuses on processes important to 
  biological CO2 consumption, including net community production from 
  oxygen measurements and nitrate depletion, biomass concentrations from 
  bio-optics and bio-acoustics, and collection of water samples for 
  nutrient and plankton quantification.

• the SAZ sediment trap mooring focuses on quantifying the transfer of 
  carbon and other nutrients to the ocean interior by sinking particles, 
  and collecting samples to investigate their ecological controls.

Additional water sampling and sensor comparisons against shipboard 
systems provided quality control and spatial context, which was further 
augmented by Bio-Argo float and Triaxus towed body deployments, and 
satellite remote sensing.


The voyage also supported several ancillary projects:

1. Composition of phytoplankton, Philip Heraud, Monash University

The scientific objectives were to explore the use of spectroscopic 
techniques characterize phytoplankton elemental and molecular compositions 
to understand their variability, links to environmental conditions, and 
roles in biogeochemical cycles. The voyage objective was to obtain samples 
by filtering the ship's underway seawater supply and Niskin bottle samples 
collected with the CTD-Rosette system.

2. Properties of Southern Ocean Clouds and Aerosols, Alain Protat, BOM; 
   Melita Keywood,
   CSIRO

The scientific objectives were to characterize cloud and aerosol 
properties using physical and chemical sensor measurements and sample 
collections. The voyage objectives are to install and operate cloud radar 
and aerosol sampling systems.

3. Southern Ocean Carbon Cycling Observations and Modeling (SOCCOM)

   Lynne Talley, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and the SOCCOM 
   consortium (www.soccom.org)

The overall scientific objectives are to determine the interactions between 
changing Southern Ocean circulation and stratification and the physical and 
biological uptake of carbon dioxide and associated ecosystem impacts. The 
approach was to deploy autonomous profiling floats with new generation 
sensors in bio-optical sensors for microbial biomass, oxygen sensors to 
determine ocean ventilation, pH sensors to examine ocean acidification, and 
nitrate sensors to track biological productivity. The voyage objectives were 
to deploy 2 autonomous profiling floats, each accompanied by a CTD cast to 
2250m.

4. Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey, Anthony Richardson, CSIRO/UQ

The voyage objective was to tow a CPR on one leg to provide plankton 
samples for microscopic identification, as part of the broader collection 
of samples and characterization of plankton communities in the waters of 
Australian coastal and regional seas.


Priority-ranked list of tasks to achieve the overall objectives (from Voyage 
Plan):

1. Deploy SOFS-5 meteorology mooring

2. Deploy Pulse-11 biogeochemistry mooring

3. Deploy SAZ-17 sediment trap mooring

4. Recover SAZ-16 sediment trap mooring

5. Do CTDs (2 casts to 2250m) at the SOTS site, including collecting samples 
   for nutrient, oxygen, dissolved inorganic carbon, alkalinity, and 
   particulate matter analyses.

6. Do ancillary underway measurements, including clean and trace-clean 
   underway water supply sampling and sensor measurements, meteorological 
   observations, and bio-acoustics using shipboard 
   multi-beam/multi-frequency system.

7. Deploy 2 SOCCOM autonomous profiling floats - 1 at SOTS site, one during 
   transit to or from Hobart to SOTS site. Do a CTD cast to 2250m prior to 
   each deployment

8. Tow MacArtney Triaxus to and/or from SOTS site, and one or more nights 
   while at SOTS site.

9. Tow CPR to and/or from SOTS site

Results

Amazingly, essentially all planned tasks were fully achieved for the core 
project and all ancillary projects. This is a huge achievement, made 
possible by the weather, the capabilities of the ship, and the 
professionalism of MNF, ASP, and the science project teams. The ability to 
include ancillary project teams also led to new collaborations, including 
one featured in our Science Highlights below.

There were only two exceptions:

1. commitment to supporting the ancillary cloud radar observations meant 
   that a planned final tow of the Triaxus on the return leg to Hobart 
   could not be fit in ahead of the MNF operational need to dock early in 
   the morning on Monday 30 March 2015. This outcome emphasizes the new 
   challenges that come with the advantages of larger science parties.

2. evaluation of the fidelity of the underway seawater supply for dissolved 
   oxygen sampling by comparison to CTD-Niskin samples was compromised by a 
   blocked intake. There is a need to make intake cleaning a standard 
   procedure, supported by intake pressure measurements being available to 
   the ship crew.

Counterbalancing these shortfalls were the completion of activities 
beyond those in the initial Voyage plan, including:

1. an additional Argo float was deployed for the IMOS Argo facility

2. an additional CTDs was completed to 1500m to collect deep seawater 
   for use by the MNF Hydrochemistry and CSIRO Calibration Facility 
   teams.

3. collection of cloud radar data during a satellite overpass for ancillary 
   project 3.





Voyage Narrative

Saturday 21 March 2015     Calm water procedures practice

After a final lift to re-load the towed body winch following re-certifying 
it for ancillary use with mooring work, we departed at 0900. We adjusted the 
compass off Battery Point and proceeded to Adventure Bay for equipment 
testing and procedure practice. The CTD deployment from the coring boom was 
difficult but ultimately successful, although sensor logging was not fully 
successful. Mooring practice work focused on familiarization of crew and 
project teams with user and ship equipment and procedures for lift of the 
SOFS float. The practice was very beneficial and revealed the advantages of 
remote control of the A-frame and winches, but also some limitations. The 
remote control box is not intuitive, responds slowly, and can easily lead to 
unwanted and unexpected actuations of the hydraulics. This is an important 
safety issue and needs attention to resolve it - with a dedicated box for 
just the winches and A-frame as used in high risk work.

Sunday 22 March 2015       Transit and Triaxus Tow

During this transit day the mooring deployment procedures were reviewed by 
the crew, MNF, and science teams. We carried out a very successful first tow 
of 6 hours of the Triaxus, with successful data collection from all 
instruments including the newly mounted SUNA nitrate and FIRe variable 
fluorescence instruments. There remains some work to do to implement logging 
of all data streams in a uniform way, rather than on an instrument by 
instrument basis. Late in the tow, one CTD channel was lost, which appears 
to have resulted from clogging by a salp (as the Triaxus was coated with the 
remains of many salps when recovered). Development of a shield for the 
intakes or their reorientation may be required. Some data loss also occurred 
for the FIRe instrument owing to problems with the project supplied laptop 
used for its logging. During the Triaxus tow we collected a suite of 
particle samples from the underway science seawater supply for chemical and 
biological characterization.

Monday 23 March 2015       Deployment of SOFS-5

We made the decision to proceed with deployment of the drogued top end of 
the mooring at our "Go/No-go" meeting at 0630, but reserved the right to 
cancel launch of the SOFS-5 surface float if the weather worsened. It 
lightened and we launched the float at 1200 and recovered its trailing end 
about 1300. The ship approach to the float was initially on the starboard 
side, but had to switch to the port side as we came into range for 
grappling. Reconnection of the line to the ship is difficult on this side 
because the electrical box on the stern is a severe hindrance and should be 
relocated (as previously recommended in our IN2014_E04 report). We 
proceeded to deploy the mooring and released the anchor about 22:20 after a 
long day on deck. We ran 3-mile repeat weather legs through the night for 
sensor comparisons between the ship and SOFS-5 mooring instruments.

