CRUISE REPORT: I05
(Updated JAN 2010)


A.  HIGHLIGHTS

A.1.  CRUISE SUMMARY INFORMATION

                  Section designation  I05
    Expedition designation (ExpoCode)  33RR20090320
                     Chief Scientists  James H. Swift / UCSD/SIO
                                       Gregory C. Johnson / NOAA/PMEL
                                Dates  20 MAR 2009 to 15 MAY 2009
                                 Ship  R/V Roger Revelle
                        Ports of call  Cape Town, South Africa, to 
                                       Fremantle, Australia
                                                    30° 22.8' S
                Geographic boundaries  30° 19.67' E             114° 50.72' E
                                                    34° 48.01' S
                             Stations  195 CTD/rosette stations
         Floats and drifters deployed  19 Argo floats deployed
       Moorings deployed or recovered  0


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

                             Gregory C. Johnson 
               National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                   Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
          7600 Sand Point Way NE, Bldg. 3 • Seattle WA 98115-6349
   Tel: 206-526-6806 • Fax: 206-526-6744 • Email: Gregory.C.Johnson@noaa.gov






          US Global Ocean Carbon and Repeat Hydrography Program Cruise I5
                 Cape Town, South Africa, to Fremantle, Australia
                              20 March - 15 May 2009
                                R/V Roger Revelle
                            Preliminary Cruise Report
                      James H. Swift and Gregory C. Johnson
                             195 CTD/rosette stations
                               6,724 levels sampled
                               87 trace metal casts
                             19 Argo floats deployed
                    55 days at sea (no port stops or landings)




ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF INTERAGENCY COOPERATION AND SUPPORT

The U.S. Global Ocean Carbon and Repeat Hydrography Program (also known as the 
U.S. CLIVAR/CO2 Repeat Hydrography Program) has benefited from interagency, 
multi-institutional, and cross-disciplinary collaboration from its inception. 
Some of the ship time has been provided by NOAA on the NOAA Ship Ronald H. 
Brown, and some by NSF on UNOLS ships, such as this cruise on R/V Roger Revelle. 
The traditional close cooperation among NSF and NOAA funded partners on this 
very long single-leg cruise was particularly strong. As usual on these cruises, 
NOAA analysts measured dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), while university teams 
measured pH and total alkalinity. While NSF-funded SIO-ODF took the lead on 
CTD/O2, bottle salinity, bottle oxygen, and nutrients data collection and 
processing, NOAA personnel assisted in each of those areas, allowing for 
methodological cross-training. Two NOAA CFC/SF6 analysts worked on NSF-funded 
equipment and with the able assistance of an NSF-funded graduate student. 
Finally, Jim Swift and Greg Johnson were the NSF-NOAA day-night chief-co-chief 
scientist tag team using their complementary skills to lead the expedition. We 
are very grateful to NSF and NOAA, and our program managers, for the support, 
advice, and encouragement which continues to make this program a success.


Officers and Crew

                         Name                Position
                         ------------------  --------------
                         Tom Desjardins      Captain
                         Paul Mauricio       Chief Engineer
                         Robert Widdrington  1st Mate
                         Joe Ferris          2nd Mate
                         Melissa Turner      3rd Mate
                         John Healy          1st A/E
                         Frank Oathout       2nd A/E
                         Matthew Peer        3rd A/E
                         Jay Erikson         1st Cook
                         Mark Smith          2nd Cook
                         Joe Evers           Boatswain
                         Antje Galbraith     Electrician
                         Robert Arthur       A/B
                         Gary Braden         A/B
                         Edmund Warren       A/B
                         Phil Hawkins        Oiler
                         Phil Hogan          Oiler
                         Malcolm Cobb        Oiler
                         William Brown, Jr.  Oiler
                         Jonathan Alvarez    Wiper
                         Kevin Moran         OS


SCIENCE PROGRAMS AND RESPONSIBLE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS

CTDO/rosette/S/O2/nutrients/data processing
  Jim Swift, Scripps (jswift@ucsd.edu; ph 858-534-3387; fx 858-534-7383)
Transmissometer
  Wilf Gardner, Texas A&M U (wgardner@ocean.tamu.edu; ph 979-845-7211)
CDOM Fluorometer
  Norm Nelson, UCSB (norm@icess.ucsb.edu)
  Craig Carlson, UCSB (carlson@lifesci.ucsb.edu; 805-893-2541)
Research Technician Group
  Carl Mattson, Scripps (cmattson@ucsd.edu or restech@ucsd.edu; ph 858-543-1632)
Shipboard Computer Group
  Frank Delahoyde, Scripps (fdelahoyde@ucsd.edu; ph 858-534-2751)
CO2 (alkalinity and pH)
  Andrew Dickson, Scripps (adickson@ucsd.edu; ph 858-534-2990)
CO2 (DIC and underway pCO2)
  Rik Wannikhof, AOML/NOAA (Rik.Wanninkhof@noaa.gov; ph 305-361-4379)
  Richard A. Feely, PMEL/NOAA (Richard.A.Feely@noaa.gov; ph 206-526-6214)
DOC/TDN
  Dennis Hansel, RSMAS/Miami (dhansell@rsmas.miami.edu; ph 305-421-4078)
13C/14C
  Ann McNichol, WHOI (amcnichol@whoi.edu; ph 508-289-3394)
  Robert Key, Princeton (key@Princeton.EDU; ph 609-258-3595)
CFCs
  John Bullister, PMEL/NOAA (John.L.Bullister@noaa.gov; ph 206-526-6741)
  Mark Warner, University of Washington (mwarner@ocean.washington.edu; ph 206-543-0765)
He/Tr
  Peter Schlosser, LDEO (peters@ldeo.columbia.edu; ph 845-365-8816)
ADCP/LADCP
  Eric Firing, U Hawaii (efiring@soest.hawaii.edu; ph 808-956-7894)
Trace elements
  Chris Measures, U Hawaii (chrism@soest.hawaii.edu; ph 808-956-8693)
  Bill Landing, U Florida (landing@ocean.fsu.edu; ph 850-644-6037)
ARGO floats
  Stephen Riser, U of Washington (riser@ocean.washington.edu; ph 206-543-1187)
Aerosols
  Bill Landing, U Florida (landing@ocean.fsu.edu; ph 850-644-6037)



NARRATIVE

The R/V Roger Revelle "I5" cruise for the NSF- and NOAA-funded US CLIVAR/CO2 
Repeat Hydrography program carried out a transect of boundary-to-boundary full-
depth CTDO/LADCP/hydrographic/carbon/tracer stations along ca. 32°S from South 
Africa to Australia, 20 March - 13 May 2009.  The full transect had been carried 
out twice before, in 1987 (November - December, 36 days, 108 stations) and 2002 
(March - April, 46 days, 133 stations plus 13 on a different transect), and in 
1995 the east (March-May) and west (June - July) portions were done well.  But 
the remote central portion of the 32°S Indian Ocean transect had not yet been 
measured to the same standard we have measured the other oceans.  Thus we 
planned a very long cruise (with no mid-cruise port stop):  57 days and 194 
stations.

All 34 in the science team made it to the ship in Cape Town without undue 
difficulty. The ship had arrived slightly ahead of schedule after a transit from 
South America.   All hands thoroughly enjoyed Cape Town.  SIO arranged docking 
in the main waterfront tourist area, which was also just a short walk (by day) 
or cab ride (at night) to the city center.  We had time for dinners at some of 
Cape Town's excellent restaurants, visits to busy pubs, and many of us enjoyed 
the excellent South African wines.  Some toured the Cape Town region, visited 
wineries, went up Table Mountain (Cape Town's dramatic backdrop), or toured 
Robben Island (where South Africa kept some of its political prisoners up 
through 1991).

The scientific equipment and lab supplies had been shipped in advance from 
California, Washington, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, and Florida, much of it 
in three 20-foot lab vans and two 20-foot shipping containers.  Over four days 
the science party, SIO research technicians, and crew loaded the cargo onto the 
ship, and craned aboard the lab and storage vans.  The science team then 
outfitted the lab vans and the ship's four main labs, assembled and installed 
the rosette bottles onto the frame, along with the underwater electronics, and 
installed the deck equipment.  Each measurement group was experienced and got 
its work done well.  Only one item of scientific equipment never arrived: a new 
version of the lowered ADCP.  The older spare downward-looking 150 KHz model was 
installed, and it worked well the entire cruise, probably better than the newer 
primary upward and downward-looking 300 KHz models would have.  The ship also 
took on tons of food, including such a large amount of fresh stores that the 
science walk-in refrigerator was used for some of it for a brief time.

R/V Roger Revelle left port ca. 10:00 pm local time Friday, March 20th, after 6-
hour delay to complete fueling (some bad fuel was found in the initial delivery 
that day).  The southern tip of Africa is notorious for high seas, but although 
some choppy ship roll began as soon as we left the harbor, by morning the seas 
were easier.  The weather was excellent.

From the very start the science team felt welcome and very well supported 
onboard the ship.  This was the fourth cruise for the CLIVAR/CO2 Repeat 
Hydrography Program on Revelle, and the fifth on an SIO ship.  Thus we enjoyed 
the fortune of sailing with highly experienced officers and crew, many of whom 
had sailed on previous cruises for our program.  The ship is spacious, well-
maintained, and well-outfitted for long cruises such as I5, and makes a pleasant 
workplace and home at sea.  Jay and Mark, the cooks, set the bar high from Day 
One and kept challenging waistlines and will-power without let-up.  (They 
actually told us, "we try to make things as difficult as we can for you"!)  
[Seriously, on a voyage such as this, the cooks and the weather make all the 
difference.  Jay and Mark baked bread or rolls nearly every day, served lettuce 
in the salad bar for 48 days (albeit increasingly mixed with cabbage toward the 
very end), provided fresh fruit at breakfast through the entire cruise, 
presented tasty choices for every meal, made caches of bread and treats for the 
night watch, did well by the vegetarians, and on and on.  They made a 
significant contribution to the positive morale that pervaded this cruise.]

As the ship steamed northeast towards the first station, the course stayed over 
the continental shelf to avoid the strong southward Agulhas Current over the 
shelf break.  The ship was in a designated northbound shipping lane from time to 
time, as evidenced by cargo ships and empty tankers.  En route the science teams 
successfully carried out three training and familiarization casts, and the ship 
held safety drills.  We reached the start of our 32°S transect early Tuesday 
morning, March 24th.

Our primary task was to carry out nearly 200 CTD/rosette stations.  The CTD 
(deployed amidships from the starboard boom) and other electronics mounted on 
the rosette frame provided measurements of pressure, temperature, conductivity 
(salinity), and dissolved oxygen, plus there were light transmission and 
fluorometric sensors.  The lowered Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler measured 
the velocity relative to the rosette, from which the absolute velocities can be 
derived.  Water samples from the 36 10-liter bottles on the rosette were 
analyzed on board for salinity, dissolved oxygen, nutrients (nitrate, nitrite, 
phosphate, and silicate), CFCs (F11, F12), SF6, dissolved inorganic carbon, 
total alkalinity, and pH.  Samples for shore analysis were collected for 
dissolved organic carbon, total dissolved nitrogen, the carbon isotopes 13C & 
14C, tritium, dissolved helium, and helium-3.  We also had with us a 5-person 
team measuring aluminum and iron (from separate "trace metal" casts with their 
own rosette and synthetic cable deployed on a Kevlar-coated cable using the 
stern A-frame) and aerosols.  We ran a continuously-pumped surface seawater 
system that measured temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, fluorescence, and 
pCO2.  Other measurements included velocity from the ship's Doppler current 
profilers, data from a suite of meteorological parameters, multibeam bathymetry, 
and navigation data.  And we deployed 19 Argo floats at predetermined locations 
along the section for Dr. Stephen Riser, University of Washington.

The science program began with a crossing of the Agulhas Current (the western 
boundary current of the South Indian Ocean).  The Agulhas is a strong current, 
which was of practical as well as scientific interest to participants on this 
expedition.  During our sampling of the Agulhas, the near-surface currents 
measured by the shipboard ADCP reached speeds of over 2.0 m/s (about 3.7 kts) 
near the coast.  This high velocity made stations challenging, but the officers 
and crew of the R/V Revelle overcame the impediment competently.  On the 
continental slope, we were aiming to occupy a CTD station at every 500-m 
increase in bottom depth from the continental shelf break all the way down to 
the base of the continental rise.  Since the current runs mostly parallel to 
isobaths, we would find our target depth, and then steam a few nm along that 
isobath upstream (roughly northeast) from the nominal station track.  The 
officer on watch would then orient the ship properly with respect to winds, 
waves, and currents, after which we would begin our station, with the ship 
drifting southwest with the current during the station to minimize wire angle.  
By the time the CTD reached the bottom, the ship was usually close to our target 
position on the section, and then moved past it as the CTD was brought back to 
the surface.  During these cruises we generally try to sample to within 10 m of 
the bottom.  However, when drifting along at over 3 kt, with far more wire paid 
out than there was depth below the ship, and uncertain bathymetry ahead, we 
sometimes settled for a 20-m gap.  One oceanographic consequence of this strong 
velocity is that, with the admittedly very crude (and likely erroneous) 
assumption of zero velocity at the deepest common level of each station pair, 
the preliminary data yield and estimated volume transport of the Agulhas across 
the section was roughly 85 ( 106 m3 s-1 to the southwest (typical of other 
similarly derived estimates).

Another interesting feature associated with the Agulhas is the northeastward 
flowing Agulhas Undercurrent, a reversal in flow that is usually found deeper 
than 800 m, adjacent to the continental slope, below the core of the Agulhas.  
Since we had Eric Firing's trusty (except for a sticky mercury switch used for 
sensing vertical orientation) old 150-KHz broadband lowered ADCP on the CTD 
frame, we were able to measure the expression of this current as we crossed the 
Agulhas starting from near Durban.  On this cruise the Agulhas Undercurrent was 
remarkable by its absence.  While our data were very closely spaced (every 500 m 
of bottom change, and from 2 to 25 km in distance), we did not find any velocity 
structure that would merit the designation of Undercurrent in the preliminary 
LADCP data. 

Taking as much data as we did, it would be peculiar indeed if we did not find 
interesting and unexpected oceanographic features now and again.  For example, 
Francois Ascani, who is working with PI Eric Firing on the ADCP and LADCP data, 
found a distinctive high vertical mode signal on the peak of the Madagascar 
Ridge on a station taken 10-20 km from Walter's Shoal.  The signal was clearly 
captured by both the ship's hull-mounted Hydrographic Doppler Sonar System (an 
ADCP system unique to the Revelle thanks to SIO PI Robert Pinkel) and the 
lowered Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler on the rosette.

From Francois Ascani:  "During station 41 (44°E, 33°S), located just above the 
800-m deep Madagascar Ridge, the Lowered Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler 
(LADCP) instrument measured a profile in cross-ridge (east-west) velocity 
periodic in the vertical with a 200-m wavelength and an amplitude of 10 to 20 cm 
s-1. This remarkable pattern was also observed by the Hydrographic Doppler Sonar 
System (HDSS) before, during and after station 41, over a distance reaching 
nearly 100 km.  No apparent vertical propagation of the phase was observed 
during the 2-4 hours of observations, suggesting that the pattern corresponds to 
a standing wave in the vertical.  This feature has sufficient peculiar 
characteristics to motivate future investigation.  Possible causes are a ridge-
trapped internal wave that resonates with the wind or an internal tide created 
at the ridge or at the nearby Walter's Shoal."

On Saturday-Sunday, 11-12 April, at about 34°S, 61°E, Tropical Cyclone Jade hit 
us directly.  We were able to carry out CTD operations as the storm built 
because the wind and swell were from the same direction, making it possible for 
the mates to hold the ship remarkably steady during casts.  But on station 077 
during Saturday afternoon, as the storm built, we didn't count on winds rising 
as quickly as they did:  When we put the CTD into the water for the 5525-meter 
deep cast, winds were a more or less manageable and fairly steady 35 knots.  
Four hours later, when we brought the CTD back on deck, average winds were 52 
knots.  Thanks to the considerable expertise of the Captain, mates, winch 
operator, and deck crew, the recovery went well, though it was challenging.  
While we sampled the rosette, winds continued rising into the upper 50s, roaring 
most impressively over a stormy ocean just feet away from the open hangar doors 
of the sampling room.  During the night the wind shifted direction (and 
decreased to 40 knots or so), meaning that now swell built from other 
directions.  As these new swells joined in, the high seas became ever more 
confused.  It meant a rough ride, and a tough night for sleep for all but a 
lucky few.  Winds finally dropped to the 25-knot range, the mixed-up seas 
smoothed to the point where we could resume CTD operations, with loss of about 
26 hours to the storm.  Aside from some relatively minor flooding in the vans 
and one entrance on the ship, there was no damage from the storm.

We were able to take time to occupy four CTD/LADCP stations just north of the I5 
section, near 33.5°S, 57°E, roughly along the axis of the Atlantis II Fracture 
Zone, a major conduit for deep and bottom water flow northward from the Crozet 
Basin through the Southwest Indian Ridge into the Madagascar Basin.  Data from 
the four stations plus one along the I5 section itself supported an earlier 
investigation with further evidence of heightened mixing along the passage.  The 
LADCP data clearly captured the strong northward deep flow along the passage.  
In addition to the LADCP data, the transmissometer on the CTD revealed an 
increase in particulates, presumably re-suspended by this strong flow, starting 
around 3500 db and increasing towards the bottom.  In addition, the deep 
salinity maximum and CFC-12 minimum were both eroded in the station occupied 
furthest to the north in the fracture zone. The downstream erosion of these 
extremes could be a result the vertical mixing from above and below.  In fact, 
the CFC-12 data strongly supported this assertion, since CFC-12 levels would be 
expected to decrease northward with decreasing salinity if the latter were 
simply a signature of increasing influence of older, fresher, and more CFC-poor 
North Indian Deep Water relative to the more recently ventilated, saltier, and 
more CFC-rich North Atlantic Deep Water.  Instead the CFC-12 concentration at 
the minimum increased, quite probably a result of mixing with more CFC-12 rich 
waters above and below the minimum. 

From Francois Ascani:  "The flow below 2500 m across all Revelle stations along 
the SW Indian Ocean Ridge shows the dramatically strong northward intrusion 
through the Atlantis II Fracture Zone, and also some weaker intrusions in the 
next three fracture zones to the east.  Interestingly, the northward intrusion 
in the fracture zone around 57.5E is blocked further north by the topography and 
should feed its neighboring fracture zones, in particular the Atlantis II one."

The weather was mostly subtropically good-to-excellent, with air temperatures 
beginning in the mid-upper 70s (degrees Fahrenheit), decreasing to the mid-60s.  
Winds were mostly moderate to light.  We did experience swell from the south 
during much of the cruise, especially the first half, amplitude modulated on 
synoptic time-scales, generated by the big Southern Ocean storms that circle 
Antarctica.