Tuesday 24 March 2015      Spooling on of Pulse-11

We began work at 0800 to spool on the Pulse-11 mooring, while carrying out a 
CTD cast to 2250m. Sensor display during the downcast was problematic, but 
correct during the upcast. 22 of 24 Niskins properly closed and were sampled 
by MNF hydrochemists and the project team for O2, DIC, ALK, salinity, 
nutrients, pigments, particulate organic carbon, and coccolithophores. 
Worsening weather precluded the planned tow of the Triaxus, and we carried 
out triangulation of the SOFS-5 anchor position, and then swath mapping of 
the Pulse-11 deployment target site and a survey of oceanographic properties 
to the southeast of SOTS using the underway sensors.

We experienced flooding of the main CTD room, Underway laboratory, and 
Hydrochem laboratory on the northerly leg of this survey when the ship was 
tilted to starboard, from water upwelling from the scuppers. This presents 
both safety hazards (slipping in the labs) and science quality issues (dirty 
conditions in the labs) and needs attention.

We held a well-attended SOFS-5 post-deployment discussion which revealed 
several issues that need attention to improve the safety of the mooring 
deployment operation. These issues and others raised in the post-
deployment meetings held after each deployment and recovery are presented 
in Appendix 3.

Weds 25 March 2015         Deployment of Pulse-11 and overnight Triaxus tow 2

Deck preparations began at 0600, ahead of the Go/No-Go decision meeting and 
mooring Toolbox held on the bridge at 730. This approach provides 
experience with working on deck prior to making the decision, as well as an 
early start on the preparation work. We agreed to proceed in light 
southeasterly winds and remnant 4m westerly swell, working slowing into the 
swell in anticipation of a westerly wind change later in the day. 
Deployment went smoothly, but strengthening south-east winds forced us to 
head south of the initial deployment target, and into water depths greater 
than that acceptable for the mooring design. With the mooring streaming 
astern we then towed back towards the alternate Pulse-11 site and deployed 
in acceptable water depth. Overnight we mapped bathymetry while moving east 
to cross into a warm-core eddy feature in preparation for deployment of and 
sampling by the Triaxus the next day.

Thurs 26 March 2015        Spooling on of SAZ-17

We began spooling at 0800 and simultaneously carried out CTD-7, followed by 
deployment of the Argo float Hull 6381i and SOCCOM Float 8514 while underway 
at 1 knot. We then lined up 1 hour south of the CTD for our Triaxus tow to 
the west, but electrical faults precluded deployment and we carried out 
another CTD cast to collect water for the hydrochemistry and calibration 
labs. After tracing the fault to high current draw by the FIRe instrument in 
unusual start-up configuration, we proceeded with the Triaxus tow overnight 
with ancillary underway sampling. We held the Pulse-11 post-deployment 
debriefing (the main outcome was to note that operations for deployment of 
the 'string-of-pearls' floats at the top of the s-tether would be much 
easier with the netd rum winch relocated to the deck).

Friday 27 March 2015       Deployment of SAZ-17 mooring

We recovered the Triaxus just before 0600. The left lower tail cone was 
missing on recovery and appears to have vibrated free owing to failure of 
the adhesive connection between its mounting tangs and the main fuselage. 
The failure was disappointing but not crucial as data collection was not 
interrupted and control and operation of the Triaxus unchanged. Salps had 
again affected CTD channels to some extent during the tow (loss of secondary 
oxygen). We then deployed the SAZ-17 mooring. This went very smoothly and 
was completed by mid-afternoon, allowing us to hold a post-deployment 
briefing (no issues arose), complete another CTD to 2250m, and launch the 
second and final SOCCOM float. We then proceeded to triangulate the SAZ-17 
mooring and successfully verify acoustic communication with the SAZ-16 
mooring. We spent the night swath mapping, before setting up 1 mile 
downstream of the SAZ-16 anchor to be ready for recovery.

Saturday 28 March 2015     Recovery of SAZ-16 mooring

After our formal Go decision at 0630, we released the mooring at 0710 (first 
light). The mast was sighted approximately 20 minutes later, and was 
grappled on the port stern quarter. The mast and first pack of 16 glass 
floats had tangled and were recovered together. All equipment was recovered 
in good condition, with full sample returns from all four sediment traps. 
The final two float packs had also tangled and were again recovered 
together. We held a post-deployment discussion with all involved, which 
raised no concerns and emphasized that things went particularly smoothly as 
a result of increased familiarity with ship systems and mooring procedures 
by the crew. We remained in the SOTS region until 2100 in anticipation of an 
arriving storm front with clouds that could be simultaneously surveyed from 
the ship cloud radar and from above by a satellite overpass. We then 
departed towards Hobart towing the CPR.

Sunday 29 March 2015       Triaxus survey of persistent anti-cyclonic eddy

The planned survey was cancelled to meet MNF operational needs. The CPR 
tow was continued until retrieval at the Tasmanian shelf edge.



Summary

The main success of the voyage was the re-establishment of the Southern 
Ocean Time Series observatory, via the deployment of the SOFS-5, Pulse-11, 
and SAZ-17 moorings, along with the recovery of the SAZ-16 mooring. Sample 
analyses for the recovered SAZ-16 sediment traps will be performed 
throughout 2015. Tele-metered observations are already live to the internet 
from the Southern Ocean Flux Station mooring. Observations from the Pulse 
biogeochemistry and SAZ sediment trap moorings will be available 1-year 
after their recovery in April 2015. The work was done safely, efficiently, 
and with 100% completion using new procedures, new personnel, and the new RV 
Investigator.

Triangulated anchor depths and positions for the SOTS moorings:

SOFS-5:    4664m   46.6670S   142.0732 E

Pulse-11:  4240m   46.9405S   142.3261 E

SAZ-17:    4502m   46.8249S   141.6559 E

While these mooring deployments were the main focus, the voyage also 
achieved an amazing variety of additional scientific results, including via 
new collaborations with the ancillary projects. A selection of these are 
presented in the Scientific Highlights section.



Principal Investigators

A. Eric Schulz, BOM, E.Schu lz@bom.gov.au
B. Tom Trull, ACECRC/CSIRO, Tom.Trull@csiro.au
C. Melita Keywood, CSIRO, Melita.Keywood@csiro.au
D. Alain Protat, BOM, A.Protat@bom.gov.au
E. Philip Heraud Monash phil.heraud@monash.edu



Moorings, Bottom Mounted Gear And Drifting Systems

              APPROXIMATE POSITION
Item  PI    LATITUDE       LONGITUDE     DATA
 No       deg min    N/S  deg min    E/W  TYPE       DESCRIPTION
----  --  --------------  --------------  ---------  ----------------------------
                                          M02, M06,  Deployed SOFS-5 air-sea flux
  1   A   46  40.02   S   142 4.38    E   M90,H71,   mooring, for recovery in
                                          DOl, H90,  April 2016
                                          H17, H21   
  2   B   46  56.43   S   142 19.566  E   H90        Deployed Pulse-11
                                                     biogeochemistry mooring,
                                                     for recovery in April 2016
  3   B   46  49.494  S   141 39.354  E   H90        Deployed SAZ-17 sediment
                                                     trap mooring, for recovery in
                                                     April 2016
  4   B   46  47.603  S   141 49.392  E   H90        Recovered SAZ-16 sediment
                                                     trap mooring, deployed in
  5   B   47  09.5    S   144 01.12   E   H90        May 2013
  6   B   47   8.58   S   144 0.56    E   H90        Argo profiling float Hull
                                                     SOCCOM profiling float ID
  6   B   46  50.66   S   141 34.007  E   H90        8514
                                                     SOCCOM profiling float ID
                                                     9315




Summary Of Measurements And Samples Taken


Item                    DATA
 No.  PI   NO   UNITS   TYPE  DESCRIPTION
----  --  ---  -------  ----  -----------------------------------------------
                              3 CTD casts to 2250m with T,S,O2,phytoplankton 
                              fluorescence, particle backscatter, and beam 
                              attenuation sensors, sampled at 24 depths for 
  1   B     1  cast     H10   analyses of nutrients, salinity,  DIC, 
                              alkalinity, dissolved oxygen ; and particulate 
                              organic carbon and pigments at the top 6 depths

                              Continuous monitoring of underway seawater 
  2   A   700  miles    H71   supply for temperature salinity for study of 
                              physical heat and mass flux

                              Continuous monitoring of incoming short and 
  3   A   700  miles    M02   long-wave radiation for heat fluxes 

                              Continuous monitoring of routine meteorological 
  4   A   700  miles    M06   observations (wind, ait temperature, humidity 
                              and pressure) for heat, mass and momentum 
                              fluxes

  5   A   700  miles    M90   Continuous monitoring of precipitation for mass 
                              fluxes

                              Underway Water Samples for particulate organic 
  6   B    50  samples  H10   carbon, biogenic silica, spectroscopic and 
                              pigment analyses


Curation Report

Item No.  DESCRIPTION

    1     Water and particle samples collected from the CTD and underway 
          system are returned to CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research for 
          chemical analyses and then discarded following quarantine 
          protocols.



TRACK CHART
See figure below

GENERAL OCEAN AREA(S)
Southern Ocean - Indian Sector

SPECIFIC AREAS
Subantarctic Zone southwest of Tasmania





Personnel List

 1. Max McGuire           MNF          Voyage Manager
 2. Steve Thomas          MNF          SIT electronics support
 3. Will Ponsonby         MNF          SIT electronics support
 4. Pamela Brodie         MNF          DAP computing support
 5. Steve Van Graase      MNF          DAP computing support
 6. Bernadette Heaney     MNF          GSM support
 7. Mark Rayner           MNF          Hydrochemist
 8. Christine Rees        MNF          Hydrochemist
 9. Brett Muir            MNF          Triaxus support
10. Tom Trull             CSIRO-ACE    Chief Scientist
11. Eric Schulz           BOM          Co-Chief Scientist
12. Peter Jansen          IMOS-UTAS    Mooring Managing Engineer
13. Jim LaDuke            CSIRO        Mooring deck work
14. Jamie Derrick         CSIRO        Mooring Technical Supervisor
15. Abe Passmore          ACE-UTAS     Sediment traps
16. Rob Newham            UTAS         Honours student
17. Alice della Penna     UTAS-UParis  PhD student
18. Phillip Heraud        Monash Univ  Phytoplankton composition
19. Olivia Sackett        Monash Univ  Phytoplankton composition
20. Katerina Petrou       Monash/UTS   Phytoplankton composition
21. Alain Protat          BOM          Clouds study leader
22. Ken Glasson           BOM          Radar instrument specialist
23. Melita Keywood        CSIRO        Aerosol measurements
24. Jason Ward            CSIRO        Aerosol measurements
25. Natasha Henschke      UNSW         LOPC instrument specialist
26. Henrique RapizoGomes  Swinburne    SOFS wave/turbulence
27. Phil De Boer          CSIRO        Mooring Technical Supervisor
28. Brandon Beneford      EEC          Weather radar
29. Emily O'Brien         AMC          FRMS fatigue management study







Marine Crew

Name                 Role
-------------------  -----------------------
Mike Watson          Master
Gurmukh Ngra         Chief Mate
Adrian Koolhof       Second Mate
Andrew Roebuck       Third Mate
Ian Mortimer         Chief Engineer
Mark Ellicott        First Engineer
Michael Sinclair     Second Engineer
Damian Wright        Third Engineer
John Curran          Electrical Engineer
Cassandra Rowse      Chief Caterer
Emma Lade            Caterer
Rebecca Lee          Chief Cook
Matthew Gardiner     Cook
Graham McDougall     Chief Integrated Rating
Jarod Ellis          Integrated Rating
Christopher Dorling  Integrated Rating
Paul Langford        Integrated Rating
Peter Taylor         Integrated Rating
Matthew McNeill      Integrated Rating
Darren Capon         Integrated Rating





Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the MNF and ASP for ship access prior to the mobilization 
day, and for excellent support at sea. Superb preparation of our mooring 
equipment included major contributions from shoreside team members Danny 
McLaughlin, Darren Moore, Stephen Bray, Diana Davies, and Andreas Marouchos. 
We thank the directors of the MNF, IMOS, and the ACE CRC (Ron Plaschke, Tim 
Moltmann, and Tony Worby, respectively) for support of SOTS.

Signature
  Your name    Thomas W Trull
  Title        Chief Scientist
  Signature    (see pdf version)
  Date:        30 March 2015


Appendix 1  SOTS Mooring Diagrams (see .pdf version)
Appendix 2  Post Mooring Deployment De-briefing Notes
Appendix 3  Photos





Appendix 2   Recommendations from mooring de-briefings

Recommendations requiring MNF and ASP actions

The hand-held control box for the winches and A-frame is difficult to use. 
Serious mistakes were made such as operating the wrong winches and 
operating them in the wrong direction. A simpler control box is needed.

Lighting on deck is insufficient - winch drivers struggled to see hand 
signals from the Bosun and the positions of mooring lines and components. 
Gimballed down lights on the A-frame to illuminate the mooring, and more 
deck lights to eliminate shadowing, (including under the overhanging 
Gilson winch platform) are needed.

Relocation of the electrical box on the port stern rail is needed, to allow 
for clear lines of site and clear passage of mooring pick-up and tagging 
lines.

Relocation of the netdrum winch from the O2 deck to a portable mount on 
the main deck is needed to allow it to be used for mooring work.

A charting tool is needed that can add waypoints in the operations room 
that can be viewed on the bridge, preferably with bathymetry available as 
an overlay for targeting anchor locations.

Access to the port side of the a-frame is congested by the a-frame 
hydraulics blocking the escape route from the rear of the vessel; they 
should be relocated.


Recommendations for project team for 2016 SOTS voyage

SOFS-5 Anchor (and preferably all anchors) needs to be loaded on port 
side - to avoid having to move it past the mooring wire.

SOFS-5 Deck Rails should be mounted further to port.

Pulse mooring small instruments should be provided with tear-away tags to 
speed up ondeck recording of serial numbers as they are mounted.

Provide water proof paper for note taker





Appendix 3   Photos

New procedure for controlled sediment trap launch. The trap is held in-line 
between the winch (line to left) and mooring (line to right entering the 
sea), and lifted out of its deckcradle via a bridle using the new hoist 
mounted on the A-frame. Two tag lines to pullies on the A-frame allow it to 
be controlled until it is aft of the ship and released via the quickrelease 
trigger line (held by hand). The Technical Supervisor (white helmet in left 
foreground) is providing a hand signal to the deck winch driver (out of 
photo to left). The Bosun (orange helmet facing camera) is overseeing the 
operation. The crewman in the the foreground (in white helmet with back to 
camera) is an IR operating the waist-belt mounted portable controls for the 
the A-frame and the A-frame mounted hoist. A simpler control box would allow 
this to be done while still keeping an eye on the equipment and associated 
risks. Photo by Eric Schulz, BOM.