The I5 cruise crossed its planned series of boundaries, basins, and ridges on 
plan and on schedule.  Station spacing was nominally 55 km, but closed over 
steeper bathymetry so that in most cases there was not more than 750-1000 meters 
depth change between adjacent stations, and the track and spacing was adjusted 
with an eye to the most significant bathymetric and circulation features.  The 
minimum time between cast starts for the most closely-spaced stations was 
determined by either the total sampling time for the previous station or the 
time to download the LADCP data.  One might argue that overall, given the entire 
station plan, the time-limiting factor in carrying it out is the time required 
to analyze samples for the most time-consuming shipboard analyses, here the 
total carbon and the alkalinity analyses.  (The trace metal casts thus assumed 
an important logistic role in providing an extra hour each for the sample 
analyses.)  But another point of view is that the overall program has achieved a 
balance between station spacing, sampling density for the various parameters, 
ship speed, and the laboratory work that effectively and efficiently meets the 
science needs that drive the program.

SIO Shipboard Technical Support had originally planed to carry out tests of the 
ship's multibeam system on the final day at sea, during which time the shipboard 
technicians would carry out laboratory analyses of the water samples from the 
final group of close-spaced stations.  Because the multibeam tests were 
cancelled by SIO and since the last station was only ca. 5-6 hours from port, we 
chose to finish the work at the dock rather than at sea.  Also, due to 
remarkably good weather and kind seas during the final month of the cruise, plus 
extraordinarily well working equipment (see below), we were about one day ahead 
of the maximum time we allotted for the station work.  Hence we came to the dock 
at 0845 local time, 13 May 2009, after 55 UNOLS days at sea, rather than the 
planned 57.  No one complained. 



DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT (refers to preliminary shipboard data only)

The overall data quality from Level 1 parameters measured shipboard during I5 
appears to be very good.  There is no parameter whose overall quality of 
measurement does not appear to meet or exceed requirements and expectations.   

One SeaBird CTDO instrument, serial 796, was used throughout the cruise.  The 
CTD team changed out the pump one time, replaced the SBE-43 dissolved oxygen 
sensor once, and replaced the secondary temperature sensor once.  The instrument 
was remarkably stable, and its drifts were small and easily corrected.

The stability of the primary temperature sensor is exemplified by the excellent 
fit of CTD temperatures at bottle closures with the SBE-35 reference thermometer 
readings from each closure.  See figure:

This figure is color-contoured at variable intervals which are very fine 
(smaller than one millidegree) near 0(C difference, and so the lack of 
color/contours in the low-temperature-gradient water column below ca. 1500 db is 
indicative of sub-millidegree agreement.  It is nearly certain that no post-
cruise adjustments greater than 0.001°C will be made to the preliminary 
shipboard CTD temperatures.

The preliminary CTD conductivity data fit to the water sample data (expressed in 
salinity) shows overall agreement below ca 1500 db better than 0.001 PSS-78, 
except for differences slightly greater than 0.001 at a few stations.  Except 
for possibly those few stations, it is thus highly unlikely that any post-cruise 
adjustments greater than 0.001 will be made to the preliminary shipboard CTD 
salinities.  In the figure below bad and questionable bottle salinity values 
have been purged from the data file before plotting:

The preliminary fit of the SBE-43 CTD dissolved oxygen sensor data to the water 
samples is carried out between down-cast CTD oxygen values matched to up-cast 
water samples, usually on density surfaces.  The overall fit is excellent with 
differences on the order of 0.5 (M kg-1(see figure, below).  What appears at 
first to be a small non-linear pressure-dependent error may actually be more 
nearly a small pressure offset:  The shape of the dissolved oxygen profiles 
would likely generate a difference pattern such as this from a single-valued 
small vertical offset. A possible explanation would be that the frame/bottles 
are carrying water from deeper with them that is not quite flushed out by a 30-
second bottle stop, or that the preliminary shipboard match of the down cast CTD 
oxygens onto the up cast bottle data is affected by a small pressure error.  The 
dissolved oxygen data, though of very good quality, may change slightly during 
post-cruise examination and final processing.

The shipboard measurements for the bottle data parameters also appear to be of 
very high quality.  For salinity and oxygen, the consistency of the measurements 
- i.e. the high degree of overall internal precision achieved during the cruise 
- is readily apparent both from the bottle-minus-CTD plots and from finely-
contoured plots of the bottle salinities and oxygens (not shown).  If for some 
reason future bulk adjustments are deemed necessary (for example for comparisons 
with salinities referenced to a different batch of standard seawater) the I5 
data should be straightforward to adjust (e.g. via single offsets for each 
property).  It is unlikely that any significant post-cruise changes to the 
bottle salinity or bottle oxygen data values will be made, though it is likely 
that some quality code changes will take place during final post-cruise data 
processing.

Much the same can be said about the nutrient data, which appear to be of very 
high quality, or at the very least, very high internal consistency.  The 
silicate and nitrate data are clearly ready for scientific work, and no 
significant changes are expected in data values as a result of post-cruise data 
processing, although, as with any of the bottle data, quality code changes 
associated with some data values may change.  The phosphate data have a 
different type of internal consistency in that a very regular, small (maximum 
range ca. 1.5% full scale) "daily" oscillation in phosphate values was observed 
nearly continuously throughout the cruise.  It shows up clearly on finely-
contoured (0.02 µM/l interval here) deep plots:

Examinations at sea were unable to get to the root of this fluctuation.  There 
were two nutrient operators - one might guess that each was consistent in the 
work, but that there was some small difference in technique (which we were 
unable to uncover) that produced the differences.  But noting that the 
differences are not abrupt, station to station, as would be the case for an 
operator-generated difference:  Another interpretation is that there was some 
activity that happened daily - whether directly part of the nutrient analyses or 
some other aspect of the shipboard environment - that influenced the chemical 
reactions or colorometric output in this fashion.  With each run standardized to 
the same set of standards, and all procedures carefully cross-checked between 
both analysts, the second explanation appeals to Swift.  As a result Swift began 
examining nutrient data from other SIO CO2/Repeat Hydrography cruises and found 
the same type of deep phosphate variation on most other cruises, though not as 
well defined.  He observed that the I5 phosphate data are from a zonal transect, 
have a deep maximum that responds well (visually) to contouring, and are of such 
outstanding quality and consistency that this small effect was unambiguously 
observed here.  More study will be carried out ashore.



                                    CLIVAR I5
                               R/V Revelle, RR0903
                           20 March 2009 - 13 May 2009
                  Cape Town, South Africa - Fremantle, Australia
                        Chief Scientist: Dr. James H. Swift
      University of California, San Diego; Scripps Institution of Oceanography
                    Co-Chief Scientist: Dr. Gregory C. Johnson
                                    NOAA/PMEL


                                  Cruise Report
                                   13 May 2009
                               Data Submitted by:
       Oceanographic Data Facility, Computing Resources and Electronics Group
           Shipboard Technical Support/Scripps Institution of Oceanography
                             La Jolla, CA 92093-0214



SUMMARY

A hydrographic survey consisting of Rosette/CTD/LADCP sections, trace metals 
rosette sections, underway shipboard ADCP and float deployments in the southern 
Indian Ocean was carried out during early 2009. The R/V Revelle departed Cape 
Town, South Africa on 20 March 2009. A total of 195 stations were occupied. 195 
Rosette/CTD/LADCP casts, and 87 Trace Metals Rosette casts were made, and 19 
ARGO floats were deployed from 25 March to 12 May 2009. Water samples (up to 36) 
and CTD data were collected on each Rosette/CTD/LADCP cast, usually made to 
within 20 meters of the bottom. Salinity, dissolved oxygen and nutrient samples 
were analyzed for up to 36 water samples from each cast of the principal 
Rosette/CTD/LADCP program. Water samples were also measured for DIC, pH, Total 
Alkalinity, and CFCs and samples were collected for DOC/TDN, Helium/Tritium, and 
C13/C14. Underway surface pCO2, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, 
fluorometer, meteorological and acoustical bathymetric measurements were made. 
The cruise ended in Fremantle, Australia on 13 May 2009.


INTRODUCTION

A sea-going science team gathered from 8 oceanographic institutions participated 
on the cruise. The science team and their responsibilities are listed below.


Scientific Personnel I5

Duties                   Name                    Affiliation   email
-----------------------  ----------------------  ------------  ------------------------------
Chief Scientist          James H. Swift          UCSD/SIO      jswift@ucsd.edu
Co-Chief Scientist       Gregory C. Johnson      NOAA/PMEL     Gregory.C.Johnson@noaa.gov 
Data                     Kristin Sanborn         UCSD/SIO/STS  ksanborn@ucsd.edu
ET/Salinity/Deck Leader  Rob Palomares           UCSD/SIO/STS  rpalomares@ucsd.edu
Oxygen/Deck              Susan Becker            UCSD/SIO/STS  sbecker@ucsd.edu
CTD Data                 Courtney Schatzman      UCSD/SIO/STS  cschatzman@ucsd.edu
Nutrients/Deck           Sue Reynolds            UCSD/SIO/STS  smreynold@ucsd.edu
Salinity/Deck/ET         Robert Thombley         UCSD/SIO/STS  rthomble@ucsd.edu
O2/Deck                  Chuck Featherstone      NOAA/AOML     charles.featherstone@noaa.gov
Nutrients/Deck           Peter Proctor           NOAA/PMEL     peter.proctor@noaa.gov
CTD Watch                Kristene E. McTaggart   NOAA/PMEL     Kristene.E.McTaggart@noaa.gov 
CTD Watch                Kelly Kearney           Princeton     kkearney@princeton.edu
CTD Watch/Argo           Alison Rogers           UW            alison@ocean.washington.edu
CTD Watch                Sarah Purkey            UW            purkeysg@u.washington.edu
CTD Watch                Caitlin Whalen          UCSD/SIO      caitlin.whalen@gmail.com
DIC/U-WpCO2              Dana Greeley            NOAA/PMEL     dana.greenley@noaa.gov
DIC/U-WpCO2              Robert Castle           NOAA/AOML     bob.castle@noaa.gov
PH                       Brendan Rae Carter      UCSD/SIO      brcarter@ucsd.edu
PH                       John Adam Radich        UCSD/SIO      jradich@ucsd.edu
TALK                     George Cyril Anderson   UCSD/SIO      gcanderson@ucsd.edu
TALK                     Jennale Peacock         UCSD/SIO      jlpeacock@ucsd.edu
C14, DOC/TDN             Wenhao Chen             UM/RSMAS      wenchen@rsmas.miami.edu
TM                       Christopher Measures    U of Hawaii   chrism@soest.hawaii.edu
TM                       William M. Landing      FSU           wlanding@fsu.edu
TM                       Kathleen Gosnell        FSU           kjg06c@fsu.edu
TM                       Maxime Marcel Grand     U of          Hawaiimaxime@hawaii.edu
TM                       Mariko Hatta            U of          Hawaiimhatta@hawaii.edu
He/Tr                    Anthony Dachille        LDEO          dachille@ldeo.columbia.edu
CFC                      Dave Wisegarver         NOAA/PMEL     david.wisegarver@noaa.gov
CFC                      Eric Wisegarver         NOAA/PMEL     eric.wisegaver@noaa.gov
CFC                      Erin Shields            UCSD/SIO      erin@gaslab.ucsd.edu
ADCP/LADCP               Francois Ascani         U of Hawaii   fascani@hawaii.edu
Computer Tech/CTD Data   Frank M. Delahoyde      UCSD/SIO/STS  scg@rv-revelle.ucsd.edu
Resident Tech            David Langner           UCSD/SIO/STS  restech@rv-revelle.ucsd.edu



DESCRIPTION OF MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES

1.  CTD/HYDROGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM

A total of 195 Rosette/CTD/LADCP casts were made to within 28m of the bottom. 
Hydrographic measurements consisted of salinity, dissolved oxygen and nutrient 
water samples taken from each Rosette cast. Pressure, temperature, 
conductivity/salinity, dissolved oxygen, transmissometer and fluorometer data 
was recorded from CTD profiles. Current velocities were measured by the 
downward facing LADCP. No major problems were encountered during the operation. 
The distribution of samples is shown in figure 1.0.


1.1.  Water Sampling Package

Rosette/CTD/LADCP casts were performed with a package consisting of a 36-bottle 
rosette frame (SIO/STS), a 36-place carousel (SBE32) and 36 10.0L Bullister 
bottles (SIO/STS) with an absolute volume of 10.4L. Underwater electronic 
components consisted of a Sea-Bird Electronics SBE9plus CTD (SIO/STS #796) with 
dual pumps, dual temperature (SBE3plus), dual conductivity (SBE4C), dissolved 
oxygen (SBE43), transmissometer (Wetlabs), fluorometer (Wetlabs CDOM), altimeter 
(Simrad) and LADCP (RDI).

The CTD was mounted vertically in an SBE CTD cage attached to the bottom of the 
rosette frame and located to one side of the carousel. The SBE4C conductivity, 
SBE3plus temperature and SBE43 Dissolved oxygen sensors and their respective 
pumps and tubing were mounted vertically as recommended by SBE on the CTD cage. 
Pump exhausts were attached to the sensor bracket on the side opposite from the 
sensors and directed downward. The transmissometer was mounted horizontally, and 
the fluorometer was mounted vertically along the bottom of the rosette frame. 
The altimeter was mounted on the inside of the bottom frame ring. The 150 Khz 
downward-looking Broadband LADCP (RDI) was mounted vertically on one side of 
the frame between the bottles and the CTD. Its battery pack was located on the 
opposite side of the frame, mounted on the bottom of the frame. Table 1.1.0 
shows height of the sensor referenced to the bottom of the frame.


Table 1.1.0: Heights referenced to bottom of rosette frame
                    __________________________________________

                     Instrument                  Height in cm
                     --------------------------  ------------
                     Temperature sensors              14
                     SBE35                            14
                     Altimeter                         5
                     Transmissometer                   9
                     CDOM Fluorometer                  7
                     Pressure Sensor                  21
                     Inner bottle midline            109
                     Outer bottle midline            116
                     BB LADCP XDCR Face midline       11
                     Zero tape                       300
                    __________________________________________


The rosette system was suspended from a UNOLS-standard three-conductor 0.322" 
electro-mechanical sea cable. The sea cable underwent an initial termination at 
the beginning of I5, a retermination was performed prior to station 13 and an 
additional mechanical retermination was performed prior to Station 102. The 
R/V Revelle's forward starboard-side Markey winch was used for all casts.

The deck watch prepared the rosette 10-30 minutes prior to each cast. The 
bottles were cocked and all valves, vents and lanyards were checked for proper 
orientation. Once stopped on station, the rosette was moved out from the aft 
hanger to the deployment location under the squirt boom block using an 
air powered cart and tracks. The CTD was powered-up and the data acquisition 
system started from the computer lab when directed by the deck watch leader. The 
rosette was unstrapped from the air-powered cart. Tag lines were threaded 
through the rosette frame and syringes were removed from CTD intake ports. 
Winch operator was directed by the deck watch leader to raise the package. Squirt 
boom and rosette were extended outboard and the package was quickly lowered 
into the water. Tag lines were removed and the package was lowered to 10 meters, 
until the console operators determined that the sensor pumps had turned on. The 
winch operator was then directed to bring the package back to the surface (0 
winch wireout) and to begin the descent.

Each rosette cast was lowered to within 7-28 meters of the bottom, using the 
altimeter, winch wireout, CTD depth and echosounder depth to determine the 
distance. On station 25, the oxygen sensor indicated that the bottom or side of 
the plateau was touched. One cast was lowered to 6000db, the pressure limit of 
some of the package instrumentation.

For each up cast, the winch operator was directed to stop the winch between 12-
36 standard sampling depths. These standard depths were staggered every station 
using 3 sampling schemes. To insure package shed wake had dissipated, the CTD 
console operator waited 30 seconds prior to tripping sample bottles. Before 
moving to next consecutive trip depth, an additional 8 second pause was 
observed. Deck watch leader directed the package to the surface for the last 
bottle trip.

Recovering the package at the end of the deployment was essentially the reverse 
of launching, with the additional use of poles and snap-hooks to attach tag 
lines. The rosette was secured on the cart and moved into the aft hanger for 
sampling. The bottles and rosette were examined before samples were taken, and 
anything unusual noted on the sample log.

Each bottle on the rosette had a unique serial number. Bottle serial 
identification was considered independent of the bottle position on the rosette. 
Sample identification was outlined on sample logs sheet prior to cast recovery 
or at the time of collection.

Routine CTD maintenance included soaking the conductivity and oxygen sensors in 
fresh water between casts to maintain sensor stability and occasionally putting 
dilute Triton-X solution through the conductivity sensors to eliminate any 
accumulating biofilms. Rosette maintenance was performed on a regular basis. 
Valves and o-rings were inspected for leaks. No bottle repairs were necessary 
for this cruise.


1.2. Underwater Electronics Packages

CTD data was collected with a SBE9plus CTD (STS/ODF #796). This instrument 
provided pressure, dual temperature (SBE3), dual conductivity (SBE4), dissolved 
oxygen (SBE43), CDOM fluorometer (Wetlabs), transmissometer (Wetlabs) and 
altimeter (Simrad 807) channels. The CTD supplied a standard SBE format data 
stream at a data rate of 24 frames/second.


Table 1.2.0: CLIVAR I5 Rosette Underwater Electronics
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

 Instrument                                      Serial Number                A/D Channel
 ----------------------------------------------  --------------------------  ----------------
 Sea-Bird SBE32 36-place Carousel Water Sampler  3216715-0187
 Sea-Bird SBE9plusCTD                            0796
 Paroscientific Digiquartz Pressure Sensor       98627
 Sea-Bird SBE11plus Deck Unit                    11P41717-0727
 Sea-Bird SBE3plus Temperature Sensor            03P-4907 (Primary)
 Sea-Bird SBE3plus Temperature Sensor            03P-4532 (Secondary, 1-171)
 Sea-Bird SBE3plus Temperature Sensor            03P-4476 (Secondary, 172-195)
 Sea-Bird SBE4C Conductivity Sensor              04-3430 (Primary)
 Sea-Bird SBE4C Conductivity Sensor              04-3369 (Secondary)
 Sea-Bird SBE43 DO Sensor                        43-0255                     Aux 4, Channel 6
 Sea-Bird SBE43 DO Sensor                        43-0186 (71-195)            Aux 4, Channel 6
 Sea-Bird SBE5 Pump                              05-5124 (Primary)
 Sea-Bird SBE5 Pump                              05-4160 (Primary, 77-195)
 Sea-Bird SBE5 Pump                              05-5011 (Secondary)
 Sea-Bird SBE35 Reference Temperature Sensor     35-0035
 Wetlabs CDOM Fluorometer                        FLCDRTD-428                 Aux 1, Channel 0
 Wetlabs CStar Transmissometer                   CST-327DR                   Aux 1, Channel 1
 Simrad 807 Altimeter                            9711091                     Aux 3, Channel 4
 RDI LADCP, UH BB 150                            1546
_____________________________________________________________________________________________


The CTD was outfitted with dual pumps. Primary temperature, conductivity and 
dissolved oxygen were plumbed into one pump circuit and secondary temperature 
and conductivity into the other. The sensors were deployed vertically. The 
Primary temperature and conductivity sensors (#03P-4907 and #04-3430) were used 
for all reported CTD temperatures and conductivities. The secondary temperature 
and conductivity sensors were used as calibration checks. A SBE35RT reference 
temperature sensor was connected to the SBE32 carousel and recorded a 
temperature for each bottle closure. These temperatures were used as additional 
CTD calibration checks.