SOTS team: Jamie, Phil, James, Max, Pete, Paul, Peter, Chris, Abe, Graeme, 
Tom

Not in Photo: deck crew: Jarod, Darren, Matt; Bridge officer: Mike, Adrian, 
Gurmukh, Andrew

Operations Cameras and Event Logging: Emily, Natasha, Steve



Marine
National Facility







RV Investigator

CTD Processing Report


Voyage #             IN2015_V01
Voyage title         IMOS Moorings
Depart:              Hobart, 0910 Saturday, 21 March 2015
Return:              Hobart 0900 Tuesday, 30 March 2015
Report compiled by:  Steven Van Graas & Pamela Brodie








1  SUMMARY

These notes relate to the production of quality controlled, calibrated CTD 
data from RV Investigator voyage 1N2015_V01, from 21 Mar 2015 - 30 Mar 2015.

Data for 3 deployments were acquired using the Seabird SBE911 CTD 21, 
fitted with 24 ten litre bottles on the rosette sampler. Sea-Bird-
supplied calibration factors were used to compute the pressures and 
preliminary conductivity values. CSIRO -supplied calibrations were 
applied to the temperature data. The data were subjected to automated OC 
to remove spikes and out-of-range values.

The final conductivity calibration was based on a single deployment 
grouping. The final calibration from the primary sensor had a standard 
deviation (S.D) of 0.0015 PSU, within our target of 'better than 0.002 
PSU'. The standard product of ldbar binned averaged were produced using 
data from the primary sensors.

The dissolved oxygen data calibration fit had a S.D. of 0.45uM. The 
agreement between the CTD and bottle data was good.

The Fluorometer, the Wet Labs Transmissometer, and the Biospherical 
Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) sensor were also installed on 
the auxiliary A/D channels of the CTD.

Complications regarding the acquisition software caused the deployment 
numbers recorded with the casts to be different to the actual cast being 
recorded. Cast 1 was recorded as deployment 5, cast 2 recorded as 
deployment 7, and cast 3 recorded as deployment 9. To avoid ambiguity the 
deployment numbers recorded by the acquisition software, not the actual 
cast, will be referred to throughout the report.



2  VOYAGE DETAILS


2.1  Title

IMOS Southern Ocean time series automated moorings for climate and 
carbon cycle studies southwest of Tasmania.


2.2  Principal Investigators

Dr Tom Trull and Dr Eric Schulz.


2.3  Voyage Objectives

The scientific objectives for 1N2015_V01 were outlined in the Voyage Plan.

For further details, refer to the Voyage Plan and/or summary which can be 
viewed on the CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research web site.


2.4 Area of operation

FIGURE 1:  Area of operation for IN2015_V01



3  PROCESSING NOTES


3.1  Background Information

The data for this voyage were acquired with the CSIRO CTD unit 21, a 
Seabird SBE911 with dual conductivity and temperature sensors.

The CTD was additionally fitted with SBE43 dissolved oxygen sensors, 
Fluorometer, Transmissometer and PAR sensors. These sensors are described in 
Table 1 below.


TABLE 1: CTD Sensor configuration on 1N2015_VO1

                                               Serial    A/D  Calibration  Calibration 
Description               Sensor               No.            Date         Source
------------------------  -------------------  --------  ---  -----------  -----------
Pressure                  Digiquartz 410K-134  858/P380   P   17/3/2015    CSIRO 3153 
                                                                            P - dbar
 
Primary Temperature       Seabird SBE3pIus     4722       TO  27/2/2015    CSIRO 3109T
 
Secondary Temperature     Seabird SBE3pIus     4522       Ti  27/2/2015    CSIRO 3106T
 
Primary Conductivity      Seabird SBE4C        3868       CO  26/2/2015    CSIRO 3102C
 
Secondary Conductivity    Seabird SBE4C        3168       Cl  26/2/2015    CSIRO 3098C
 
Primary Dissolved Oxygen  SBE43                1794       A0  11/2/2015    CSIRO 3055D0
 
Transmissometer           C-Star25cm           CST1421    Al  18/6/2014    Wet Labs
 
PAR                       QCP2300              70111      A2  23/8/2013    Manuf. Cal.

Fluorometer               FLBBRTD              3698       A4  23/9/2014

Scattering                FLBBRTD              3698       A5  23/9/2014


Water samples were collected using a Seabird SBE32, 24-bottle rosette 
sampler. Sampling was from 24 ten litre bottles which were fitted to the 
frame. There were 3 deployments.

The raw CTD data were converted to scientific units and written to netCDF 
format files for processing using the Matlab-based, procCTD package. This 
procCTD application is described in the procCTD Procedures Manual 
(Beattie, 2010).

The procCTD software was used to apply automated OC and preliminary 
processing to the data. This included spike removal, identification of water 
entry and exit times, conductivity sensor lag corrections and the 
determination of the pressure offsets. It also loaded the hydrology data and 
computed the matching CTD sample burst data. The automatically determined 
pressure offsets and in-water points were inspected.

The bottle sample data were used to compute final conductivity and 
dissolved oxygen calibrations. These were applied to the data, after which 
files of binned 1dB averaged data were produced.


3.2  Pressure and temperature calibration

The pressure offsets are plotted in Figure 2 below. The 'crosses' refer to 
initial out-of-water values and the 'diamonds' the final out-of-water 
values. Due to software issues there were no out-of-water values captured 
for the start of deployment 5.


FIGURE 2: CTD pressure offsets


The difference between the primary and secondary temperature sensors at the 
bottle sampling depths is plotted below. Most deployments plot within ±1 m°C 
of zero - outliers result from sampling in regions of high vertical 
temperature gradient as supported by the similarity between the temperature 
and conductivity difference shown in figure 5. This indicates neither sensor 
has drifted significantly from its calibration.


FIGURE 3: Mean difference between primary and secondary temperature sensors



3.3  Conductivity Calibration

Discrepancies and possible sampling problems between bottle and CTD 
salinities for the primary conductivity sensor would show in Figure 4, the 
plot of calibrated (CTD - Bottle) salinity below. The calibration was based 
upon the sample data for 59 of the total of 70 samples taken during 
deployments (the outliers marked in Figure 4 below with the red and magenta 
diamonds are excluded from the calibration).


FIGURE 4: CTD -bottle salinity plot.


The plot of calibrated mean (primary - secondary) downcast conductivities at 
the bottle sampling depths for all deployments in Figure 5 shows that the 
calibrated conductivity cell responses corresponded well.


FIGURE 5: Mean difference between primary and secondary conductivity sensors


The final result for the primary conductivity sensor was -

    Scale Factor (a1)       0.99939667       wrt. Manufacturer's calibration
    Offset (a0)             0.0010603624                  ditto
    Calibration S.D. (Sal)  0.001494 PSU

The calibration using the secondary conductivity sensor was -

    Scale Factor (a1)       0.99950285       wrt. Manufacturer's calibration
    Offset (a0)             0.0010507233                  ditto
    Calibration S.D. (Sal)  0.0021734 PSU


This is a good calibration. We normally aim for a S.D. of 0.002 psu for 
'typical' oceanographic voyages. The above calibration factors were applied 
to all deployments.

Data from the primary conductivity and temperature sensors were used to 
produce the averaged salinities.



3.4 Dissolved Oxygen Sensor Calibration

3.4.1 SBE calibration procedure

Sea-Bird (2OiOa) describes the SBE43 as "a polarographic membrane oxygen 
sensor having a single output signal of O to +5 volts, which is proportional 
to the temperature-compensated current flow occurring when oxygen is reacted 
inside the membrane. A Sea-Bird CTD that is


equipped with an SBE43 oxygen sensor records this voltage for later 
conversion to oxygen concentration, using a modified version of the 
algorithm by Owens and Millard (1985)".

Calibration involves performing a linear regression, as per Sea-Bird 
(2010b) to produce new estimates of the calibration coefficients Soc and 
Voffset. These new coefficients are used, along with the other, 
manufacturer-supplied coefficients, to derive oxygen concentrations from 
the sensor voltages.

Results

Deeper casts (>I 000m) are known to be affected by pressure-induced 
hysteresis with this sensor. This is corrected automatically within procCTD 
using the method discussed by SeaBird (2010c).

There is a small mismatch between downcast and upcast dissolved oxygen 
due to the response time of the sensor. No correction for the sensor 
lag effect has been applied.

A single calibration group was used with the associated 5BE43 up-cast data 
to compute the new Soc and Voffset coefficients. The plot below is of CTD 
- bottle oxygen differences for both upcast and downcast data (red 
indicates 'bad' data; + for upcast and square for downcast).


FIGURE 7: (SBE43 - Bottle) Oxygen Difference with upcast CTD data


The old and new Soc and Voffset values for DO sensors are listed in Table 2 
below. The Soc value is a linear slope scaling coefficient; Voffset is the 
fixed sensor voltage at zero oxygen. As expected, over time, the increasing 
Soc scale factors show the 5BE43 sensor is losing sensitivity.

The calibrations were applied for each sensor and the averaged files were 
created using the result from the primary sensor, as there was no secondary 
Oxygen sensor present.


TABLE 2: Dissolved oxygen calibrations

              Manufacturer's  primary      Manufacturer's    secondary
              calibration of  sensor       calibration of    sensor
              primary sensor  calibration  secondary sensor  calibration
------------  --------------  -----------  ----------------  -----------
Voffset       -0.49151738     -0.46500549        N/A             N/A
Soc            0.50939087      0.51282073        N/A             N/A
Fit SD (uM)                    0.4474            N/A             N/A



3.5  Other sensors

The Biospherical PAR sensor was also used for all deployments. The output 
is a nominal O-5 volts. This data channel has been included in the output 
files for all deployments. Clearly, time of day and environmental factors 
such as sea state and cloud cover impact on these readings. If most or all 
of the values for a deployment are near zero it indicates a night-time 
cast. In deployments where the PAR profiles have sub-surface maxima the CTD 
may have been shaded by the ship.



3.6  Bad data detection

The limits for each sensor are configured in the CAP the CTD acquisition 
software and are written to the netCDF scan file. Typical limits used for 
the sensor range and maximum second difference are in Table 3 below. The 
rejection rate is recorded in the procCTD processing log file.


TABLE 3: Sensor limits for bad data detection

          Sensor        Range min  Range max  Max Second Duff
          ------------  ---------  ---------  ---------------
          temperature       -2            40             0.05
          conductivity      -0.01          7             0.01
          oxygen            -1           500             0.5
          fluorometer        0           100             0.5



3.7  Averaging

The calibrated data were 'filtered' to remove pressure reversals and 
binned into the standard product of 1 dbar averaged netCDF files. The 
binned values were calculated by applying a linear, least-squares fit as 
a function of pressure to the sensor data for each bin, using this to 
interpolate the value for the bin mid-point. This method is used to 
avoid possible biases which would result from averaging with respect to 
time.

Each binned parameter is assigned a QC flag. Our quality control 
flagging scheme is described in Pender (2000).

The QC Flag for each bin is estimated from the values for the bin 
components. The QC Flag for derived quantities, such as Salinity and 
Dissolved Oxygen are taken to be the worst of the estimates for the 
parameters from which they are derived.




4  References

Beattie, R.D., 2010: procCTD CTD Processing Procedures Manual.
    http://www.marine.csiro au/dpg/opsDocs/procCTD.pdf

Trull, T., 2015: The RV Investigator. Voyage Plan 1N2015_V01
    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/process/data_files/cruise_docs/   
    Investigator/in2015_v0l_plan.pdf

Pender, L., 2000: Data Quality Control Flags.
    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/ext_docs/DataQualityControlFlags.pdf
    Sea-Bird Electronics Inc., 2010a: Application Note No 64: SBE 43 
    Dissolved Oxygen Sensor -- Background Information, Deployment 
    Recommendations, and Cleaning and Storage. http://www seabird.comlpdf_ 
    documents/ApplicationNotes/appnote64Feb10.pdf

Sea-Bird Electronics Inc., 2010b: Application Note No 64-2: SBE 43 Dissolved 
    Oxygen Sensor Calibration and data Corrections using Winkler Titrations. 
    http://www.seabird.comlpdf_documents/ApplicationNotes/Appnote64-2Feb10.pdf

Sea-Bird Electronics Inc., 2010c: Application Note No 64-3: SBE 43 
    Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Sensor - Hysteresis Corrections. 
    http ://www.seabird.comlpdf_ documents/ApplicationNotes/ 
    Appnote64-3Feb10.pdf








                             



                              RV INVESTIGATOR

                     HYDROCHEMISTRY DATA PROCESS REPORT



            Voyage:              1N2015_V01
            Chief Scientist:     Dr Tom Trull
            Voyage title:        IMOS Southern ocean times series
            Report compiled by:  Rayner and Rees







1  ITINERARY

Mobilise    Date
Hobart      19-20 March 2015
Depart      Date                    Depart
Hobart      21 March 2015           Hobart
Arrive      Date                    Arrive
Hobart      30 March 2015           Hobart
Demobilise  Date
Hobart      30-31 March 2015





2  KEY PERSONNEL LIST

Name             Role              Organisation
--------------   ---------------   ------------
Dr Tom Trull     Chief Scientist   SIMS - UNSW
Max McGuire      Voyage Manager    CSIRO
Christine Rees   Hydrochemist      CSIRO
Mark Rayner      Hydrochemist      CSIRO





3  SUMMARY


3.1  Hydrochemistry

Analysis                                Sampled
--------------------------------------  -------
Salinity (Guildline Salinometer)             86
Dissolved Oxygen (automated titration)       73
Nutrients (AA3)                              70


3.2  Rosette and CTD

    • 4 CTD stations were completed with a 24 bottle rosette (10 L).