The SBE9plus CTD was connected to the SBE32 36-place carousel providing for 
single-conductor sea cable operation. The sea cable armor was used for ground 
(return). Power to the SBE9plus CTD (and sensors), SBE32 carousel and Simrad 807 
altimeter was provided through the sea cable from the SBE11plus deck unit in the 
main lab.


1.3.  Navigation and Bathymetry Data Acquisition

Navigation data was acquired at 1-second intervals from the ship's GP90 GPS 
receiver by a Linux system beginning March 22.

Bathymetric data were logged from the ship's Simrad EM120 multibeam echosounder 
for stations 1-104 and from the Knudsen 3.5KHz echosounder for stations 105-195.

The bottom depths reported in the data transmittal files were calculated with 
the depth of deepest CTD sampling point and adding the altimeter reading.


1.4. CTD Data Acquisition and Rosette Operation

The CTD data acquisition system consisted of an SBE-11plus (V2) deck unit and 
four networked generic PC workstations running CentOS-5.2 Linux. Each PC work- 
station was configured with a color graphics display, keyboard, trackball and 
DVD+RW drive. Two of the systems had a Comtrol Rocketport PCI multiport serial 
controller providing 8 additional RS-232 ports. The systems were 
interconnected through the ship's network. These systems were available for 
real-time operational and CTD data displays, and provided for CTD and 
hydrographic data management.

One of the workstations was designated the CTD console and was connected to the 
CTD deck unit via RS-232. The CTD console provided an interface and operational 
displays for controlling and monitoring a CTD deployment and closing bottles on 
the rosette. Another of the workstations was designated the website and 
database server and maintained the hydrographic database for I5. Redundant 
backups were managed automatically.

CTD deployments were initiated by the console watch after the ship had stopped 
on station. The acquisition program was started and the deck unit turned on at 
least 5 minutes prior to package deployment. The watch maintained a console 
operations log containing a description of each deployment, a record of every 
attempt to close a bottle and any relevant comments. The deployment and 
acquisition software presented a short dialog instructing the operator to turn 
on the deck unit, to examine the onscreen CTD data displays and to notify the 
deck watch that this was accomplished.

Once the deck watch had deployed the rosette, the winch operator lowered it to 
10 meters. The CTD sensor pumps were configured with an 8-second startup delay 
after detecting seawater conductivities. The console operator checked the CTD 
data for proper sensor operation, waited an additional 30 seconds for sensors to 
stabilize, then instructed the winch operator to bring the package to the 
surface and descend to a specified target depth (wire-out). The profiling rate 
was no more than 30m/min to 50m, no more than 45m/min to 200m and no more than 
60m/min deeper than 200m, depending on sea cable tension and sea state.

The progress of the deployment and CTD data quality were monitored through 
interactive graphics and operational displays. Bottle trip locations were 
transcribed onto the console and sample logs. The sample log was used later as 
an inventory of samples drawn from the bottles. The altimeter channel, CTD 
depth, winch wire-out and bathymetric depth were all monitored to determine the 
distance of the package from the bottom, allowing a safe approach to 10 meters.

Bottles were closed on the up cast by operating an on-screen control. The winch 
operator was given a target wire-out for the bottle stop, proceeded to that 
depth and stopped. Bottles were tripped 30-40 seconds after stopping to allow 
the rosette wake to dissipate and the bottles to flush. The winch operator was 
instructed to proceed to the next bottle stop at least 8 seconds after closing 
bottles to ensure that stable CTD data were associated with the trip and to 
allow the SBE35RT tertiary temperature sensor to make a measurement.

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


1.5. CTD Data Processing

Shipboard CTD data processing was performed automatically during each 
Rosette/CTD/LADCP deployment, and at the end of each Trace Metals rosette 
deployment using SIO/ODF CTD processing software. The Trace Metals rosette 
contained its own CTD and carousel. These data were acquired using SBE SeaSave 
software, then copied to a Linux workstation for further processing. No 
shipboard calibration was done for Trace Metals rosette CTD data.

Processing was performed during data acquisition for Rosette/CTD/LADCP 
deployments. The raw CTD data were converted to engineering units, filtered, 
response-corrected, calibrated and decimated to a more manageable 0.5-second 
time series. The laboratory calibrations for pressure, temperature and 
conductivity were applied at this time. The 0.5-second time series data were 
used for real-time graphics during deployments, and were the source for CTD 
pressure and temperature associated with each rosette bottle. Both the raw 24 Hz 
data and the 0.5-second time series were stored for subsequent processing. 
During the deployment, the data were backed up to another Linux workstation.

At the completion of a deployment a sequence of processing steps were performed 
automatically. The 0.5-second time series data were checked for consistency, 
clean sensor response and calibration shifts. A 2-decibar pressure series was 
then generated from the down cast. Both the 2-decibar pressure series and 0.5-
second time series data were made available for downloading, plotting and 
reporting on the shipboard cruise website.

Rosette/CTD/LADCP data were routinely examined for sensor problems, calibration 
shifts and deployment or operational problems. The Primary and secondary 
temperature sensors (SBE3plus) were compared to each other and to the SBE35 
temperature sensor. CTD conductivity sensors (SBE4C) were compared to each 
other, then calibrated by examining differences between CTD and check sample 
conductivity values. The CTD dissolved oxygen sensor data were calibrated to 
check sample data. Additional Salinity and O2 comparisons were made with 
respect to isopycnal surfaces between down and up casts as well as with adjacent 
deployments. Vertical sections were made of the various properties derived 
from sensor data and checked for consistency.

Few CTD acquisition or data processing problems were encountered during I5. Dur- 
ing the down cast on 102/02 a software problem required that the cast be 
restarted at 1200M. The up cast was used for the 2db pressure series in this one 
case.

A total of 195 casts were made using the 36-place CTD/LADCP rosette, and 87 
casts using the 12-place Trace Metals rosette.


1.6.  CTD Sensor Laboratory Calibrations

Laboratory calibrations of the CTD pressure, temperature, conductivity and 
dissolved oxygen sensors were performed Prior to CLIVAR I5. The calibration 
dates are listed in table 1.6.0.


Table 1.6.0: CLIVAR I5 CTD sensor laboratory calibrations.
__________________________________________________________________________

                                                 Calibration  Calibration 
 Sensor                                S/N       Date         Facility
 ------------------------------------  --------  -----------  -----------
 Paroscientific Digiquartz Pressure    98627     07 November  2008 SBE
 Sea-Bird SBE3plus T1 Temperature      03P-4907  03 February  2009 ODF
 Sea-Bird SBE3plus T2 Temperature      03P-4532  19 October   2008 SBE
 Sea-Bird SBE3plus T2 Temperature      03P-4476  23 January   2009 SBE
 Sea-Bird SBE4C C1 Conductivity        04-3430   28 October   2008 SBE
 Sea-Bird SBE4C C2 Conductivity        04-3369   28 October   2008 SBE
 Sea-Bird SBE43 Dissolved Oxygen       43-0255   15 November  2008 SBE
 Sea-Bird SBE43 Dissolved Oxygen       43-0186   08 November  2008 SBE
 Sea-Bird SBE35 Reference Temperature  0035      10 February  2009 SBE
__________________________________________________________________________
  

1.7.  CTD Shipboard Calibration Procedures

CTD #796 was used for all Rosette/CTD/LADCP casts during I5. The CTD was 
deployed with all sensors and pumps aligned vertically, as recommended by SBE. 
The primary temperature and conductivity sensors (T1 & C1) were used for all 
reported CTD data for casts 1-195, with the secondary sensors (T2, 03-4532 & C2, 
04-3369) reported for casts 1-171. Prior to cast 172, the secondary temperature 
was replaced with 03-4476. The SBE35RT Digital Reversing Thermometer (S/N 
3528706-0035) served as an independent calibration check for T1 and T2. In-situ 
salinity and dissolved O2 check samples collected during each cast were used to 
calibrate the conductivity and dissolved O2 sensors.

1.7.1.  CTD Pressure

The Paroscientific Digiquartz pressure transducer (S/N 98627) was calibrated in 
November 2008 By SeaBird Electronics Calibration Facility. A calibration 
correction slope and offset was provided by the SBE calibration report and 
applied to raw pressures during each cast in addition to the calibration 
coefficients. Initial out of water pressure transducer offsets varied from -0.5 
to +0.1db and final offsets from -0.1 to 0.4db during I5. Residual pressure 
offsets (the difference between the first and last submerged pressures) varied 
from -0.4 to +0.1db. No additional adjustments were made to the calculated 
pressures.

1.7.2.  CTD Temperature

A single Primary temperature sensor, S/N 03P-4907, was used for all casts and 
for all reported temperatures. Two secondary temperature sensors were used. T2, 
S/N 03P-4532, was used for casts 1/1-171/1, and T2, S/N 03P-4476, for casts 
172/1-195/1. Calibration coefficients derived from the precruise calibrations 
plus shipboard temperature corrections determined during the cruise were applied 
to raw Primary and secondary sensor data during each cast.

A single SBE35RT was used as a tertiary temperature check. It was located 
equidistant between T1 and T2 with the sensing element aligned in a plane with 
the T1 and T2 sensing elements.

The SBE35RT Digital Reversing Thermometer is an internally-recording temperature 
sensor that operates independently of the CTD. It is triggered by the SBE32 
carousel in response to a bottle closure. According to the Manufacturer's 
specifications the typical stability is 0.001°C/y ear. The SBE35RT on I5 was set 
to internally average over an 8 second period.

Two independent metrics of calibration accuracy were examined. At each bottle 
closure, the Primary and secondary temperature were compared with each other 
and with the SBE35RT temperatures.

Very few temperature corrections were applied during I5. The Primary and both 
of the secondary sensors exhibited a secondary pressure response compared to the 
SBE35. The first secondary (4532) also had a temperature slope. All corrections 
made to temperatures had the form:

           T(cor) = T + D(1)P^2 + D(2)P + D(3)T^2 + D(4)T + Offset

The final corrections for all three sensors used on I5 are summarized in table 
1.7.2.0. Note that a temperature slope of 0.00024 was applied to all three 
sensors to convert from the ITS-90 calibration to IPTS-68. Reported sensor data 
have been converted to ITS-90.


Table 1.7.2.0: Shipboard temperature sensor corrections.
    _____________________________________________________________________
    
     Sensor        P2            P        T2       T           Offset
     -------  ------------  ------------  ---  -----------  ------------
     T1 4907   6.68781e-11  -5.10399e-07  0.0  0.00024       0.000621425
     T2 4532  -2.17351e-11  -1.06497e-07  0.0  0.000303921  -0.000252577
     T2 4476   3.91322e-11  -5.29884e-07  0.0  0.00024       0.000128564
    _____________________________________________________________________
    
    
The residual differences after correction are shown in figures 1.7.2.0 and 
1.7.2.1.


Figure 1.7.2.0: T1-T2 by station (P 3 2000db).
Figure 1.7.2.1: SBE35RT-T1 by station (P 3 2000db).
Figure 1.7.3.0: Coherence of conductivity differences as a function of 
                temperature differences.


The 95% confidence limits for the mean low-gradient differences are ±0.0010°C 
for T1-T2, and ±0.0019°C for SBE35RT-T1.

1.7.3.  CTD Conductivity

A single Primary conductivity sensor, C1 S/N 04-3430, was used for all casts 
and for all reported conductivities. A single secondary conductivity sensor, C2 
S/N 04-3369, was used. Calibration coefficients derived from the pre-cruise 
calibrations plus shipboard conductivity corrections determined during the 
cruise were applied to raw Primary and secondary sensor data during each cast.

Two independent metrics of calibration accuracy were examined. At each bottle 
closure, the Primary and secondary conductivity were compared with each other. 
Each sensor was also compared to conductivity calculated from check sample 
salinities.

The differences between Primary and secondary temperature sensors were used as 
filtering criteria to reduce the contamination of conductivity comparisons by 
package wake. The coherence of this relationship is shown in figure 1.7.3.0.

The uncorrected conductivity comparisons are shown in figures 1.7.3.1 through 
1.7.3.3.


Figure 1.7.3.1: Uncorrected C1 -C2 by station (-0.002°C ≤T1-T2≤0.002°C).
Figure 1.7.3.2: Uncorrected CBottle -C1 by station (-0.002°C ≤T1-T2≤0.002°C).
Figure 1.7.3.3: Uncorrected CBottle -C2 by station (-0.002°C ≤T1-T2≤0.002°C).


Based on C1-C2, two first-order time-dependent drift corrections (changing 
conductivity offset with time) were applied to C2: one for stations 1-71 and 
another for stations 72-195.

Both conductivity sensors exhibited secondary pressure responses as well as 
second-order conductivity responses. 

The residual differences after correction are shown in figures 1.7.3.4 through 
1.7.3.9.


Figure 1.7.3.4: Corrected C1 -C2 by station (-0.002°C ≤T1-T2≤0.002°C).
Figure 1.7.3.5: Corrected CBottle -C1 by station (-0.002°C ≤T1-T2≤0.002°C).
Figure 1.7.3.6: Corrected C1 -C2 by pressure (-0.01°C ≤T1-T2≤0.01°C).
Figure 1.7.3.7: Corrected CBottle -C1 by pressure (-0.01°C ≤T1-T2≤0.01°C).
Figure 1.7.3.8: Corrected C1 -C2 by conductivity (-0.01°C ≤T1-T2≤0.01°C).
Figure 1.7.3.9: Corrected CBottle -C1 by conductivity (-0.01°C ≤T1-T2≤0.01°C).


All corrections made to conductivity had the form:

          C(cor) = C + D(1)P^2 + D(2)P + D(3)C^2 + D(4)C + Offset

The final corrections for both sensors used on I5 are summarized in table 
1.7.3.0.


Table 1.7.3.0 Shipboard conductivity sensor corrections.
____________________________________________________________________________

 Sensor       P2             P            T2            T          Offset
 -------  -----------  ------------  ------------  -----------  -----------
 C1 3430  5.60178e-11  -4.13345e-07  -7.08965e-06  0.000542455  -0.00823852
 C2 3369  5.57295e-11  -4.90364e-07  -1.01074e-05  0.000822047     Varies
____________________________________________________________________________


Figure 1.7.3.10: Salinity residuals by station (Pressure>2000db)
Figure 1.7.3.11: Salinity residuals by station (-0.002°C ≤T1-T2≤0.002°C).


Figures 1.7.3.10 and 1.7.3.11 represent estimates of the deep salinity accuracy 
of CLIVAR I5. The 95% confidence limits are ±0.0011 PSU relative to the bottle 
salinities for deep salinities, and ±0.0017 PSU relative to the bottle 
salinities for all salinities.

1.7.4. CTD Dissolved Oxygen

Two SBE43 dissolved O2 (DO) sensors were used during this cruise. Sensor S/N 43-
0255 was used on Stations 1-70 and 43-0186 was used for 71-195. The sensors were 
plumbed into the Primary T1/C1 pump circuit after C1.

The DO sensors were calibrated to dissolved O2 check samples taken at bottle 
stops by matching the down cast CTD data to the up cast trip locations on 
isopycnal surfaces, then calculating CTD dissolved O2 using a DO sensor response 
model and minimizing the residual differences from the check samples. A non-
linear least-squares fitting procedure was used to minimize the residuals and to 
determine sensor model coefficients, and was accomplished in three stages. The 
time constants for the lagged terms in the model were first determined for each 
sensor. These time constants are sensor-specific but applicable to an entire 
cruise. Next, casts were fit individually to check sample data. The resulting 
calibration coefficients were then smoothed and held constant during a refit to 
determine sensor slope and offset. Standard and blank values for check sample 
oxygen titration data were smoothed and the oxygen recalculated prior to the 
final fitting of CTD oxygen.


Figure 1.7.4.0: O2 residuals by station (-0.01°C ≤T1-T2≤0.01°C).
Figure 1.7.4.1: O2 residuals by pressure (-0.01°C ≤T1-T2≤0.01°C).
Figure 1.7.4.1: O2 residuals by pressure (-0.01°C ≤T1-T2≤0.01°C).


The standard deviations of 1.605 m mol/kg for all oxygens and 0.532 m mol/kg 
for deep oxygens are only presented as general indicators of goodness of fit. 
ODF makes no claims regarding the precision or accuracy of CTD dissolved O2 
data.

The general form of the ODF DO sensor response model equation for Clark cells 
follows Brown and Morrison [Brow78], and Millard [Mill82], [Owen85]. ODF models 
DO sensor secondary responses with lagged CTD data. In-situ pressure and 
temperature are filtered to match the sensor responses. Time constants for the 
pressure response tp, a slow (tTf) and fast (tTs) thermal response, package 
velocity (tdP), thermal diffusion (tdT) and pressure hysteresis (th) are 
fitting parameters. Once determined for a given sensor, these time constants 
typically remain constant for a cruise. The thermal diffusion term is derived 
by low-pass filtering the difference between the fast response (Ts) and slow 
response (Tl) temperatures. This term is intended to correct non-linearities in 
sensor response introduced by inappropriate analog thermal compensation. 
Package velocity is approximated by low-pass filtering 1st-order pressure 
differences, and is intended to correct flow-dependent response. Dissolved O2 
concentration is then calculated:

                                                              dP
                    Ph                      (C4Tl+C5Ts+C6Pl+C7--+C8dT)
O2ml/l = [C1VDOe(C2----)+C3] • fsat(T,P) • e                  dt       (1.7.4.0)
                   5000

where:

    O2ml/l     Dissolved O2 concentration in ml/l;
    VDO        Raw sensor output;
    C1         Sensor slope
    C2         Hysteresis response coefficient
    C3         Sensor offset
    fsat(T,P)  O2 saturation at T,P (ml/l);
    T          insitu temperature (°C);
    P          insitu pressure (decibars);
    Ph         Low-pass filtered hysteresis pressure (decibars);
    Pl         Low-pass filtered pressure (decibars);
    Tl         Long-response low-pass filtered temperature (°C);
    Ts         Short-response low-pass filtered temperature (°C);
    dP/dt      Filtered package velocity (db/sec);
    dT         low-pass filtered thermal diffusion estimate (Tf - Ts).
    C4-C8      Response coefficients.


1.8.  BOTTLE SAMPLING

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

  • CFC-11, CFC-12, SF6
  • 3He
  • O2
  • Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC)
  • pH
  • Total Alkalinity
  • 13C and 14C
  • Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN)
  • Nutrients
  • Tritium
  • Salinity

The correspondence between individual sample containers and the rosette bottle 
position (1-36) from which the sample was drawn was recorded on the sample log 
for the cast. This log also included any comments or anomalous conditions noted 
about the rosette and bottles. One member of the sampling team was designated 
the sample cop, whose sole responsibility was to maintain this log and insure 
that sampling progressed in the proper drawing order.

Normal sampling practice included opening the drain valve and then the air vent 
on the bottle, indicating an air leak if water escaped. This observation 
together with other diagnostic comments (e.g., "lanyard caught in lid", "valve 
left open") that might later prove useful in determining sample integrity were 
routinely noted on the sample log. Drawing oxygen samples also involved taking 
the sample draw temperature from the bottle. The temperature was noted on the 
sample log and was sometimes useful in determining leaking or miss-tripped 
bottles.

Once individual samples had been drawn and properly prepared, they were 
distributed for analysis. Oxygen, nutrient and salinity analyses were per-
formed on computer-assisted (PC) analytical equipment networked to the data 
processing computer for centralized data management.


1.9.  BOTTLE DATA PROCESSING

Water samples collected and properties analyzed shipboard were centrally managed 
in a relational database (PostgreSQL 8.1.11) running on a Linux system. A web 
service (OpenACS 5.3.2 and AOLServer 4.5.0) front-end provided ship-wide access 
to CTD and water sample data. Web-based facilities included on-demand arbitrary 
property-property plots and Vertical sections as well as data uploads and 
downloads.

The sample log (and any diagnostic comments) was entered into the database once 
sampling was completed. Quality flags associated with sampled properties were 
set to indicate that the property had been sampled, and sample container 
identifications were noted where applicable (e.g., oxygen flask number).

Analytical results were provided on a regular basis by the various analytical 
groups and incorporated into the database. These results included a quality code 
associated with each measured value and followed the coding scheme developed for 
the World Ocean Circulation Experiment Hydrographic Programme (WHP) [Joyc94].

Table 1.9.0 shows the number of samples drawn and the number of times each WHP 
sample quality flag was assigned for each basic hydrographic property:


Table 1.9.0: Frequency of WHP quality flag assignments.
           __________________________________________________

                 Rosette Samples Stations          1- 195
                     Reported         WHP Quality Codes
                      levels     1   2     3   4   5  7    9
                     ----------  -  ----  --  --  --  -  ---
            Bottle     6724      0  6715   2   5   0  0    2
            CTD Salt   6724      0  6693   0  31   0  0    0
            CTD Oxy    6699      0  6699   0   0  22  0    3
            Salinity   6598      0  6540  41  17   4  0  122
            Oxygen     6700      0  6689   2   9   6  0   18
            Silicate   6710      0  6704   1   5   1  0   13
            Nitrate    6710      0  6703   2   5   1  0   13
            Nitrite    6710      0  6704   1   5   1  0   13
            Phosphate  6710      0  6702   1   7   1  0   13
           __________________________________________________


Additionally, all WHP water bottle/sample quality code comments are presented in 
Appendix A. Various consistency checks and detailed examination of the data 
continued throughout the cruise.

 
1.10.  SALINITY

Equipment and Techniques

A single Guildline Autosal 8400B salinometer (S/N 69-180) located in Revelle's 
hydro lab, was used for all salinity measurements. This salinometer had been 
modified to include a communication interface for computer-aided measurement, a 
higher capacity pump and three temperature sensors. Two of these sensors were 
used to measure air and bath temperatures. The third was used to check sample 
bottle temperature.

Samples were analyzed after they had equilibrated to laboratory temperature, 
usually within 16-20 hours after collection. The salinometer was standardized 
for each group of analyses (usually 1-2 casts, up to ~48 samples) using at least 
two fresh vials of standard seawater per group.

Salinometer measurements were aided by computer using software developed by 
SIO/STS. The software maintained A log of each salinometer run which included 
salinometer settings and air and bath temperatures. It also guided the operator 
through the standardization procedure and making sample measurements. The 
analyst was prompted to change samples and flush the cells between readings. 
Special standardization procedures included flushing the cell at least 4 times 
with a fresh vial of Standard Seawater (SSW), setting the flow rate as low as 
possible during the last fill, and monitoring the STD dial setting. If the STD 
dial changed by 10 units or more since the last salinometer run (or during 
standardization), another vial of SSW was opened and the standardization 
procedure repeated to verify the setting.

Samples were run using 3 flushes before the final fill. The computer determined 
the stability of a measurement and prompted for additional readings if there 
appeared to be drift. The operator could annotate the salinometer log, and would 
routinely add comments about cracked sample bottles, loose thimbles, salt 
crystals or anything unusual in the amount of sample in the bottle.

A system of fans and heaters set up to expedite equilibrating salinity samples 
usually worked.

Sampling and Data Processing

A total of 6598 salinity measurements were made (1016 for Trace Metals) and 
approximately 210 vials of standard seawater (IAPSO SSW) were used.

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

PSS-78 salinity [UNES81] was calculated for each sample from the measured 
conductivity ratios. The difference (usually none) between the initial vial of 
standard water and the next one run as an unknown was applied as a linear 
function of elapsed run time to the measured ratios. The corrected salinity data 
were then incorporated into the cruise database.

Data processing included double checking that the station, sample and box number 
had been correctly assigned, and reviewing the data and log files for operator 
comments. The salinity data were compared to CTD salinities and were used for 
shipboard sensor calibration.

Laboratory Temperature

The salinometer water bath temperature was maintained slightly higher than 
ambient laboratory air temperature. It was set to 27°C for the first 3 
stations and to 24°C f or the rest of the cruise. The ambient air temperature 
varied from 21 to 27°C during the cruise, and from -1.5 to 4.3°C during an y 
particular run.

Standards

IAPSO Standard Seawater Batch P-149 was used to standardize all casts. It was 
noticed that some of the vials did not have uniform volumes of standard, labels 
were not put on the vial straight and many of the crimp seals did not release 
properly, the tab breaking away instead of pulling the sealed section away. 
These observations raise quality control questions about this batch of Standard 
Seawater. The recent batch to batch comparison conducted by Dr. Kawano [Kawa09] 
claims in a draft that P-149 has an offset of 0.8 *10-3.

Analytical Problems

A few of the analyses had sample temperature issues. Stations 166 through 168 
required adjusting the analytical temperature to match the sample temperatures 
which hadn't equilibrated. The resulting agreement with adjacent cast data 
stresses the importance of sample temperature to the accuracy of the salinity 
measurement.

Minimal sampling was done for stations 10-13, concentrating on the deep profile 
to insure the availability of sample bottles for future casts.

Results

The estimated accuracy of bottle salinities run at sea is usually better than 
±0.002 PSU relative to the particular standard seawater batch used. The 95% 
confidence limit for residual differences between the bottle salinities and 
calibrated CTD salinity relative to SSW batch P-149 was ±0.0017 PSU for all 
salinities, and ±0.00011 PSU for salinities deeper than 2000db.

 
1.11. OXYGEN ANALYSIS

Equipment and Techniques

Dissolved oxygen analyses were performed with an SIO/ODF-designed automated 
oxygen titrator using photometric end-point detection based on the absorption 
of 365nm wavelength ultra-violet light. The titration of the samples and the 
data logging were controlled by PC LabView software. Thiosulfate was dispensed 
by a Dosimat 665 buret driver fitted with a 1.0 mL buret. ODF used a whole-
bottle modified- Winkler titration following the technique of Carpenter [Carp65] 
with modifications by Culberson et al. [Culb91], but with higher concentrations 
of potassium iodate standard (~0.012N) and thiosulfate solution (~55 gm/l). Pre-
made liquid potassium iodate standards were run daily (approximately every 2-4 
stations), unless changes were made to the system or reagents. Reagent/distilled 
water blanks were also determined daily or more often if a change in reagents 
required it to account for presence of oxidizing or reducing agents.

Sampling and Data Processing

6700 oxygen measurements were made. Samples were collected for dissolved oxygen 
analyses soon after the rosette was brought on board. Four different cases of 36 
flasks each were rotated by station to minimize flask calibration issues, if 
any. Using a Tygon and silicone drawing tube, nominal 125ml volume calibrated 
iodine flasks were rinsed 3 times with minimal agitation, then filled and 
allowed to overflow for at least 3 flask volumes. The sample drawing 
temperatures were measured with an electronic resistance temperature detector 
(RTD) embedded in the drawing tube. These temperatures were used to calculate 
µmol/kg concentrations, and as a diagnostic check of bottle integrity. Reagents 
(MnCl2 then NaI/NaOH) were added to fix the oxygen before stoppering. The flasks 
were shaken twice (10-12 inversions each time) to assure thorough dispersion of 
the precipitate, once immediately after drawing, and then again after about 20 
minutes.

The samples were analyzed within 1-4 hours of collection, and the data 
incorporated into the cruise database.

Thiosulfate normalities were calculated from each standardization and corrected 
to 20°C. The thiosulfate normalities and blanks were monitored for possible 
drifting or possible problems when new reagents were used. There was no 
indication of drifting blanks or thiosulfate normalities over the course of the 
cruise. The blanks and thiosulfate normalities for each batch of thiosulfate 
were smoothed (averaged) in two groups during the cruise and the oxygen values 
recalculated. The difference between the original and "smoothed" data was less 
than 0.1%.

Bottle oxygens data was reviewed insuring proper station, cast, bottle number, 
flask, and draw temperature were entered properly. Any comments made during 
analysis was also reviewed making certain that any anomalous actions were 
investigated and resolved. Occasionally, an incorrect end point was encountered. 
The analyst has the provisions available through the software to check the raw 
data and have the program recalculated a correct end point. This happened very 
few times on this data set. The occurrence is usually attributed to debris in 
the water bath.

After the data is uploaded to the database, oxygen is graphically compared with 
CTD oxygen and adjoining stations. Any erroneous looking points are reviewed and 
comments are made regarding the final outcome of the investigation. These 
investigations and final data coding are reported in Appendix A.

Volumetric Calibration

Oxygen flask volumes were determined gravimetrically with degassed deionized 
water to determine flask volumes at ODF's chemistry laboratory. This was done 
once before using flasks for the first time and periodically thereafter when a 
suspect volume is detected. The volumetric flasks used in preparing standards 
were volume-calibrated by the same method, as was the 10 ml Dosimat buret used 
to dispense standard iodate solution.

Standards

Liquid potassium iodate standards were prepared in 6 liter batches and bottled 
in sterile glass bottles at ODF's chemistry laboratory Prior to the 
expedition. The normality of the liquid standard was determined by calculation 
from weight. The standard was supplied by Alfa Aesar (lot B05N35) and has a 
reported purity of 99.4-100.4%. All other reagents were "reagent grade" and 
were tested for levels of oxidizing and reducing impurities prior to use.

 
1.12. NUTRIENT ANALYSIS

Equipment and Techniques

Nutrient analyses (phosphate, silicate, nitrate plus nitrite, and nitrite) were 
performed on an SIO/STS/ODF-modified 4 channel Technicon AutoAnalyzer II. 
Modifications to the system include STS/ODF developed data acquisition and 
processing software using the LabView utility and an interface from the 
detectors to the computer.

The analytical methods used are described by Gordon et al. [Gord92] Hager et al. 
[Hage68] and Atlas et al. [Atla71]

Silicate

Silicate was analyzed using the technique of Armstrong et al. [Arms67]. An 
acidic solution of ammonium molybdate was added to a seawater sample to produce 
silicomolybdic acid which was then reduced to silicomolybdous acid (a blue 
compound) following the addition of stannous chloride. Tartaric acid was also 
added to impede PO4 color development. The sample was passed through a 15mm 
flow cell and the absorbance measured at 660nm.

Reagents

Tartaric Acid (ACS Reagent Grade)

200g tartaric acid dissolved in DW and diluted to 1 liter volume. Stored at 
room temperature in a polypropylene bottle.

Ammonium Molybdate

10.8g Ammonium Molybdate Tetrahydrate dissolved in 1000ml dilute H2SO4*.

*(Dilute H2SO4 = 2.8ml conc H2SO4 to a liter DW). Added 3 drops 15% ultra pure 
 SDS per liter of solution.

Stannous Chloride (ACS Reagent Grade)

Stock solution:

40g of stannous chloride dissolved in 100 ml 5N HCl. Refrigerated in a 
polypropylene bottle. Working solution:

5 ml of stannous chloride stock diluted to 200 ml final volume with 1.2N HCl. 
Made up daily and stored at room temperature when not in use in a dark 
polypropylene bottle.

NOTE: Oxygen introduction was minimized by swirling rather than shaking the 
stock solution.

Nitrate + Nitrate

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

Reagents

Sulfanilamide (ACS Reagent Grade)

10g sulfanilamide dissolved in 1.2N HCl and brought to 1 liter volume. Added 5 
drops of 40% surfynol 465/485 surfactant. Stored at room temperature in a dark 
polypropylene bottle.

N-(1-Naphthyl)-ethylenediamine dihydrochloride (N-1-N) (ACS Reagent Grade)

1g N-1-N in DIW, dissolved in DW and brought to 1 liter volume. Added 2 drops 
40% surfynol 465/485 surfactant. Stored at room temperature in a dark 
polypropylene bottle. Discarded if the solution turned dark reddish brown.

Imidazole Buffer (ACS Reagent Grade)

13.6g imidazole dissolved in ~3.8 liters DIW. Stirred for at least 30 minutes 
until completely dissolved. Added 60 ml of CuSO4 + NH4Cl mix (see below). Added 
4 drops 40% Surfynol 465/485 surfactant. Using a calibrated pH meter, adjusted 
to pH of 7.83-7.85 with 10% (1.2N)HCl(about 20-30ml of acid, depending on exact 
strength). Final solution brought to 4L with DIW. Stored at room temperature.

NH4Cl + CuSO4 mix:

2g cupric sulfate dissolved in DIW, brought to 100 ml volume (2%) 250g ammonium 
chloride dissolved in DIW, brought to 1 liter volume. Added 5ml of 2% CuSO4 
solution to the NH4Cl stock.

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

Prepared solution at least one day before use to stabilize.

Phosphate

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

Reagents

Ammonium Molybdate (ACS Reagent Grade)

H2SO4 solution:

420 ml of DIW poured into a 2 liter Ehrlenmeyer flask or beaker, this flask or 
beaker was placed into an ice bath. SLOWLY added 330 ml of conc H2SO4. This 
solution gets VERY HOT!!

27g ammonium molybdate dissolved in 250ml of DIW. Brought to 1 liter volume with 
the cooled sulfuric acid solution. Added 5 drops of 15% ultra pure SDS 
surfactant. Stored in a dark polypropylene bottle.

Dihydrazine Sulfate (ACS Reagent Grade)

6.4g dihydazine sulfate dissolved in DIW, brought to 1 liter volume and 
refrigerated.

Sampling and Data Processing

6710 nutrient samples were analyzed and 1016 were analyzed for Trace Metal 
casts. Duplicates for 24 stations were drawn and analyzed on the Technicon AA3 
system. The cruise started with new pump tubes and then they were changed five 
times during the cruise, after Stations 025, 068, 099, 141 and 180. Ten Beer's 
Law calibration checks were run throughout the cruise. Six sets of Primary/ 
Secondary standard were made up over the course of the cruise. Primary and 
secondary standards were compared to the "old" standard before they were used to 
insure continuity between standards. The cadmium column efficiency was check per- 
iodically. Initially column efficiencies were 93%, however, after replacing the 
original column, efficiencies were 100% for the remainder of the cruise.

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

The analog outputs from each of the channels were digitized and logged 
automatically by computer (PC) at 2-second intervals. After each group of 
samples was analyzed, the raw data file was processed to produce another file of 
response factors, baseline values, and absorbances. Computer-produced absorbance 
readings were checked for accuracy against values taken from a strip chart 
recording which is produced simultaneously with the computer. Refractive Index 
blanks were determined periodically by measuring the absorbance of low nutri- 
ents seawater with one reagent from each of the chemistries offline. The 
difference between the distilled water baseline and the seawater absorbance was 
recorded. Sample concentrations were then calculated, refractive index blanks 
and any non-linear corrections applied, and data merged with other hydrographic 
measurements. Carryover was minimized by running the samples from low to high 
concentration. Nutrients, reported in micromoles per kilogram, were converted 
from micromoles per liter by dividing by sample density calculated at 1 atm 
pressure (0 db), insitu salinity, and the lab temperature measured when 
individual samples were drawn into the AA.

Standards and Glassware

Standardizations were performed at the beginning and end of each group of 
analyses with an intermediate concentration mixed nutrient standard prepared 
prior to each run from a secondary standard in a low-nutrient seawater matrix. 
A group usually consisted of one station/cast or two trace metal stations/casts 
(up to 36 samples). The secondary standards were prepared aboard ship by 
dilution from the pre-weighed Primary standards. A set of 7 different standard 
concentrations, Table 1.12.0, were analyzed periodically to determine the 
deviation from linearity, if any, as a function of absorbance for each nutri- 
ent. Residuals were determined and fit to a 3rd order polynomial, which was 
then used to calculate the non-linear corrections applied to the nutrient 
concentrations. An aliquot from a large volume of stable deep seawater was also 
run with each set of samples as a substandard and as an additional check.


Table 1.12.0: CLIVAR I5 Standard Concentrations
                      ______________________________

                       std   N+N   PO4  SiO3   NO2
                       ---  -----  ---  -----  ----
                        1)   0.0   0.0    0.0  0.0
                        2)   7.75  0.6   30    0.25
                        3)  15.50  1.2   60    0.50
                        4)  23.25  1.8   90    0.75
                        5)  31.00  2.4  120    1.00
                        6)  38.75  3.0  150    1.25
                        7)  46.50  3.6  180    1.50
                      ______________________________


All glass volumetric flasks and pipettes were gravimetrically calibrated prior 
to the cruise. The Primary standards were dried and weighed prior to the 
cruise. The exact weight was noted for future reference. When Primary standards 
were made, the flask volume at 20°C, the weight of the powder, and the 
temperature of the solution were used to buoyancy correct the weight, calculate 
the exact concentration of the solution, and determine how much of the Primary 
was needed for the desired concentrations of secondary standard.

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

Working standards were made up in low nutrient seawater (LNSW). The first 40L 
carboy of water used was collected off shore of coastal California and treated 
in the lab. The water was first filtered through a 0.45 micron filter then re-
circulated for ~8 hours through a 0.2 micron filter, passed a UV lamp and 
through a second 0.2 micron filter. Subsequent LNSW used was collected at var- 
ious stations in clean 40L carboys from the ship's underway system, which 
provided uncontaminated low nutrient surface water. The actual concentration of 
nutrients in this water was empirically determined during the calculation of 
the non-linear corrections that were applied to the nutrient concentrations.