3.3  Nutrients

Details
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HyPro Vrsion             3.20
Instrument               AA3
Software                 Seal AACE 6.10
Methods                  AA3 Analysis Methods internal manual
Nutrients anaylsed       Silicate  Phosphate  NOx 


Concentration range      140 µmol/L     3 µmol/L  35.0 µmol/L   1.4 µmol/L     2 µmol/L
Method Detection         0.2 µmol/L  0.02 µmol/L  0.02 µmol/L  0.02 µmol/L  0.02 µmol/L
  Limit (M DL)
Matrix Corrections           N            N             N
Analyst(s)               Christine Rees & Mark Rayner
Lab Temperature (±1°C)   Variable, 19.0 - 24.0°C
Reference Material       RMNS - BW (Appendix 5.1)
Sampling Container type  Sample tube: polypropylene, lid: High density polyethylene
Sample Storage           ≤2 hrs at room temperature
Pre-processing of        None
  Samples  
Comments                 The temperature was logged using a temperature/humidity logger           
                         QP6013 (Jaycar) placed on the deck of the chemistry module. 
                         See appendix 5.4


3.4  Salinities

Details
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HyPro Version            3.20
Instrument               Guildline Autosal Laboratory Salinometer 8400(B) - SN 71613
Software                 Osil
Methods                  Hydrochemistry Operations Manual + Quick Reference Manual
Accuracy                 ± 0.001 salinity units
Analyst(s)               Mark Rayner,
Lab Temperature          21.0 -23.8°C
  (±0.5°C) 
Reference Material       Osil IAPSO - Batch P157
Sampling Container type  Old sample bottles, duplicate sample taken in new salt bottles
Sample Storage           Samples held in Salt Room for 24 hrs before analysis within 
                         ~48 hrs
Comments                 Salinometer was set-up and worked well. The Osil software was 
                         used to collect data. Files were exported into excel and 
                         uploaded into HyPro for processing. The cast number is posted 
                         edited into the data file under the Sample ID column.


3.5  Dissolved oxygen

Details
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HyPro Version            3.20
Instrument               Automated Photometric Oxygen system
Software                 SCRIPPS
Methods                  SCRIPPS
Accuracy                 0.01 ml/L + 0.5%
Analyst(s)               Christine Rees
Lab Temperature (±1°C)   Variable, 19.0 - 24.0°C
Sample Container type    Glass Erlenmeyer flask with glass stopper.
Sample Storage           Samples analysed within ~48 hrs
Comments                 There were some issues with communication between the dosimat
                         and computer, software freezing, and the software picking the 
                         incorrect file to obtain the Thiosulphate Normality as well as 
                         the calibrated flask volumes. Further work is required to sort 
                         this file issue out. There was also issues with obtaining a 
                         good blank during the second analyses





4  DETAILED PROCESSING

Oxygen and salinity data where imported into Hypro. There was no evidence 
of any outliers or bad data points required to be flagged in Hypro.

All nutrient data was processed starting from Aace and Hypro version 3.20.





4.1  Procedure

The procedure for data processing is outline in Figure 1.


Figure 1: The process above shows the data trail procedure from the initial 
          data generated to output via HyPro for reporting.

Nutrients:              Peak evaluation:              HyPro:

Data collected in            Window              Raw data imported
 Seal AACE 6.10        determination and         for peak analysis,
    software           anomolies recorded       calculations and QC
                            (excel)    

Salinity:                                             HyPro:
                       Excel file exported     
Data collected in         from Osil and        Excel file is imported
 Osil software         deployment numbers          for reporting
                             added            
               
Dissolved Oxygen:       Oxygen Sheet Macro:           HyPro:

Data is collected in  .CSV file is imported     .CSV file is imported 
  SCRIPPS software     to perform calcs for        for reporting
                             HyPro



4.2  Nutrients

• Silicate, phosphate and Nitrate + Nitrite analysis was carried out during 
  the voyage. The AA3 was set up with a master file lN2015_V01 (24 sample 
  tray protocol) the AA3 worked well producing high quality data. AACE files 
  were sent directly to the lN2015_V01 current directory where they were 
  then copied into the SEAL program file directory on the processing 
  computer.
• All runs have a corresponding AA3 Run_ Analysis _Worksheet file & 
  AA3_Processing_Worksheet file to assist in characterising data.
• The final slk and chd file produced from AACE were copied into Hypro 
  directory for calculation of nutrient concentrations. Hypro uses the 
  median of the peak window to calculate the concentration of each peak.
• During the voyage analysis run nutOO4 had a high MDL for silicate and 
  phosphate. Further processing determined that the high MDL is most likely 
  an artefact of the baseline shifting during the analysis of the MDL's. 
  Phosphate RMNS at the end of the run also changed from 2% to 3%. 
  Comparison of the surface silicate samples with the other analysis runs 
  indicated they were also higher. The silicate samples were repeated from 
  refrigerated samples the next day. Comparison of phosphate samples 
  indicated that the results from nutOO4 were OK. The repeated run nutOO5 
  results had an improved MDL for silicate and the surface samples were of 
  similar concentrations to the other analyses. The silicate results from 
  nutOO5 were the reported concentrations to the chief scientist on board. 
  Further investigation is required into why analysis run nutOO4 had a lower 
  than normal precision. 
• Files for this voyage - nutOOl - 006.


Details                     Silicate   Phosphate  Nitrate +  Nitrite  Ammonia
                                                   Nitrite
--------------------------  ---------  ---------  ---------  -------  -------
Data Reported as            µM 1^(-1)  µM 1^(-1)  µM 1^(-1)    N/A      N/A
Calibration Curve degree     >0.9995    >0.9995    >0.9995
Forced through zero?            N          N          N
# of points in Calibration   5 or 6        5          5
Matrix Correction               Y          Y          Y
Blank Correction                N          N          N
Carryover Correction            Y          Y          Y
Baseline Correction             Y          Y          Y
Drift Correction                Y          Y          Y
Data Adj for RMNS               N          N          N
Medium of Standards           LNSW
Medium of Blank             18.2 Q MQ
Proportion of samples in      10%
  duplicate?


Table 1: Nutrient data processing details

                                              Nitrate +
File                 Silicate      Phosphate   Nitrite   Nitrite  Ammonia    Run Type
----------------  ---------------  ---------  ---------  -------  -------  -------------
IN2015_v0lnut00l         x              x          x                        Set-up Char.
Peak window           50-105         50-100     60-105
RMNS                    ≤2%            ≤2%        ≤2%
Comments            Peak Period 
                     Moved in 
                       AACE
  
IN2015_v0lnut002         x              x          x                       Testing file
Peak window           50-105         50-100     60-105                     exporting, Cd
RMNS                    ≤1%            ≤2%        ≤2%                         column &
Comments            Peak Period                                            sample needle
                   Moved in AACE,                                            position
                     baseline 
                   noisy forced
  
IN2015_v0lnut003         x              x          x                            CTD5    
Peak window           50-105         50-100     60-105                     3 samples ran
RMNS                    ≤1%            ≤1%        ≤1%                      in  duplicate
Comments             Baseline       Peak Period 
                   noisy forced      Moved  in  
                                       AACE
  
IN2015_v0lnut004         x              x          x                            CTD7
Peak window           50-105         50-100     60-105                     3 samples ran
RMNS                    ≤1%            ≤2%        ≤1%                      in  duplicate
Comments             New pump       New pump   New pump 
                   tubes, very       tubes      tubes
                    high MDL.