The Nitrate (KNO3 lot# 042263) and Phosphate (KH2PO4 lot# 991608) Primary 
standards were obtained from Fisher Scientific with reported purities of 100% 
and 99.8%, respectively. The Silicate standards were from both Alfa Aesar 
(Na2SiF6 lot# J25E26) and Fluka (Na2SiF6 lot# 449247/1) with reported purities 
of >98%. Nitrite standards were obtained from Alfa Aesar (NaNO2 lot# K19D12 and 
lot# B065013) with reported purities of 97%.

Quality Control

As is standard ODF practice, a deep calibration check sample was run with each 
set of sample. Table
1.12.1 is a summary of those calibration check samples.


Table 1.12.1: Calibration check samples
                       _______________________________

                        Parameter  AAII concentration
                        ---------  ------------------
                           NO3      30.54 uM ±0.27
                           PO4       2.17 uM ±0.02
                           SIL       71.6 uM ±0.69
                           NO2       0.01 uM ±0.005
                       _______________________________


Analytical problems

The pump for the Silicate channel was changed out after station 028 due to 
mechanical problems causing it to stop pumping periodically. The Nitrite SCIC 
was changed out after station 077 which improved the stability of the baseline. 
The standard cal was adjusted for Nitrate after station 010, and all Beer's Law 
checks run after this could only be used for smoothing the final Nitrate data 
after this station. Two of the ten Beer's Law check runs were not acceptable and 
thus not used in the nutrient calculations. There were observed small 
Phosphate variations in the deep water, however, these variations are close to 
or at the limits of the methods for both sample collection and sample analysis. 
The temperature of the laboratory used for the analyses ranged from 23.0°C to 
24.5°C.

During the nutrient analysis of Station 141 cast 1, the air-conditioning unit 
was switched off and the lab temperature increase. This caused a drift in 
nitrate values at the end of the analysis. However, a correction was applied to 
the nitrate raw data, it was reprocessed and is acceptable.

Nutrient instrument comparison

Duplicate samples were drawn from 25 stations for comparison with results of the 
AAII, the current equipment, with the AA3. Data will be reviewed in the office 
and sent to the CLIVAR community for review and comments before incorporating 
the autoanalyzer into the STS/ODF CLIVAR time-series data.


1.13. HISTORICAL COMPARISON

James Swift, Chief Scientist and CTDO2/rosette/S/O2/nutrients/data processing 
PI

The I5 cruise track crossed the 2007 I8S cruise track at about 34°S, 95°E. The 
bottle cast data for I5 stations 144-146 were compared with those from I8S 
stations 76-78. The comparisons indicated close cruise-to-cruise agreement 
between temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, silicate, CFC-12, and total 
carbon, except for variations which appeared likely to be due more to 
oceanography than standardization. Possible small cruise-to-cruise offsets 
(standardization differences) were observed for nitrate, phosphate, and 
alkalinity.



REFERENCES:

Arms67.
    Armstrong, F. A. J., Stearns, C. R., and Strickland, J. D. H., "The measurement 
    of upwelling and subsequent biological processes by means of the Technicon 
    Autoanalyzer and associated equipment," Deep-Sea Research, 14, pp. 381-389 
    (1967).

Atla71.
    Atlas, E. L., Hager, S. W., Gordon, L. I., and Par k, P. K., "A Practical Manual 
    for Use of the Technicon AutoAnalyzer(r) in Seawater Nutrient Analyses Revised," 
    Technical Report 215, Reference 71-22, p. 49, Oregon State University,  
    Department of Oceanography (1971).

Bern67.
    Bernhardt, H. and Wilhelms, A., "The continuous determination of low level iron, 
    soluble phosphate and total phosphate with the AutoAnalyzer," Technicon 
    Symposia, I, pp. 385-389 (1967).
    
Brow78.
    Brown, N. L. and Morrison, G. K., "WHOI/Brown conductivity, temperature and 
    depth microprofiler," Technical Report No. 78-23, Woods Hole Oceanographic 
    Institution (1978).
    
Carp65.
    Carpenter, J. H., "The Chesapeake Bay Institute technique for the Winkler 
    dissolved oxygen method," Limnology and Oceanography, 10, pp. 141-143 
    (1965).
    
Culb91.
    Culberson, C. H., Knapp, G., Stalcup, M., Williams, R. T., and Zemlyak, F., "A 
    comparison of methods for the determination of dissolved oxygen in seawater," 
    Report WHPO 91-2, WOCE Hydrographic Programme Office (Aug 1991).
    
Gord92.
    Gordon, L. I., Jennings, J. C., Jr., Ross, A. A., and Krest, J. M., "A suggested 
    Protocol for Continuous Flow Automated Analysis of Seawater Nutrients in the 
    WOCE Hydrographic Program and the Joint Global Ocean Fluxes Study," Grp. Tech 
    Rpt 92-1, OSU College of Oceanography Descr. Chem Oc. (1992).

Hage68.
    Hager, S. W., Gordon, L. I., and Par k, P. K., "A Practical Manual for Use of 
    the Technicon AutoAnalyzer(r) in Seawater Nutrient Analyses.," Final report to 
    Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Contract 14-17-0001-1759., p. 31pp, Oregon State 
    University, Department of Oceanography, Reference No. 68-33. (1968).

Joyc94.
    Joyce, T., ed. and Corry, C., ed., "Requirements for WOCE Hydrographic Programme 
    Data Reporting," Report WHPO 90-1, WOCE Report No. 67/91, pp. 52-55, WOCE 
    Hydrographic Programme Office, Woods Hole, MA, USA (May 1994, Rev. 2). 
    UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT.

Kawa09.
    Kawano, T. (2009). Personal communication with M. C. Johnson, SIO/STS/ODF.

Mill82.
    Millard, R. C., Jr., "CTD calibration and data processing techniques at WHOI 
    using the practical salinity scale," Proc. Int. STD Conference and Workshop, p. 
    19, Mar. Tech. Soc., La Jolla, Ca. (1982).
    
Owen85.
    Owens, W. B. and Millard, R. C., Jr., "A new algorithm for CTD oxygen 
    calibration," Jour n. of Am. Meteorological Soc., 15, p. 621 (1985).

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



CHLOROFLUOROCARBON AND SULFUR HEXAFLUORIDE MEASUREMENTS 

PIs: John Bullister
     Mark Warner

Analysts: David Wisegarver
          Eric Wisegarver
          Erin Shields


Approximately 3500 samples were analyzed for two dissolved chlorofluorocarbons 
(CFC-11 and CFC-12) and for sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) on the CLIVAR I5 
expedition, using methods described by Bullister and Wisegarver (2008).In 
general the analytical system performed well on the cruise.

Routine measurements of dissolved SF6 in seawater remain extremely challenging. 
Typical dissolved SF6 concentrations in modern surface water are ~1-2 fmol kg-1 
seawater (1 fmol= femtomole = 10-15 moles), approximately 1000 times lower than 
dissolved CFC-11 and CFC-12 concentrations. The limits of detection for SF6 on 
CLIVAR I5 were approximately 0.02 fmol kg-1. SF6. Improvements in the analytical 
sensitivity to this compound at low concentrations are essential to make these 
measurements more routine on future CLIVAR cruises.

Water samples on CLIVAR I5 were collected in bottles designed with a modified 
end-cap to minimize the contact of the water sample with the end-cap O-rings 
after closing. Stainless steel springs covered with a nylon powder coat were 
substituted for the internal elastic tubing provided with standard Niskin 
bottles. When taken, water samples collected for dissolved CFC-11, CFC-12 and 
SF6 ('CFC/SF6') analysis were the first samples drawn from the bottles. Care was 
taken to coordinate the sampling of CFC/SF6 with other samples to minimize the 
time between the initial opening of each bottle and the completion of sample 
drawing. Samples most easily impacted by gas exchange (dissolved oxygen, 3He, 
DIC and pH) were collected within several minutes of the initial opening of each 
bottle. To minimize contact with air, the CFC/SF6 samples were drawn directly 
through the stopcocks of the bottles into 250 ml precision glass syringes 
equipped with three-way plastic stopcocks. The syringes were immersed in a 
holding tank of clean surface seawater held at ~10OC until ~20 minutes before 
being analyzed. At that time, the syringe was place in a bath of surface 
seawater heated to ~30°C.

For atmospheric sampling, a ~75 m length of 3/8" OD Dekaron tubing was run from 
the CFC van located on the fantail to the bow of the ship. A flow of air was 
drawn through this line into the main laboratory using an Air Cadet pump. The 
air was compressed in the pump, with the downstream pressure held at ~1.5 atm. 
using a backpressure regulator. A tee allowed a flow of ~100 ml min-1 of the 
compressed air to be directed to the gas sample valves of the CFC/SF6 analytical 
systems, while the bulk flow of the air (>7 l min-1) was vented through the 
back-pressure regulator. Air samples were analyzed only when the relative wind 
direction was within 60 degrees of the bow of the ship to reduce the possibility 
of shipboard contamination. Analysis of bow air was performed at 14 locations 
along the cruise track. At each location, at least five air measurements were 
made to increase the precision of the measurements. Air measurements are listed 
at the end of this report.

Concentrations of CFC-11, CFC-12 and SF6 in air samples, seawater, and gas 
standards were measured by shipboard electron capture gas chromatography (EC-GC) 
using techniques modified from those described by Bullister and Weiss (1988) and 
Bullister and Wisegarver (2008) as outlined below. For seawater analyses, water 
was transferred from a glass syringe to a glass-sparging chamber (volume ~200 
ml). The dissolved gases in the seawater sample were extracted by passing a 
supply of CFC/SF6 free purge gas through the sparging chamber for a period of 6 
minutes at ~150 ml min-1. Water vapor was removed from the purge gas during 
passage through an 18 cm long, 3/8" diameter glass tube packed with the 
desiccant magnesium perchlorate. The sample gases were concentrated on a cold-
trap consisting of a 1/16" OD stainless steel tube with a 5 cm section packed 
tightly with Porapak Q (60-80 mesh) and a 22 cm section packed with Carboxen 
1000. A Neslab Cryocool CC-100 was used to cool the trap to ~-70°C. After 6 
minutes of purging, the trap was isolated, and it was heated electrically to 
~200°C. The sample gases held in the trap were then injected onto a precolumn 
(~60 cm of 1/8" O.D. stainless steel tubing packed with 80-100 mesh Porasil B, 
held at 80°C) for the initial separation of CFC-12, CFC-11, SF6  and CCl4 from 
later eluting peaks.

After the SF6 and CFC-12 had passed from the pre-column and into the second 
precolumn (5 cm of 1/8" O.D. stainless steel tubing packed with MS5A, 80°C) and 
into the analytical column #1 (240 cm of 1/8" OD stainless steel tubing packed 
with MS5A and held at 80°C), the outflow from the first precolumn was diverted 
to the second analytical column (150 cm 1/8" OD stainless steel tubing packed 
with Carbograph 1AC, 80-100 mesh, held at 80°C). After CFC-11 had passed through 
the first pre-column, the flow was diverted to a third analytical column (1.7 m 
of Carbograph 1AC, 80°C). The gases remaining after CCl4 had passed through the 
first pre-column, were backflushed from the pre column and vented. Column #1 and 
the second pre-column were held in a Shimadzu GC8 gas chromatograph with an 
electron capture detector (ECD) held at 340°C. Column #2 and the first precolumn 
were in another Shimadzu GC8 gas chromatograph with ECD. Column #3 was held in a 
Shimadzu Mini2 gas chromatograph (90 C) with the ECD held at 250°C.

The analytical system was calibrated frequently using a standard gas of known 
CFC/SF6 composition. Gas sample loops of known volume were thoroughly flushed 
with standard gas and injected into the system. The temperature and pressure was 
recorded so that the amount of gas injected could be calculated. The procedures 
used to transfer the standard gas to the trap, precolumn, main chromatographic 
column, and ECD were similar to those used for analyzing water samples. Four 
sizes of gas sample loops were used. Multiple injections of these loop volumes 
could be made to allow the system to be calibrated over a relatively wide range 
of concentrations. Air samples and system blanks (injections of loops of CFC/SF6 
free gas) were injected and analyzed in a similar manner. The typical analysis 
time for seawater, air, standard or blank samples was ~11 minutes. 

Concentrations of the CFC-11 and CFC-12 in air, seawater samples, and gas 
standards are reported relative to the SIO98 calibration scale (Cunnold et al., 
2000). Concentrations of SF6 in air, seawater samples, and gas standards are 
reported relative to the SIO-05 calibration scale. Concentrations in air and 
standard gas are reported in units of mole fraction CFC in dry gas, and are 
typically in the parts per trillion (ppt) range. Dissolved CFC concentrations 
are given in units of picomoles per kilogram seawater (pmol kg-1) and SF6 
concentrations in fmol kg-1. CFC/SF6 concentrations in air and seawater samples 
were determined by fitting their chromatographic peak areas to multi-point 
calibration curves, generated by injecting multiple sample loops of gas from a 
working standard (PMEL cylinder 45174) into the analytical instrument. The 
response of the detector to the range of moles of CFC/SF6 passing through the 
detector remained relatively constant during the cruise. Full-range calibration 
curves were run at intervals of 4-5 days during the cruise. Single injections of 
a fixed volume of standard gas at approximately one atm pressure were run much 
more frequently (at intervals of ~90 minutes) to monitor short-term changes in 
detector sensitivity.

The purging efficiency was estimated by re-purging a high-concentration water 
sample and measuring this residual signal.  At a flow rate of 150 cc min-1 for 6 
minutes, the purging efficiency for all 3 gases was >99%.

On this expedition, based on the analysis of ~250 pairs of duplicate samples, we 
estimate precisions (1 standard deviation) of about 1% or 0.002 pmol kg-1 
(whichever is greater) for both dissolved CFC-11 and CFC-12 measurements. The 
estimated precision for SF6 was 2% or 0.02 fmol kg-1, (whichever is greater). 
Overall accuracy of the measurements (a function of the absolute accuracy of the 
calibration gases, volumetric calibrations of the sample gas loops and purge 
chamber, errors in fits to the calibration curves and other factors) is 
estimated to be about 2% or 0.004 pmol kg-1 for CFC11 and CFC-12 and 4% or 0.04 
fmol kg-1 for SF6).

A small number of water samples had anomalously high CFC/SF6 concentrations 
relative to adjacent samples. These samples occurred sporadically during the 
cruise and were not clearly associated with other features in the water column 
(e.g., anomalous dissolved oxygen, salinity, or temperature features). This 
suggests that these samples were probably contaminated with CFCs/SF6 during the 
sampling or analysis processes.

Measured concentrations for these anomalous samples are included in the data 
file, but are given a quality flag value of either 3 (questionable measurement) 
or 4 (bad measurement). Less than 2% of samples were flagged as bad or 
questionable during this voyage. A quality flag of 5 was assigned to water 
samples which were drawn from the rosette but lost during storage or due to 
errors in the multi-step analytical process.



REFERENCES 

Bullister, J.L., and R.F. Weiss, 1988: Determination of CC13F and CC12F2 in 
    seawater and air. Deep-Sea Res., v. 25,  pp. 839-853.
 
Bullister, J.L., and D.P. Wisegarver (2008): The shipboard analysis of trace 
    levels of sulfur hexafluoride, chlorofluorocarbon-11 and chlorofluorocarbon-
    12 in seawater. Deep-Sea Res. I, 55, 1063-1074. 

Prinn, R.G., R.F. Weiss, P.J. Fraser, P.G. Simmonds, D.M. Cunnold, F.N. Alyea, 
    S. O'Doherty, P. Salameh, B.R.  Miller, J. Huang, R.H.J. Wang, D.E. Hartley, 
    C. Harth,  L.P. Steele, G. Sturrock, P.M. Midgley, and A. McCulloch, 2000: A 
    history of chemically and radiatively important gases in air deduced from 
    ALE/GAGE/AGAGE. J. Geophys. Res., 105, pp. 17,751-17,792.



Air Measurements on I05_2009
Concentrations are in pats-per-trillion (PPT)

 Date   Time  CFC12  CFC11  SF6         Date   Time  CFC12  CFC11  SF6
YYMMDD  HHMM   PPT    PPT   PPT        YYMMDD  HHMM   PPT    PPT   PPT
------  ----  -----  -----  ----       ------  ----  -----  -----  ----
090321  2335  532.7  239.3  6.39       090409  1915         240.2  6.64
090321  2342  534.0                    090414  2145  532.6  239.9  6.45
090321  2349  532.0  240.2  6.49       090414  2155  533.5  239.0  6.72
090321  2356  531.8  241.9  6.45       090414  2205  534.7  240.0  6.67
090322  0003  531.3  244.2  6.52       090414  2215  531.8  238.7  6.58
090322  0010  531.7  243.5  6.55       090414  2225  531.8  239.5  6.68
090322  1412         238.4  6.52       090414  2235  532.4  239.2  6.67
090322  1419  532.3  237.2  6.49       090418  0524  529.2  237.0  6.56
090322  1426  536.4  237.3  6.45       090418  0534  529.8  235.3  6.65
090322  1433  536.1  237.8  6.37       090418  0544  531.5  233.9  6.72
090322  1440  534.1  238.0  6.37       090418  0554  533.5  232.0  6.72
090326  1003  536.4  240.6             090418  0604  529.3  231.0  6.75
090326  1010  536.2  240.5             090422  1143  533.8  244.3  6.43
090326  1017  532.3  240.0             090422  1153  535.2  245.4  6.40
090326  1024  532.8  240.5             090422  1203  534.4  244.8  6.44
090326  1031  533.2  241.2             090422  1213  535.0  245.2  6.51
090330  0135  535.6  240.8  6.70       090423  2057  533.5  242.3   
090330  0145  530.5  240.4  6.77       090423  2107  534.5  242.7  6.38
090330  0155  531.5  239.9  6.69       090423  2117  532.5  243.3  6.34
090330  0205  529.1  240.1  6.69       090423  2127  533.6  244.2  6.38
090330  0215  532.2  239.9  6.56       090427  0335  531.6  240.1  6.81
090330  0225  532.0  240.4  6.70       090427  0346  533.2  238.7  6.74
090331  0706  528.6  239.5  6.34       090427  0357  527.7  239.0  6.66
090331  0713  525.2  239.5  6.37       090427  0408  530.9  239.0  6.51
090331  0720  535.7  240.2  6.61       090427  0419  531.4  241.4  6.39
090331  0727  528.1  239.9  6.52       090504  0450  539.0  238.7  6.46
090331  0734  530.9  240.6  6.50       090504  0501  537.7  236.0  6.65
090331  0741  534.1  239.8  6.51       090504  0512  537.3  236.6  6.61
090406  0050  532.2  240.6  6.46       090504  0523  539.3  238.1  6.68
090406  0057  530.8  240.2  6.43       090504  0534  543.4  239.1  6.72
090406  0104  531.6  240.9  6.51       090507  0559  532.4  240.1  6.69
090406  0111  531.1  240.2  6.67       090507  0611  530.4  240.4  6.76
090406  0118  534.2  240.5  6.63       090507  0623  529.9  239.9  6.71
090406  0125  535.4  240.3  6.53       090507  0635  532.1  241.2  6.68
090409  1825  531.0  240.3  6.63       090507  0647  532.2  239.5  6.70
090409  1835  531.7  239.3  6.53               
090409  1845  535.2  239.4  6.59         Mean    532.8  239.8  6.57
090409  1855  530.1  239.7  6.64         STDEV     2.9  2.5    0.13
090409  1905  532.2  239.7  6.68         %STDEV    0.5  1.1    1.9




TOTAL DISSOLVED CARBON
(Dana Greeley)

"A total of over 500 pure (99.995%) CO2 gas calibrations were run on both SOMMA 
systems during I5. The precision and accuracy obtained from these calibrations 
can be described as follows;

1. The precision is displayed by the greater than 450 replicate samples drawn. 
   The absolute average difference from the mean of these replicates are less 
   than 0.85 µmol/kg. No significant systematic differences were noted.

2. The accuracy can be described by the greater than 250 Certified Reference 
   Materials (batch 94) that were analyzed. The average difference from the 
   certified value for these is 0.65 µmol/kg with a standard deviation of 1.5 
   µmol/kg.

The overall accuracy and precision as described above, though excellent for the 
Somma systems, does not mean there will not be small corrections to the data 
made shore side after a more thorough examination and post cruise calibrations 
are performed. These final corrections may change the data by as much as 2-3 
µmol/kg but in the majority the correction will be less than 1 µmol/kg. In 
addition, it is likely there will be a few changes made to the quality control 
flags.


Alkalinity
(George C. Anderson and Jennale Peacock, laboratory of Andrew G. Dickson, Marine 
Physical Laboratory, Scripps Institution of Oceanography)

As part of the overall sampling program, alkalinity sampling was included. 
Samples were taken from all Niskin bottles on every other stations; intermediate 
stations were partially sampled with as few as one and as many as 24 of the 
levels being sampled. During the 195 stations approximately 5000 samples were 
collected and analyzed.

After thorough rinsing, samples were collected in 250 ml Pyrex serum bottles. 
Approximately 0.06 milliliters of a saturated mercuric chloride solution were 
added to each sample. Samples were analyzed using an open beaker titration 
procedure using two thermostated beakers, one sample being titrated while the 
second was being prepared and equilibrating to the system temperature of 20 
degrees C. After an initial aliquot of approximately 1.3 mls of standardized 
hydrochloric acid (~0.1Molar HCl in ~0.6M NaCl solution) was added, the sample 
was stirred for approximately 5 minutes to remove liberated carbon dioxide. The 
stir time has been minimized by bubbling carbon dioxide free air into the 
sample. After the ~5 minute equilibration time, 19 aliquots of ~0.02 mls were 
added. The data within the pH range of 3.5 to 3.0 were processed using a non-
linear least squares fit from which the alkalinity value of the sample was 
calculated (Dickson, et.al., editors, 2007). A sample volume of 50 mls was 
titrated. Sample temperatures were measured using a calibrated YSI thermister 
thermometer accurate to 0.05 degrees Celsius.

Dickson laboratory Certified Reference Materials (CRM) Batch B94 was used to 
determine the accuracy of the analysis.

On a 36 bottle cast 3 duplicate samples were collected typically from Niskins 1 
(the bottom of the cast), 18 (mid depth of the cast) and 36 (the surface 
bottle). Over the course of the cruise, approximately 450 duplicates were 
analyzed. The pooled standard deviation was approximately 1 micromole-per-
kilogram.

The data should be considered preliminary since the correction to be applied for 
the difference between the CRMs stated and measured values has yet to be 
finalized and applied. Also the correction for the mercuric chloride addition 
has yet to be applied. As part of the data evaluation, a determination was made 
for the possible contribution of the mercuric chloride to the alkalinity. The 
data indicate no contribution, either positive or negative, from the mercuric 
chloride.



REFERENCE:

Dickson, Andrew G., Chris Sabine and James R. Christian, editors, "Guide to Best 
    Practices for Ocean CO2 Measurements", Pices Special Publication 3, IOCCP 
    Report No. 8, October 2007, SOP 3b, "Determination of total alkalinity in 
    sea water using an open-cell titration"



14C SAMPLING

14C samples were taken at ~ every 5 stations. 880 samples were taken in total. 
Bottles were cleaned at WHOI before the cruise. Samples were taken and sealed 
for storage according to the instructions provided by WHOI (1). Samples will be 
shipped back to WHOI for 13C and C14 analyses.

(1) Measuring 14C in seawater total CO2 by accelerator mass spectrometry, WHP 
    Operation and Methods, July, 2003.


DOC sampling

DOC samples were taken from every Niskin bottles at every other station. 3350 
samples were taken from 52 stations in total, including duplicate sets from 5 
stations. Samples from up 250 m were filtered through GF/F filters using in-line 
filtration. Samples from deeper depths were not filtered. High density 
polyethylene 60 ml sample bottles were 10% HCl cleaned and Mili-Q water rinsed. 
Filters were combusted at 450 C for overnight. Filter holders were 10% HCl 
cleaned and Mili-Q water rinsed. Samples were introduced into the sample bottles 
by a pre-cleaned silicone tubing. Bottles were rinsed by sample for 3 times 
before filling. 40-50 ml of water were taken for each sample. Samples were kept 
frozen in the ship's freezer room. Frozen samples will be shipped back by 
express shipping to RSMAS for DOC analysis.


pH
(Brendan Carter and Adam Radich)

On this CLIVAR leg, over 7500 measurements of pH were made on water sampled from 
rosette casts at 195 regular stations, 2 test stations, and 1 reoccupation of a 
station from the I6S line. Analyses were made with an Agilent 8453 
spectrophotometer equipped with a 10 cm jacketted flow cell using m-cresol 
purple indicator dye. Results are reported on the total hydrogen ion scale. 
Sample introduction to the cell and dye addition were automated with a Kloehn V6 
Syringe Pump.

The plan for water sampling included coverage of every bottle sampled for 
alkalinity or total carbon for a complete characterization of the carbon system. 
This scheme typically alternated between full and partial coverage of tripped 
bottles. Samples were obtained from rosette bottles into 300 mL Pyrex glass 
serum bottles. Serum bottles were rinsed three times and allowed to overflow by 
one additional bottle volume. The bottles were poisoned with 0.02% saturated 
HgCl2 solution and capped with a rubber stopper without allowing for headspace. 
Analyses were completed within three hours of sampling. Prior to measurement, 
samples were brought to 20°C by partially submerging the serum bottles in a 
temperature bath for 16 minutes.

Data precision was evaluated by analysis of duplicate samples (multiple samples 
from the same bottle on the rosette). The pooled standard deviation of the ~650 
duplicate analyses is 0.0004 pH units.

Accuracy of spectrophotometric pH measurements is difficult to constrain with no 
agreed upon calibration procedure. For this cruise two approaches were made. 
First, since the same bottles that were sampled for alkalinity and total carbon 
were sampled for pH, an independent estimate of pH can be obtained from 
equilibrium equations. Second, pH analyses of Certified Reference Materials 
(currently only certified for DIC and alkalinity) were performed. A review of 
the accuracy of the pH measurements is underway, and large changes (~0.01) in 
the final reported values are likely. Confidence in the precision of the 
measurements remains high, and likely changes would be a simple offset or an 
offset that is a simple function of reported pH.

No correction for HgCl2 addition has been made for the reported preliminary pH 
values. Testing aboard ship suggested that a very small correction (~0.0003 pH 
unit increase) might be appropriate for all measured values.



REFERENCE:

Dickson, A.G., Sabine, C.L. and Christian, J.R. (Eds.), (2007): Guide to Best 
    Practices for Ocean C O2 Measurements.



I5 (2009) CROSSOVER WITH I8S (2007)

The I5 cruise track crossed the 2007 I8S cruise track at about 34°S, 95°E. The 
bottle cast data for I5 stations 144-146 were compared with those from I8S 
stations 76-78. The comparisons indicated:

temperature versus pressure - slightly warmer in 2009 above 400 db; slightly 
   colder in 2009 500-1000 db; nearly the same 1100-3200 db; possibly very 
   slightly warmer in 2009 below 3400 db.
salinity versus pressure - salinity differences 600-1600 db look very much like 
   salinity minimum was a bit shallower and maybe slightly saltier in 2009; very 
   good agreement below 1800 db;
dissolved oxygen versus pressure - slightly lower in 2009 200-1500 db; agrees 
   well below 1600 db.
dissolved oxygen versus sigma-0 - nearly the same from sigma-0 26.85-27.20; 
   slightly lower in 2009 sigma-0 27.20- 27.55; nearly the same for sigma-0 > 
   27.55.
silicate versus pressure - slightly higher in 2009 700-1800 db; nearly the same 
   1800-2500 db; slightly higher in 2009 2500-3100 db; nearly the same > 3200 db.
silicate versus sigma-0 - nearly the same for sigma-0 < 27.20 or maybe < 27.40; 
   slightly higher in 2009 sigma-0 27.45-27.60; nearly the same for sigma-0 > 
   27.60.
nitrate versus pressure - slightly lower in 2009 above 400 db; a small amount 
   higher in 2009 400- 1500 db; nearly the same 1500-2500 db; slightly higher in 
   2009 from 2500-3500 db; and very nearly the same below 3500 db.
nitrate versus sigma-0 - NO3 slightly higher in 2009 for all sigma-0 > 27.10; 
   this suggests a small NO3 offset between the cruises.
phosphate versus pressure - PO4 slightly higher in 2009 for most pressures > 500 
   db.
phosphate versus sigma-0 - PO4 higher in 2009 (by. ca. 0.06-0.07 µmol/kg) for 
   all sigma-0 > 27.10.
nitrate versus phosphate - agrees very well for NO3 < 26 µmol/kg and PO4 < 1.8 
   µmol/kg; for NO3 26-36 µmol/kg PO4 is a little higher for a given NO3 
   concentration.
CFC-12 versus pressure - deep values (below 1500 db) nearly the same except that 
   2009 is slightly higher 2000-2800 db.
total carbon versus pressure - higher in 2009 from 400-1600 db, nearly the same 
   below 1800 db.
alkalinity versus pressure - in general values are higher in 2009 at all 
   pressures, though nearly the same near 2000 db and only slightly higher below 
   4000 db.

These cruise-to-cruise crossover comparisons suggest that standardization for 
most parameters may have been about the same in 2007 and 2009. Of the parameters 
examined, the case for possible small cruise-to-cruise offsets was strongest for 
nitrate, phosphate and alkalinity.


PROBLEMS AND TIME LOST

The cruise went exceptionally well. For example, there was only need for one CTD 
electrical retermination, to solve a problem in the early going. The fault 
occurred on landing the rosette and so we lost no data and little time in the 
process. At other times the techs also performed one CTD mechanical 
retermination as preventative maintenance near the cruise midpoint, and carried 
out maintenance on the winch slip rings.

There were few problems or delays with CTD cast operations: Station 14 was 
delayed 2.5 hours for the CTD retermination noted above; on station 36 there was 
a firmware glitch in the deck unit; a winch problem on station 44 caused a 2 
hour delay (see below); on station 77 all bottles were closed on the fly due to 
storm sea conditions associated with Tropical Cyclone Jade; at station 102 the 
winch stopped at 158 meters on the down cast for a problem and the data 
acquisition system froze at 1112 db for total loss of abut 25 minutes; on 
stations 138 and 180 (and maybe one other time) the cast start was delayed ca. 
20-25 minutes each due to data acquisition system problems; wire payout speed 
was slowed at some stations, especially during approximately the second quarter 
of the cruise, due to low-tensions during ship roll; haul-in was slowed to 30 
m/min on the deepest portions (generally below 5000-5300 meters) of the deepest 
casts to keep wire tension from exceeding maximum limits; and there were short 
coming-tostation delays for some stations where specific depths were being 
sought. The cruise was planned to allow for such events, and no adjustments to 
the station plan were necessary to compensate for these.

The only significant weather event was the passage of Tropical Cyclone Jade (see 
above), which resulted in the loss of slightly more than one day of ship time.

During CTD/rosette recovery on station 44, just as the package was being raised 
out of the water, a retaining spring on the winch failed, resulting in loss of 
control. The winch operator alertly hit the emergency stop, at which point the 
wire started free-wheeling, with the package falling toward the ocean floor. 
However, the operator quickly engaged the emergency brake, stopping the package 
after only 18 meters of descent. His quick and professional actions impressively 
averted disaster. The chief engineer and his team were able to diagnose and fix 
the unusual equipment failure in less than two hours, competently minimizing 
loss of time to the program.

The Revelle's multibeam sonar failed (for the remainder of the cruise) on 17 
April. The multibeam sonar is an ancillary instrument for the I5 science 
program; the multibeam data are not processed. But the loss of real-time use of 
the multibeam sonar to guide station placement near bathymetric features and for 
stations being occupied at specified bottom depths was felt from time to time, 
though without significant harm to the measurement program or loss of time.

Algal blooms were noted in some of the salinity sample bottles in late April, 
and so all salinity sample bottles were thoroughly scrubbed and rinsed by the 
science team on 26-27 April. The salinometers were also cleaned at this time.

The performance of key portions of the helium extraction system progressively 
worsened during the expedition. It finally became unsatisfactory for further 
work and so the final two planned helium profiles were cancelled as a result.

There were no significant injuries or illnesses suffered during the cruise. A 
gastro-intestinal virus (perhaps akin to a norovirus) made it's way through many 
of the officers, crew, and science team in the early going, but caused no 
problem other than being highly unpleasant for its victims.

 
ARGO FLOATS
(Alison Rogers)

During the CLIVAR/CO2 2009 repeat of I05, 19 autonomous CTD profiling floats 
were deployed along the cruise track in waters deeper than 3000 db. These floats 
are part of the Argo Program (www.argo.ucsd.edu) and were provided by Dr. Steve 
Riser from the University of Washington. All floats were deployed at CTD 
stations after all casts were completed, from the starboard stern of the ship, 
with the ship moving forward at about 1 knot. Depending on the sea conditions, 
deployment was carried out by either lowering the float on a line or by 
releasing the float manually. All 19 floats successfully self activated via 
pressure activation and began executing their programmed mission. Data from all 
Argo floats are publicly available in real-time via the two global servers at 
www.usgodae.org and www.coriolis.eu.org. The following are the approximate 
positions where the 19 floats were deployed.


                     Float ID   Latitude    Longitude
                     --------  ----------   ----------
                       6280    31 10.76'S   30 37.85'E
                       6383    32 32.57'S   33 24.11'E
                       0067    32 59.78'S   36 57.33'E
                       6099    32 59.86'S   39 15.40'E
                       6285    32 59.83'S   42 08.46'E
                       6279    33 18.44'S   46 50.20'E
                       6222    33 41.44'S   49 47.48'E
                       5409    34 20.04'S   52 09.96'E
                       6300    33 59.86'S   54 53.14'E
                       6299    33 59.82'S   56 59.19'E
                       6219    33 59.89'S   59 19.24'E
                       6220    34 00.00'S   61 41.68'E
                       5183    33 59.79'S   63 58.95'E
                       6278    34 00.05'S   66 50.26'E
                       6286    34 00.12'S   69 07.49'E
                       6223    34 00.14'S   71 24.78'E
                       6224    33 36.58'S   74 09.08'E
                       6212    31 59.89'S   76 00.04'E
                       6218    30 50.43'S   78 19.73'E



SHIPBOARD ACOUSTIC DOPPLER CURRENT PROFILER 
(Julia Hummon/University of Hawaii)

The Revelle has three Doppler sonars for measuring ocean velocity. One of these, 
a commercial 150kHz narrowband instrument "NB150" (made by Teledyne R.D. 
Instruments), is considered to be the primary shipboard current profiler for 
CLIVAR cruises. The other two "High-resolution Doppler Sonar System" (HDSS, 
50kHz and 140kHz) were designed at Scripps Institute of Oceanography 
specifically for installation on the Revelle. Their design characteristics were 
optimized for high-quality ocean shear measurements, and the ability to provide 
high-quality ocean velocity is under evaluation. The HDSS instruments are not 
considered part of the CLIVAR sonar velocity data.

The acquisition system used on the NB150 ("UHDAS", University of Hawaii Data 
Acquisition System) is an Open Sources suite, written in C and Python; 
processing software is in C, Python, and Matlab. UHDAS acquires data from the 
OS75NB150 instrument, gyro heading (for reliability), Ashtech heading (for 
increased accuracy), and GPS positions. Single-ping data are converted from beam 
to earth coordinates using known transducer angles and gyro heading, and are 
corrected by the average ashtech-gyro difference over the duration of the 5-
minute profile.

Groups of single-ping ocean velocity estimates must be averaged to decrease 
measurement noise. These groups commonly comprise 5 minutes. Bad pings must be 
edited out prior to averaging. This is done by UHDAS using a collection of 
criteria tailored to the instrument type and frequency, and to the specific 
installation.

UHDAS uses a CODAS (Common Oceanographic Data Access System) database for 
storage and retrieval of averaged data. Various post-processing steps can be 
administered to the database after a cruise is over, but the at-sea data should 
be acceptable for preliminary work. Documentation is available at 
http://currents.soest.hawaii.edu.

UHDAS provides access to regularly-updated figures and data over the ship's 
network via samba share and nfs export, as well as through the web interface. 
The web site has regularly-updated figures showing the last 5-minute ocean 
velocity profile with signal return strength, and hourly contour and vector 
plots of the last 3 days of ocean velocity.

 
The Clivar Shipboard Ocean Velocity Component

Data quality

This instrument's range was typically about 200-250m in the western part of the 
cruise, deepening slightly as the cruise continued east. Diurnal migration 
accounted for about 50 of range (better range during the local daylight when the 
scatterers migrated down for safety). Data were lost during one heavy weather 
event, but aside from that, the instrument acquired high quality data for the 
entire cruise. The Ashtech, critical for accurate heading, had only a few short 
dropouts. Undoubtedly the vigilence of the CTD watchstanders contributed to the 
brevity of Ashtech data gaps.