IN2015_v0lnut005         x                                                  CTD-Silicate
Peak window           50-105                                                  repeat of
RMNS                    ≤1%                                                 deployment 7
Comments           Peak Period 
                    Moved  in
                       AACE

INZ015_v0lnut006         x                                                      CTD9
Peak window           50-105         50-100     60-105                     3 samples ran
RMNS                    ≤1%            ≤2%        ≤1%                      in  duplicate
Comments          Baseline slight 
                     noise, New 
                  reagents except 
                   tartaric acid


4.3  Salinities

• Files for this voyage - sal00l, sal003 sal004; in addition; samples for a 
   storage experiment T-0 were also analysed (16).
• Salinity data was collected using Osil software.
• Lab temperature stable. Bath set at 24°C. Lab temperature and bath 
  temperature was measured before both analyses, both temperature were 
  suitable for analyses to proceed.


4.4  Dissolved oxygen

• The DO system was problematic with a number of issues; com port 
  identification, software freezing, communication with the dosimats, the 
  program picking the incorrect thiosulphate normality and difficulties in 
  obtaining a good blank reading (during second calibration). To try and 
  correct the blank readings the following was performed; both burettes 
  flushed, detector windows cleaned, bath cleaned, thiosulphate dispensing 
  tip re-orientated and only one flask #225 was used. To correct the program 
  from picking the incorrect thiosulphate normality was difficult to resolve, 
  as we are not sure which file it was reading. We managed to get it to 
  select the right concentration (not sure how) in the end. Communication 
  between the dosimats and computer were resolved by following the written 
  protocol.
• Comparison between the underway samples and the CTD surface samples 
  indicated there was a problem with the dissolved oxygen results for the 
  oxy00l-003 files. Further investigation by plotting the dissolved oxygen 
  results against the CTD results indicated there was an offset between these 
  results, with the filesoxy00l-003 having incorrect oxygen concentrations. 
  Investigation found that the programme was using the incorrect volumes for 
  calculating the concentration of dissolved oxygen. This problem has been 
  resolved by placing a new copy of the volume file into the directory. The 
  oxygen data was re-calculated using the correct flask volumes in Hypro.
• Files for this voyage - oxy00l - 003. Plus oxy099 for 3 underway samples.


4.5  CTD vs Hydro Salinities

The following plots can be viewed in the following location (Mark to add in 
link).


4.6  CTD vs Hydro Oxygens

These plots can be viewed in the following location (Mark to add in link)


4.7  Plots (see pdf version)

All waterfall plots consist of good data, without any outliers. This 
indicates there wasn't any leakage from the Niskin bottles.








4.8  Quality Control 

4.8.1  Silicate RMNS Chart 

4.8.2  Phosphate RMNS Chart 

4.8.3  NOx RMNS Chart 

4.8.4  Duplicates

File               Silicate  Phosphate  Nitrate +  Nitrite  Ammonia
                                         Nitrite
-----------------  --------  ---------  ---------  -------  -------
Duplicates within  0.70 µM    0.02 µM   0.175 µM     N/A      N/A
  limit
1N2015_v0lnut00l      x         x          x
1N2015_v0lnut002      x         x          x
1N2015_v0lnut003      x         x          x
1N2015_v0lnut004      x         x          x
1N2015_v0lnut00S      x         x          x
1N2015_v0lnut006      x         x          x


4.9  Investigation of missing data and actions required

Deployment  RP  Analysis  Reason for removal           Action taken
----------  --  --------  ---------------------------  ---------------------
    #5      4     N/A     Niskin bottle did not close  Samples not collected  
    #5      7     N/A     Leaking Niskin bottle        Samples not collected





5  APPENDIX

5.1  Nutrient Reference Materials

                     RMNS    NOx    NO2    PO4     SiO4
                     ----  ------  -----  -----  -------
                      BT   19.069  0.482  1.327   43.03
                      BF   41.388  0.02   3.114  157.932
                      CA   20.552  0.072  1.434   36.864
                      BU    4.052  0.07   0.381   21.517
                      BV   36.234  0.055  2.574  103.835
                      BW   25.089  0.052  1.593   60.518
                      BY    0.022  0.008  0.04    1.833


5.2  Salinity Reference Material

Batch No: P 157 K15 = 0.99985, use by date 15th May 2017.


5.3  Go-Ship Specifications

Salinity  Accuracy of 0.001 is possible with AutosalTM salinometers and 
          concomitant attention to methodology, e.g., monitoring Standard Sea 
          Water. Accuracy with respect to one particular batch of Standard 
          Sea Water can be achieved at better than 0.001 PSS-78.  Autosal 
          precision is better than 0.001 PSS-78. High precision of 
          approximately 0.0002 PSS-78 is possible following the methods of 
          Kawano (this manual) with great care and experience. Air 
          temperature stability of ± 1°C is very important and should be 
          recorded.1
O2        Target accuracy is that 2 sigma should be less than 0.5% of the 
          highest concentration found in the ocean. Precision or 
          reproducibility (2 sigma) is 0.08% of the highest concentration 
          found in the ocean.
SiO2      Approximately 1-3% accuracy†, 2 and 0.2% precision, full-scale.
PO4       Approximately 1-2% accuracy†, 2 and 0.4% precision, full scale.
NO3       Approximately 1% accuracy† 2 and 0.2% precision full scale


5.4  Temperature change over nutrient analyses (figs.)





CCHDO DATA HISTORY NOTES:


Data History


File Online 
Carolina Berys

IN2015_v01_Voyage Summary_FINAL 20150407.pdf (download)
<http://cchdo.ucsd.edu/data/12234/IN2015_v01_Voyage%20Summary_FINAL%2020150407.pdf>
#997e4
*Date:* 2016-06-15
*Current Status:* unprocessed





File Online Carolina Berys

096U20150321.exc.csv (download)
<http://cchdo.ucsd.edu/data/12236/096U20150321.exc.csv> #3f8e4
*Date:* 2016-06-15
*Current Status:* unprocessed





File Merge SEE

09IN20150321_ct1.zip (download)
<http://cchdo.ucsd.edu/data/12218/09IN20150321_ct1.zip> #d7328
*Date:* 2016-06-15
*Current Status:* merged





File Merge SEE

09IN20150321_nc_ctd.zip (download)
<http://cchdo.ucsd.edu/data/12219/09IN20150321_nc_ctd.zip> #1c127
*Date:* 2016-06-15
*Current Status:* merged





Updated CTD exchange and netcdf formats SEE

*Date:* 2016-06-15
*Data Type:* CTD
*Action:* Website Update
*Note:*

SOTS 2015 096U20150321 processing - CTD/update - 
CTDPRS,CTDTMP,CTDSAL,CTDOXY,XMISS,PAR,FLUOR

2016-06-16

SEE


Submission

filename             submitted by   date       id  
-------------------- -------------  ---------- -----
09IN20150321_ct1.zip   update       2016-06-15 12218

Changes
-------

09IN20150321_ct1.zip
    - Changed ship code from IN to 6U.
    - Added cruise information to the header comments:
      # Changed Ship code from IN to 6U for the R/V Investigator
      # Data source: Tom Trull 9/17/15
      # DATES: 20150321 - 20150330
      # SHIP: R/V Investigator
      # Cruise: Southern Ocean Time Series - SOTS; IN2015_V01
      # Region: SE Indian
      # DATES: 20150321 - 20150330
      # Chief Scientist: Tom Trull
      # Supported by the Australian Commonwealth Cooperative Research Centre 
        Program (T. Trull ACE Carbon RP2.1) and the Australian Marine 
        National Facility (T. Trull, IN2015_V01 voyage award)
      # 3 stations with 24 place 10L Rosette
      # SOCCOM Biogeochemical floats deployed by Tom Trull
      #     Sta   WMO_ID  Lat       Lon        Date          U.W.ID
      #     7     5904470 -47.1284  143.9814   20150325      8514
      #     9     Deployed, but never responded              9315
      #     Supported by NSF Award PLR-1425989 to J.L. Sarmiento et al.
      # Hydro/CTD: Who - Tom Trull;  Status - final