Data Access:

The data have been released to the NODC Joint Archive for Shipboard ADCP 
(http://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/sadcp). A graphical summary of the data is 
available at:

    http://currents.soest.hawaii.edu/clivar_co2/I5S/index.html

 

LOWERED ACOUSTIC DOPPLER CURRENT PROFILER

A single RD Instruments Broadband 150-kHz (BB-150) Lowered Acoustic Doppler 
Current Profiler (LADCP) was used throughout the cruise. A new 300-kHz Workhorse 
(WH-300) LADCP was lost in transit until after the ship's departure. The only 
instrument problem occurred at the beginning of the cruise. The first test casts 
showed that vertical orientation sensor was stuck in the wrong position. 
Fortunately, thanks to the savoir-faire of the resident technicians, the LADCP 
was fixed before the first regular station.

LADCP instrument setup and data downloading were done on a notebook computer 
running Linux, using graphical user interface software from the University of 
Hawaii (UH). The instrument was configured with 16-m pulse length, 8-m depth 
cell size, and a 16-m blanking interval. Data were recorded in beam coordinates 
for each ping. The command file is given in Table 1.


Table 1: Command file use for the 150-kHz LADCP.
                                ________________

                                 Command file
                                 --------------
                                 CR1
                                 RA
                                 RS
                                 WV330
                                 WN32
                                 EZ0011101
                                 EC1500
                                 EX00100
                                 WP1
                                 WF1600
                                 WS800
                                 WT1600
                                 WM1
                                 WB1
                                 WC056
                                 BP0
                                 CP255
                                 CL0
                                 TP 00:00:00
                                 TE 00:00:01.00
                                 TB 00:00:02.60
                                 TC 2 
                                 CF11101
                                ________________


The data were processed using two independent software packages: the older UH 
package calculates the vertical integral of the vertical shear and uses the 
ship's displacement to determine the constant of integration (Fisher and 
Visbeck, 1993), while the newer Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) package, 
originally written by Martin Visbeck and now maintained by Andreas Thurnherr, 
uses an inverse method to include additional constraints such as the shipboard 
ADCP data and bottom tracking from the LADCP (Visbeck, 2002). The two methods 
typically agree to within a few cm/s, but the inverse method is expected to have 
lower rms error, and will be used for final processing to yield the official 
data set. With both software packages, LADCP depth is derived from the CTD data.


Figure 1: Zonal (U) and meridional (V) velocity depth-longitudinal section. 
          Letters mark features highlighted in the text: (A) the Agulhas 
          Current; (B) deep eddies in the Mozambique Basin; (C) high-vertical-
          wavenumber oscillation over the Madagascar Ridge; (D) northward 
          intrusion of deep and bottom water in the Atlantis II Fracture Zone; 
          (E) subsurface eddies near the Ninety east Ridge, and (F) deep eddies 
          and the Leeuwin Current near the eastern boundary.


Sections of velocity shown in Fig. 1 are from the LDEO processing. Several 
interesting features are apparent. First, the strong southwestward Agulhas 
current was observed along the African coast (shown by letter A in Fig. 1). The 
Mozambique Basin centered at 40°E was filled with energetic large-vertical scale 
motions (B in Fig. 1); in some profiles, horizontal velocities were largest in 
the middle of the water column with speed up to 30 cm/s and decreasing only down 
to 20 cm/s near the 5000-m ocean bottom.

At the top of the meridionally-oriented Madagascar ridge (C in Fig. 1), a motion 
highly periodic with depth with a vertical wavelength of about 200 m was 
observed mostly in zonal velocity. The signal was shallow enough (less than 800 
m deep) to be also captured by the Hydrographic Doppler Sonar System (HDSS) 
during the 2-hour-long cast. Preliminary analysis suggests that the motion has a 
period of about 22-hour, close to the local inertial period; the excess of zonal 
over meridional amplitude, however, is inconsistent with a single vertically-
propagating near-inertial plane wave.

 
Figure 2: Profiles of meridional velocity (blue; smoothed in red) observed at 
          the 5 stations covering the southern entry of the Atlantis II Fracture 
          Zone. The topography is that of the lowest level across the fracture 
          zone from Smith and Sandwell's (1997) topographic dataset. The 
          transport per unit width below 2500 m is shown in white below each 
          profile.

 
Another important feature was the northward intrusion of deep and bottom water 
from the Crozet to the Madagascar basins through the Atlantis II Fracture Zone 
(D in Fig. 1, Fig. 2). Northward velocities up to 30 cm/s with a core near 4000 
m depth were observed across all 5 stations; the associated transport was 
comparable to previous observations (MacKinnon et al. 2008). High values from 
the CTD transmissometer from 3500 m to the bottom suggest large amounts of 
particulates are being re-suspended by this strong flow. Salinity and CFC-12 
observations are also consistent with intense vertical mixing at these 
locations. Northward intrusions in neighboring fracture zones were also observed 
(not shown). Hard work of students, crew and PIs, efficiency of acquisition and 
processing of LADCP data as well as sufficient internet bandwidth enabled an 
outside investigator in the USA to present the data on the Atlantis II Fracture 
Zone during the cruise.

Further east, one subsurface feature located near 1500 m depth was observed at 
the eastern edge of the Ninety-east Ridge (E in Fig. 1); although the motion was 
the most energetic in the direction parallel to the cruise course, the 
perpendicular motion appeared to be consistent with a geostrophic eddy. Finally, 
the cruise finished in the eastern basin with its energetic large-vertical-scale 
eddies and southward intense Leeuwin current along the eastern boundary (F in 
Fig. 1). Figure 2: Profiles of meridional velocity (blue; smoothed in red) 
observed at the 5 stations covering the southern entry of the Atlantis II 
Fracture Zone. The topography is that of the lowest level across the fracture 
zone from Smith and Sandwell's (1997) topographic dataset. The transport per 
unit width below 2500 m is shown in white below each profile.

 

REFERENCES:

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

MacKinnon, J. A., T. M. S. Johnston and R. Pinkel, 2008: Strong transport and 
    mixing of deep water through the Southwest Indian Ridge, Nature Geo., 1, 
    755-758.

Smith, W. H. F., and D. T. Sandwell, 1997: Global seafloor topography from 
    satellite altimetry and ship depth soundings, Science, 277, 1957-1962.

Visbeck, M., 2002: Deep velocity profiling using lowered acoustic Doppler 
    current profilers: bottom track and inverse solution, J. Atmos. and Oceanic 
    Tech., 19, 795-807.



                                   APPENDIX A

                             BOTTLE QUALITY COMMENTS


Comments from the Sample Logs and the results of STS/ODF's data investigations 
are included in this report. Units stated in these comments are degrees Celsius 
for temperature, unless otherwise noted, milliliters per liter for oxygen and 
micromoles per liter for Silicate, Nitrate, Nitrite, and Phosphate. The sample 
number is the cast number times 100 plus the bottle number. 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 re-
reading of charts (i.e. nutrients). 

Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
  1/1  105  bottle  4   Water pouring out at bottom end cap, bottle reseated, 
                        only alkalinity drawn. 

  1/1  105  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 

  2/1  109  ctds    4   Variation in CTD trace at bottle trip, CTD spiky. Code 
                        CTD salinity bad. 

  2/1  109  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees with 
                        adjoining stations. Much variation at the bottle stop, 
                        water following the CTD. Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

  2/1  117  no3     2   Nitrate value appears to be 5 units too low on profile. 
                        However, there is a similar drop in value for both 
                        silicate and phosphate. The peak is real and no analytical 
                        problems noted. 

  2/1  117  o2      2   High oxygen and salinity, low nutrients. Salinity and 
                        oxygen agree with CTD data. Data is acceptable. 

  3/2  201  salt    2   Lab temperature changing, analyst halted salinity analysis
                        after this run until temperature stabilized. 

  3/2  214  po4     4   PO4 high compared with station profile and adjoining 
                        stations. Nutrient analyst rechecked and found no 
                        analytical errors. Code PO4 bad. 

  3/2  218  salt    2   Bottle 18 top chipped, removed bottle from service. 
                        First time this bottle was used. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

  4/1  101  salt    2   Lab temperature changing prior to this run, analyst 
                        halted salinity analysis before this run until temperature 
                        stabilized. 

  4/1  127  bottle  2   Bottles 28-34 were not tripped per sampling schedule. 

  5/2  223  bottle  2   Feature seen in salinity, low oxygen and high nutrients.
                        Salinity agrees with CTD up cast. Data are acceptable. 

  5/2  231  bottle  2   Bottles 32-34 were not tripped per sampling schedule. 

  6/1  108  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 

  6/1  108  o2      5   Oxygen sample lost during analysis, aborted. 

  6/1  110  bottle  2   Ran out of water, no salinity sample, minimal sampling, 4 
                        liters. Salinity as well as nutrients are acceptable.
                        Although minimal sampling, suspect that analysts did 
                        not watch water budget. 

  6/1  110  sio3    2   SiO3 appears a little high. Analyst: "Silicate value 
                        appears high on the profile. However, adjacent stations 
                        exhibit similar spikes in silicate around the same 
                        depth. The peak is real and no analytical problems were noted." 


Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
  7/1  101  sio3    2   SiO3 8 units high. Analyst: "Silicate value appears to 
                        be 8 units too high. However, adjoining stations have 
                        a similar bottom silicate increase. The peak is real and 
                        no analytical problems were noted." SiO3 as well as 
                        other nutrients, salinity and oxygen. 

  1/1  105  bottle  4   Water pouring out at bottom end cap, bottle reseated, 
                        only alkalinity drawn. 

  1/1  105  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 

  2/1  109  ctds    4   Variation in CTD trace at bottle trip, CTD spiky.
                        Code CTD salinity bad. 

  2/1  109  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees with 
                        adjoining stations. Much variation at the bottle stop, 
                        water following the CTD. Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

  2/1  117  no3     2   Nitrate value appears to be 5 units too low on profile.
                        However, there is a similar drop in value for both 
                        silicate and phosphate. The peak is real and no analytical 
                        problems noted. 

  2/1  117  o2      2   High oxygen and salinity, low nutrients. Salinity and 
                        oxygen agree with CTD data. Data is acceptable. 

  3/2  201  salt    2   Lab temperature changing, analyst halted salinity 
                        analysis after this run until temperature stabilized. 

  3/2  214  po4     4   PO4 high compared with station profile and adjoining 
                        stations. Nutrient analyst rechecked and found no 
                        analytical errors. Code PO4 bad. 

  3/2  218  salt    2   Bottle 18 top chipped, removed bottle from service.
                        First time this bottle was used. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

  4/1  101  salt    2   Lab temperature changing prior to this run, analyst 
                        halted salinity analysis before this run until 
                        temperature stabilized. 

  4/1  127  bottle  2   Bottles 28-34 were not tripped per sampling schedule. 

  5/2  223  bottle  2   Feature seen in salinity, low oxygen and high nutrients.
                        Salinity agrees with CTD up cast. Data are acceptable. 

  5/2  231  bottle  2   Bottles 32-34 were not tripped per sampling schedule. 

  6/1  108  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 

  6/1  108  o2      5   Oxygen sample lost during analysis, aborted. 

  6/1  110  bottle  2   Ran out of water, no salinity sample, minimal sampling, 4 
                        liters. Salinity as well as nutrients are acceptable.
                        Although minimal sampling, suspect that analysts did 
                        not watch water budget. 


Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
  6/1  110  sio3    2   SiO3 appears a little high. Analyst: "Silicate value 
                        appears high on the profile. However, adjacent stations 
                        exhibit similar spikes in silicate around the same depth. 
                        The peak is real and no analytical problems were noted." 

  7/1  101  sio3    2   SiO3 8 units high. Analyst: "Silicate value appears to 
                        be 8 units too high. However, adjoining stations have a 
                        similar bottom silicate increase. The peak is real and 
                        no analytical problems were noted." SiO3 as well as other 
                        nutrients, salinity and oxygen. 


  8/1  110  o2      2   Ran o2check put in new titer value. Oxygen as well as 
                        salinity and nutrients are acceptable.  
   
  8/1  118  o2      2   Sample was over titrated and back titrated. Oxygen as 
                        well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
  
  8/1  132  salt    2   Feature seen in salinity and oxygen which corresponds 
                        to CTD up trace.  Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 
  
  9/2  201  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and lo2 
                        compared with adjoining stations. Salinity is within 
                        specifications and acceptable as are oxygen and nutrients. 
  
  9/2  202  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, low compared 
                        with adjoining stations. Salinity is within specifications 
                        and acceptable as are oxygen and nutrients. 
  
  9/2  204  salt    2   Salinity thimble popped off when cap was removed. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
  
  9/2  207  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  Salinity is 
                        within specifications and acceptable as are oxygen and 
                        nutrients. 
  
  9/2  209  salt    2   Salinity thimble popped off when cap was removed. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
  
  9/2  224  o2      2   Sample was over titrated and back titrated. Oxygen as 
                        well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
  
  9/2  231  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD.  Salinity 
                        thimble popped off when cap was removed. Salinity 
                        agrees with adjoining stations. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

 10/1  109  salt    3   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. No analytical problems noted. Code salinity 
                        questionable, oxygen and nutrients acceptable. 
 
 10/1  117  bottle  2   Lanyard was snagged during recovery. Oxygen as well as 
                        salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 11/1  106  salt    2   Bottle salinity thimble popped off when opened. Salinity 
                        as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 11/1  110  salt    2   Bottle salinity thimble popped off when opened. Salinity 
                        as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 11/1  134  bottle  2   Leaking at air vent when spigot opened. Oxygen as well as 
                        salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 12/1  103  salt    2   Bottle salinity thimble popped when opened. Salinity as 
                        well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 12/1  109  salt    2   Bottle salinity thimble popped when opened. Salinity as 
                        well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 12/1  128  o2      2   Ran o2check changed endpoint titer. Oxygen as well as 
                        salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 12/1  132  no3     3   NO3 2 units high. Analyst: "Nitrate value appears to be 
                        2 units too high.  However, this feature is also seen in 
                        both phosphate and silicate, and in the upper profile of 
                        adjoining stations. The peak is real and no analytical 
                        problems were noted." JHS: This is the only data value 
                        so far this cruise at this location on the NO3 vs PO4 
                        diagram. NO3 is at least 2 units high for NO3 vs PO4. 
                        Code NO3 questionable. 
 
 13/2  225  salt    2   Sampled and analyzed-not on sample log sheet. Sample 
                        was from Station 5 and had been analyzed. No salinity 
                        sample drawn.  
 
 
Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  --------------------------------------------------------------- 
 14/1  101  salt    2   Salinity standard seawater high at end of run. Ran 
                        three SSW at end all read the same high value took 
                        last bottle. Suspect initial SSW may have been low.  
                        Processor : "Salinity differences with CTD and 
                        comparison with adjoining station acceptable." 
 
 15/1  111  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as 
                        well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 15/1  112  salt    2   Bottle salinity thimble came off in cap. Salinity as 
                        well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable 
 
 15/1  119  salt    2   Bottle salinity thimble popped when cap removed. 
                        Bottle salinity is within specifications. Salinity 
                        as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable 
 
 15/1  131  salt    2   4 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity 
                        as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 15/1  135  ctds    4   Variations in CTD salinity at bottle trip, CTD spiky. 
                        Code CTD salinity bad. 
 
 15/1  135  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD; appears 
                        as entrained water. Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 16/1  121  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity 
                        as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 16/1  127  salt    2   Bottle salinity thimble came off in the cap. Salinity 
                        as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 17/1  118  salt    5   Salinity computer froze, suspect it needed to be 
                        rebooted. Salinity sample lost. 
 
 18/1  101  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 
 
 18/1  101  o2      5   Oxygen sample lost, aborted sample. 
 
 18/1  106  sio3    2   SiO3 ˜3um/l high compared with adjoining stations. 
                        Corresponding low oxygen and high Po4 and NO3 and 
                        salinity. Analyst: "There were no analytical 
                        problems and the peaks look great." Data are acceptable. 
 
 18/1  121  salt    2   Salinity thimble came out with cap. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 18/1  136  o2      2   Forgot to put tip in the oxygen flask, retitrated and 
                        data appears acceptable.  Oxygen as well as salinity 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 19/2  208  salt    2   Salinity bottle  has minor chip on rim. Does not affect 
                        seal. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 19/2  217  o2      2   Sample may be bad, endpoint different. Black particles 
                        seen mixing with the sample. Oxygen as well as salinity 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 19/2  221  o2      2   Sample was over titrated and back titrated. Ran over-
                        titrate find endpoint.  Sample may be bad. Oxygen as 
                        well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 19/2  223  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle  oxygen. 
 
 19/2  223  o2      5   Ran over-titrate but did not change still formed exact 
                        straight line to determine the endpoint. Oxygen sample lost. 
 
 19/2  224  o2      2   Thio volume added underestimated, had to restart the 
                        sample. Sample may be bad. Oxygen as well as salinity 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 20/1  115  o2      2   Oxygen appears high compared to adjoining stations. 
                        Oxygen follow s CTD trace and there is a feature in 
                        the nutrients. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients 
                        are acceptable. 
 
 20/1  116  bottle  9   Bottom end cap open, lanyard caught on hose clamp, 
                        no water samples. 
 
 20/1  116  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle  oxygen. 
 
 20/1  117  bottle  3   Appears to have closed late. 
 
 20/1  117  no2     3   
 
 
Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
 20/1  117  no3     3   16 had a lanyard hangup, bottle  17 may have been effected. 
                        Salinity for 17 is a little high as is oxygen. JHS: 
                        "It does appear to be a late closing bottle, closed 
                        slightly higher in the water column, between that of 19 
                        or 20. The bottle  salt and oxygen fit that idea 
                        fairly well, and the nutrients are close to working 
                        that way. Neither no3 versus po4 nor sio3 versus o2 
                        support the idea that this is a unique water mass." 
                        Code bottle  and samples 3. 
 
 20/1  117  o2      3   
 
 20/1  117  po4     3   
 
 20/1  117  salt    3   
 
 20/1  117  sio3    3   
 
 20/1  124  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as 
                        well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 22/1  104  salt    2   Salinity thimble popped off when cap was removed. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 22/1  112  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as 
                        well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 22/1  131  bottle  2   Bottles 32-34 were not tripped per sampling schedule. 
 
 23/2  202  o2      2   Redraw on oxygen, NaOH dispenser changed. Oxygen as 
                        well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 23/2  212  o2      2   Oxygen low does not compare to adjoining stations. 
                        Feature seen in SiO3.  Oxygen up and down shows this 
                        feature. Oxygen, salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 23/2  212  sio3    2   sio3 high ˜4 units. Analyst: "Silicate value appears 
                        to be approx. 4 units too high. However, adjoining 
                        stations have a similar silicate spike around the same 
                        depth. The peak is real and no analytical problems were noted." 
 
 24/1  110  salt    4   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. No analytical problem noted, could be drawing 
                        error, left over from Station 16.  Code salinity bad, 
                        oxygen and nutrients acceptable. 
 
 24/1  127  salt    2   Salinity insert came off when cap was removed. Salinity 
                        as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 24/1  128  salt    2   Low initial salinity sample fill. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 25/1  101  bottle  2   Hit bottom. 
 