Conversion
----------

file                    converted from       software               
----------------------- -------------------- -----------------------
096U20150321_nc_ctd.zip 096U20150321_ct1.zip hydro 0.8.2-47-g3c55cd3


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

file                    stamp            
----------------------- -----------------
096U20150321_ct1.zip    20160616CCHSIOSEE
096U20150321_nc_ctd.zip 20160616CCHSIOSEE

:Updated parameters: no parameters updated

opened in JOA with no apparent problems:
     096U20150321_ct1.zip
     096U20150321_nc_ctd.zip

opened in ODV with no apparent problems:
     096U20150321_ct1.zip


					






File Submission Robert Key

096U20150321.exc.csv (download)
<http://cchdo.ucsd.edu/data/12236/096U20150321.exc.csv> #3f8e4
*Date:* 2016-06-09
*Current Status:* unprocessed
*Notes*

Robert Key
Ship code changed from IN to 6U in all instances of EXPOCODE. Old name added 
as 
alias in header







File Submission Robert Key

IN2015_v01_Voyage Summary_FINAL 20150407.pdf (download)
<http://cchdo.ucsd.edu/data/12234/IN2015_v01_Voyage%20Summary_FINAL%2020150407.pdf>
#997e4
*Date:* 2016-06-06
*Current Status:* unprocessed
*Notes*

Originator's summary cruise report. Downloaded from
http://mnf.csiro.au/~/media/Files/Voyage-plans-and-summaries/Investigator/ 
Voyage%20Plans%20summaries/2015/IN2015_v01_Voyage%20Summary_FINAL%2020150407.ashx







File Merge SEE

09IN20150321_ct1.zip (download)
<http://cchdo.ucsd.edu/data/12096/09IN20150321_ct1.zip> #bf181
*Date:* 2016-05-10
*Current Status:* merged





File Merge SEE

09IN20150321_nc_ctd.zip (download)
<http://cchdo.ucsd.edu/data/12097/09IN20150321_nc_ctd.zip> #baf04
*Date:* 2016-05-10
*Current Status:* merged





Updated CTD exchange and netcdf formats SEE

*Date:* 2016-05-10
*Data Type:* CTD
*Action:* Website Update
*Note:*

SOTS 2015 09IN20150321 processing - CTD/merge - 
CTDPRS,CTDTMP,CTDSAL,CTDOXY,XMISS,PAR,FLUOR

2016-05-10

SEE


Submission

filename             submitted by   date       id  
-------------------- -------------  ---------- -----
09IN20150321_ct1.zip                           12096

Changes
-------

09IN20150321_ct1.zip
    - removed SCATT and SCATT_FLAG_W from files, as data are bad.

Conversion
----------

file                    converted from       software               
----------------------- -------------------- -----------------------
09IN20150321_nc_ctd.zip 09IN20150321_ct1.zip hydro 0.8.2-47-g3c55cd3


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

file                    stamp            
----------------------- -----------------
09IN20150321_ct1.zip    20160510CCHSIOSEE
09IN20150321_nc_ctd.zip 20160510CCHSIOSEE

:Updated parameters: CTDPRS,CTDTMP,CTDSAL,CTDOXY,XMISS,PAR,FLUOR

opened in JOA with no apparent problems:
     09IN20150321_ct1.zip
     09IN20150321_nc_ctd.zip

opened in ODV with no apparent problems:
     09IN20150321_ct1.zip


					






File Online Carolina Berys

in2015_v01CTD_nc.zip (download)
<http://cchdo.ucsd.edu/data/12095/in2015_v01CTD_nc.zip> #a1a46
*Date:* 2016-02-11
*Current Status:* merged





File Merge SEE

in2015_v01CTD_nc.zip (download)
<http://cchdo.ucsd.edu/data/12095/in2015_v01CTD_nc.zip> #a1a46
*Date:* 2016-02-08
*Current Status:* merged





CTD exchange and netcdf formats online SEE

*Date:* 2016-02-08
*Data Type:* CTD
*Action:* Website Update
*Note:*

SOTS 2015 09IN20150321 processing - CTD/merge - 
CTDPRS,CTDTMP,CTDSAL,CTDOXY,XMISS,PAR,FLUOR,SCATT

2016-02-08

SEE


Submission

filename             submitted by   date       id  
-------------------- -------------  ---------- -----
in2015_v01CTD_nc.zip CSIRO via SEE  2016-02-08 12095

Changes
-------

in2015_v01CTD_nc.zip
    - reformatted CSIRO netcdf format to Exchange format
    - CTDSAL: changed Parameter units from 1e-3 to PSS-78
    - XMISS:  changed Parameter name transmissometer to XMISS, and changed 
units 
      from % to %TRANS
    - CTDOXY: converted values from UMOL/L to UMOL/KG
    - ALL CASTNO assigned to 1 by CCHDO
    - added comments

Conversion
----------

file                    converted from       software               
----------------------- -------------------- -----------------------
09IN20150321_nc_ctd.zip 09IN20150321_ct1.zip hydro 0.8.2-47-g3c55cd3


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

file                    stamp            
----------------------- -----------------
09IN20150321_ct1.zip    20160208CCHSIOSEE
09IN20150321_nc_ctd.zip 20160208CCHSIOSEE

:Updated parameters: CTDPRS,CTDTMP,CTDSAL,CTDOXY,XMISS,PAR,FLUOR,SCATT

opened in JOA with no apparent problems:
     09IN20150321_ct1.zip
     09IN20150321_nc_ctd.zip

opened in ODV with no apparent problems:
     09IN20150321_ct1.zip


					






File Submission SEE

in2015_v01CTD_nc.zip (download)
<http://cchdo.ucsd.edu/data/12095/in2015_v01CTD_nc.zip> #a1a46
*Date:* 2016-02-05
*Current Status:* merged
*Notes*

SOTS cruise 
EXPOCODE 09IN20150321
from CSIRO Marine Research, via SEE
files created July 23, 2015







File Submission Robert M. Key

IN2015_v0_CTD_ProcessingReport.pdf (download)
<http://cchdo.ucsd.edu/data/12049/IN2015_v0_CTD_ProcessingReport.pdf> #ccc77
*Date:* 2015-12-16
*Current Status:* unprocessed
*Notes*

09IN20150321
SOCCOM cruise
Note this file has 3 new pigments. New names alert was sent in separate e-
mail







File Submission Robert M. Key

IN2015_v01_HYDROCHEM_ProcessingReport_v1.0.pdf (download)
<http://cchdo.ucsd.edu/data/12048/IN2015_v01_HYDROCHEM_ProcessingReport_v1.0.pdf>
#8b3d5
*Date:* 2015-12-16
*Current Status:* unprocessed
*Notes*

09IN20150321
SOCCOM cruise
Note this file has 3 new pigments. New names alert was sent in separate e-
mail