 25/1  101  salt    3   0.003PSU low. Does not agree with adjacent casts. 
 
 25/1  106  salt    2   Salinity bottle  chip on outer rim, does not affect 
                        seal. Bad sampling technique. Salinity agrees with 
                        CTD and adjoining stations and is acceptable as are 
                        oxygen and nutrients. 
 
 25/1  113  salt    2   Salinity bottle  thimble came off with cap. Salinity 
                        agrees with CTD and adjoining stations and is 
                        acceptable as are oxygen and nutrients. 
 
 25/1  117  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  There is a 
                        lot of structure in the CTD up/down trace. Salinity as 
                        well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 25/1  132  salt    2   Salinity bottle  thimble came off with cap. Salinity 
                        agrees with CTD and adjoining stations and is acceptable 
                        as are oxygen and nutrients. 
 
 26/1  118  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD agrees with 
                        adjoining stations.  Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 26/1  119  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD agrees with 
                        adjoining stations.  Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 26/1  130  o2      2   Oxygen appears high compared with CTD up/down trace. 
                        No analytical problems noted. Salinity and nutrients 
                        do not show this feature. Analyst: "No analytical 
                        problem, endpoint/titration looks good." 
 
 
Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
 27/1  101  o2      2   Oxygen appears low compared with CTD up/down trace.
                        sio3 a little high compared with adjoining stations. 
                        Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable.  
 
 27/1  105  o2      2   Oxygen appears high compared with CTD up/down trace 
                        and adjoining stations. sio3 also a little high 
                        compared with adjoining stations. Oxygen as well as 
                        salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 27/1  111  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD.  Different 
                        features seen in CTD up/dn trace. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 27/1  118  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  3 
                        attempts for a good salinity reading. Gradient, other 
                        reading do not resolve difference. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 27/1  134  bottle  2   Vent open, only nutrients and salinity drawn. Salinity 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 27/1  134  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 
 
 28/1  104  salt    2   Salinity thimble came off when cap was removed. Salinity 
                        as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 28/1  109  salt    2   Salinity bottle rim chipped, seal not affected, bad 
                        sampling technique. Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 28/1  111  sio3    2   sio3 ˜2um/l high compared with adjoining stations. 
                        Analyst: "No analytical problems. Adjoining stations 
                        do appear to exhibit a similar profile around the same 
                        depth." 
 
 28/1  117  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  Salinity as 
                        well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 28/1  124  salt    2   Salinity bottle rim chipped, seal not affected, bad 
                        sampling technique. Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 29/1  111  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, gradient. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 29/1  117  o2      2   Oxygen 4um/kg high compare with CTD down cast, agrees 
                        with up cast and adjoining stations. 
 
 30/1  108  salt    2   Salinity thimble popped off when cap was removed. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 30/1  118  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. 
 
 30/1  136  salt    2   Salinity thimble came off in the cap. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 31/1  107  o2      2   Oxygen appears high compared with adjoining stations, 
                        CTD trace shows higher oxygen. NO3, PO4, sio3 have 
                        a lower signal and salinity a little higher. Oxygen as 
                        well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 31/1  108  bottle  2   Vent open. Oxygen may be a little high, but is acceptable 
                        as are salinity and nutrients. 
 
 31/1  108  o2      2   Oxygen appears high compared with adjoining stations, 
                        CTD trace shows higher oxygen. NO3, PO4, sio3 have 
                        a lower signal and salinity a little higher. Oxygen as 
                        well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 31/1  109  sio3    2   sio3 ˜9 units high. Analyst: "Silicate values appear 
                        to be approx. 9 units too high. However, values fit the 
                        profile and are similar to adjoining stations. The peaks 
                        are real and no analytical problems were noted." 
 
 31/1  110  sio3    2   sio3 ˜9 units high. Analyst: "Silicate values appear 
                        to be approx. 9 units too high. However, values fit the 
                        profile and are similar to adjoining stations. The peaks 
                        are real and no analytical problems were noted." 
 
 31/1  111  sio3    2   sio3 ˜9 units high. Analyst: "Silicate values appear 
                        to be approx. 9 units too high. However, values fit the 
                        profile and are similar to adjoining stations. The peaks 
                        are real and no analytical problems were noted." 
 
 
Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
 31/1  112  sio3    2   sio3 ˜9 units high. Analyst: "Silicate values appear 
                        to be approx. 9 units too high. However, values fit 
                        the profile and are similar to adjoining stations. 
                        The peaks are real and no analytical problems were noted." 
 
 31/1  117  salt    2   Salinity thimble popped off in the cap when removed. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 31/1  131  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, bottle  
                        salinity agrees with adjoining stations. Both the CTD 
                        up and down trace agree with each other, CTD is not 
                        spiky at bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 31/1  132  bottle  2   Vent open. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients 
                        are acceptable. 
 
 32/1  112  o2      4   Oxygen 0. 2 ml/l high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. No analytical problems noted, appears that 
                        the sample was drawn from bottle 11. Code oxygen bad, 
                        salinity and nutrients acceptable. 33/1 106 po4 2 po4 
                        is slightly high without obvious oceanographic causes. 
                        Analyst: "No analytical problems noted." po4 is 
                        acceptable. 33/1 107 po4 2 po4 is slightly high without 
                        obvious oceanographic causes. Analyst: "No analytical 
                        problems noted." po4 is acceptable. 33/1 108 po4 2 po4 
                        is slightly high without obvious oceanographic causes. 
                        Analyst: "No analytical problems noted." po4 is 
                        acceptable. 33/1 109 po4 2 po4 is slightly high without 
                        obvious oceanographic causes. Analyst: "No analytical 
                        problems noted." po4 is acceptable. 33/1 109 salt 2 
                        Salinity bottle had a chipped rim; replace with spare 
                        bottles after running sample. Salinity as well as oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 33/1 110 po4 2 po4 is 
                        slightly high without obvious oceanographic causes. 
                        Analyst: "No analytical problems noted." po4 is 
                        acceptable. 33/1 117 salt 2 Salinity thimble popped 
                        off when cap was removed. Salinity as well as oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 33/1 130 salt 2 Bottle 
                        salinity is low compared with CTD.  Salinity agrees 
                        with adjoining stations and is acceptable as are 
                        oxygen and nutrients. 34/2 217 salt 2 Salinity bottle 
                        rim chipped, seal not affected. Bad sampling technique. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
                        34/2 219 o2 2 Oxygen appears low compared with adjoining 
                        stations. Corresponding feature not seen in nutrients or 
                        salinity. Analyst: "No analytical problem, endpoint/
                        titration looks good." 
 
 35/1  109  salt    2   Salinity thimble popped off when cap was removed. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 35/1  121  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  Salinity 
                        agrees with adjoining stations, and is acceptable as 
                        are oxygen and nutrients. 
 
 36/1  110  salt    2   Salinities bottles 10 & 11 were reversed in box. Last 
                        used on Station 31 and that station data is acceptable. 
 
 36/1  127  bottle  4   Bottle  appears to have mistripped and then leaked on 
                        the way up. Code bottle, did not trip as scheduled, and 
                        samples bad. 
 
 36/1  127  no2     4   
 
 36/1  127  no3     4   
 
 36/1  127  o2      4   Oxygen appears reasonable, but the draw temperature is 
                        1. 4-2. 3 degrees lower than adjoining bottles. DIC 
                        analyst reports data also shows an anomaly. 
 
 36/1  127  po4     4   Nutrients look high as though they came from deeper in 
                        the water column.  Oxygen looks reasonable, but the 
                        draw temperature is 1. 4-2. 3 degrees lower than 
                        adjoining bottles. DIC analyst reports data also 
                        shows an anomaly. 
 
 36/1  127  sio3    4   
 
 
Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
 37/1  104  salt    2   Salinity thimble came out with the cap. Salinity as 
                        well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.  
 
 39/1  127  o2      4   Left tip out, stopped titration, started over. Oxygen 
                        does not agree with adjoining stations or CTD.  Code 
                        oxygen bad. 
 
 40/1  117  o2      2   Began to form curve at voltage made a straight line 
                        at end of titration.  Oxygen is acceptable. 
 
 41/1  111  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity thimble 
                        came off with cap.  Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 41/1  113  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity thimble 
                        came off with cap.  Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 42/1  104  salt    2   Salinity thimble came off when cap was removed. Salinity, 
                        although a little low compared with CTD, is acceptable 
                        as well as oxygen and nutrients. 
 
 42/1  119  bottle  2   Bottles 20-35 were not tripped per sampling schedule. 
 
 43/2  222  bottle  2   Bottles 23-35 were not tripped per sampling schedule. 
 
 44/1  101  bottle  2   Winch problems delayed recovery nearly two hours. 
                        Package held at 18 meters while winch repair was 
                        performed. Oxygen and well as salinity and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 44/1  109  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as 
                        well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 44/1  118  no2     5   
 
 44/1  118  no3     5   
 
 44/1  118  po4     5   Nutrient tube was found empty, sampling error. 
 
 44/1  118  sio3    5   
 
 47/1  106  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Used first 
                        reading which made salinity agree with CTD and 
                        adjoining stations. Salinity as well as oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 47/1  127  po4     2   N:P ratio low , suspect po4 is high. Analyst: "no 
                        analytical problems noted, Analyst: "No analytical 
                        problems noted." JHS: "No problems on sections of po4 
                        on PRES, NO3/PO4 on PRES, or NO/PO on PRES. Data are 
                        acceptable." 
 
 49/1  101  bottle  2   DOC sampled 1-8 after salinity. 
 
 49/1  103  bottle  2   Bottom endcap wrapped by recovery line, likely okay. 
                        Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 49/1  107  sio3    2   sio3    appears low in relation to Oxygen. Features 
                        seen in adjoining stations.  No analytical problems 
                        noted. Nutrients as well as salinity and oxygen are 
                        acceptable. 
 
 49/1  112  salt    4   Salinity low appears to have been drawn from bottle  
                        11. Oxygen and nutrients do not show a feature. Code 
                        salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients acceptable. 
 
 49/1  117  bottle  2   Bottom lanyard caught on recovery hook, leaker. Oxygen 
                        as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 49/1  129  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle  oxygen. 
 
 49/1  129  o2      5   Oxygen may have skipped 29, 30 or 31. On bottle 32 when 
                        discovery of missed sample was made. Appears that 
                        sample 29 was missed. 
 
 49/1  130  o2      2   Oxygen may have skipped 29, 30 or 31. On bottle  32 when 
                        discovery of missed sample was made. 
 
 49/1  131  o2      2   Oxygen may have skipped 29, 30 or 31. On bottle  32 when 
                        discovery of missed sample was made. 
 
 50/1  113  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        results in better value, may have had a salt crystal 
                        for the third reading. Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 
Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
 50/1  134  ctds    4   Spike in CTD up trace at bottle trip. Code CTD salinity 
                        bad.  50/1 134 salt    2 Bottle salinity is high 
                        compared with CTD.  Feature seen in both the down and 
                        up trace, Spike in CTD up trace. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 51/2  201  o2      2   Oxygen NaI/NaOH dispenser not primed before fixing, 
                        proper amount possibly not added, result maybe no 
                        good. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are 
                        acceptable. 
 
 51/2  206  bottle  2   Special bottle tripped with 5 for CFC in growth/
                        incubation experiment. 
 
 51/2  220  salt    4   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and 
                        adjoining stations. Salinity appears to be a drawing 
                        error and sample is from last time salt was drawn 
                        from this box. Code salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients 
                        acceptable. 
 
 51/2  231  bottle  2   End cap was bumped during recovery and a little water 
                        leaked out. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients 
                        are acceptable. 
 
 51/2  235  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle  oxygen. 
 
 51/2  235  o2      5   Oxygen flask 1365 broke in box in the lab. 
 
 52/1  123  no3     2   Nutrient samples appear to be switched. Evidence in 
                        oxygen low erat490db and higher at 571 which agrees 
                        with CTD.  Changed the sample number and the data is 
                        acceptable. 
 
 52/1  123  po4     2   Nutrient samples appear to be switched. Evidence in 
                        oxygen low erat490db and higher at 571 which agrees 
                        with CTD.  Changed the sample number and the data is 
                        acceptable. 
 
 52/1  124  no3     2   Nutrient samples appear to be switched. Evidence in 
                        oxygen low erat490db and higher at 571 which agrees 
                        with CTD.  Changed the sample number and the data is 
                        acceptable. 
 
 52/1  124  po4     2   Nutrient samples appear to be switched. Evidence in 
                        oxygen low erat490db and higher at 571 which agrees 
                        with CTD.  Changed the sample number and the data is 
                        acceptable. 
 
 53/2  226  o2      2   CHECK: Oxygen appears high compared with adjoining 
                        stations and CTD.  
 
 53/2  234  bottle  3   Bottle  leaking, vent not fully closed. Oxygen not 
                        drawn, salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 53/2  234  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle  oxygen. 
 
 54/1  105  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and 
                        adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity 
                        reading. First reading gave good agreement with CTD 
                        and station profile. Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 54/1  116  no2     4   
 
 54/1  116  no3     4   
 
 54/1  116  o2      4   
 
 54/1  116  po4     4   
 
 54/1  116  salt    4   
 
 54/1  116  sio3    4   
 
 55/2  204  o2      2   Oxygen appears low compared with adjoining stations 
                        and in relationship with SiO3, agrees with CTD, some 
                        spiking in CTDO. No analytical problems.  Oxygen as well 
                        as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 55/2  209  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, gradient. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 56/1  135  ctds    4   CTD was responding to changes while the CTD was 
                        equilibrating at the bottle trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 
 
 56/1  135  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD.  CTD was 
                        responding to changes while the CTD was equilibrating 
                        at the bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable.  
 
 
Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
 57/2  201  o2      2   Oxygen appears low compared with CTDO. Nutrients are 
                        slightly low compared with adjoining stations and 
                        salinity a little high. No analytical problems found. 
                        Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable.  
 
 57/2  201  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and 
                        adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity 
                        reading. Insert came off in cap when opened for 
                        analysis.  First reading resolved initial salinity 
                        discrepancy, suspect salinity crystal for additional 
                        readings. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients 
                        are acceptable. 
 
 57/2  236  salt    2   Salinity thimble popped off when cap was removed. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
                        4 attempts for a good salinity reading.  First reading 
                        resolved initial salinity discrepancy, suspect salinity 
                        crystal for additional readings. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 58/1  134  bottle  2   Bottle  leaks from spigot when vent opened. Checked o-
                        rings and bottle  after the cast, refilled the bottle, 
                        could not find a problem. Oxygen as well as salinity 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 59/1  127  salt    2   Salinity bottle  rim chip, seal compromised. Salinity 
                        as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 60/1  101  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. No analytical problem noted, and does not appear 
                        to be a rinsing issue. Within accuracy of the measurement, 
                        salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. JHS: 
                        "This station is on top of a ridge so may be expected to 
                        be a bit different." 
 
 60/1  113  bottle  2   Bottle was knocked on recovery, may have leaked. Oxygen as 
                        well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 62/2  203  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading did 
                        not resolve low salinity value. Salinity is within accuracy 
                        of the measurement, oxygen and nutrients are also acceptable. 
 
 62/2  206  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle  oxygen. 
 
 62/2  226  bottle  2   Vent open - not sampled for oxygen. 
 
 63/1  104  salt    2   Salinity thimble popped off when cap was removed. 
                        Salinity is a little low , within accuracy of the 
                        measurement. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients 
                        are acceptable. 
 
 63/1  126  o2      2   Oxygen appears low compared with adjoining stations. 
                        po4 has a little high feature, do not see corresponding 
                        feature in other properties. No analytical problem noted. 
                        Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 64/1  114  salt    5   Salinity bottle  split open when placed on autosal-
                        sample lost. 
 
 64/1  122  o2      2   Oxygen appears high compared with CTDO, agrees 
                        reasonably well with adjoining stations. Oxygen 
                        as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 66/1  110  bottle  2   Special bottle tripped with 11 for CFC in growth/
                        incubation experiment. 
 
 66/1  110  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle  oxygen. 
 
 66/1  133  o2      2   Sample was over titrated and back titrated. Oxygen as 
                        well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 68/1  114  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. 
                        First reading resolved salinity discrepancy, must have 
                        been a salinity crystal. Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable 
 
 68/1  121  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. 
                        First reading resolved salinity discrepancy, must have 
                        been a salinity crystal. Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable 
 
 68/1  123  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  Variation 
                        in CTD salinity at the bottle trip. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 
Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
 68/1  134  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD down trace 
                        and adjoining stations as are 35 and 36, but agree with 
                        the CTD up trace. Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 69/1  104  salt    2   Duplicate draw, originally reported as bottle  5. 
                        Salinity with reassignment of sample numbers are 
                        acceptable. 
 
 69/1  115  salt    5   Salinity samples 105-115 actually from 104-114, sample 
                        15 not lost. Salinity with reassignment of sample 
                        numbers are acceptable. 
 
 70/1  101  po4     2   po4 appears low , could be oceanography. Analyst: 
                        "Rechecked analytical data and could find no problems." 
 
 70/1  102  po4     2   po4 appears low , could be oceanography. Analyst: 
                        "Rechecked analytical data and could find no problems." 
 
 70/1  103  po4     2   po4 appears low , could be oceanography. Analyst: 
                        "Rechecked analytical data and could find no problems." 
 
 70/1  104  po4     2   po4 appears low , could be oceanography. Analyst: 
                        "Rechecked analytical data and could find no problems." 
 
 70/1  104  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble came 
                        out with cap. Readings kept increasing - took first 
                        reading only. Salinity is within accuracy of measurement. 
                        Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 70/1  105  po4     2   po4 appears low , could be oceanography. Analyst: 
                        "Rechecked analytical data and could find no problems." 
 
 70/1  109  po4     2   po4 appears low , could be oceanography. Analyst: 
                        "Rechecked analytical data and could find no problems." 
 
 70/1  110  po4     2   po4 appears low , could be oceanography. Analyst: 
                        "Rechecked analytical data and could find no problems." 
 
 70/1  111  po4     2   po4 appears low , could be oceanography. Analyst: 
                        "Rechecked analytical data and could find no problems." 
 
 70/1  112  po4     2   po4 appears low , could be oceanography. Analyst: 
                        "Rechecked analytical data and could find no problems." 
 
 70/1  118  bottle  2   Vent open - not sampled for oxygen. Salinity and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 70/1  118  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle  oxygen. 
 
 70/1  126  bottle  2   Vent open - not sampled for oxygen. Salinity and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 70/1  126  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle oxygen. 
 
 71/2  202  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        did not resolve small salinity discrepancy, within 
                        specifications of the measurement. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 71/2  236  salt    2   5 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 73/2  231  o2      2   Oxygen had bad endpoint; new titer entered. Oxygen as 
                        well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 74/1  117  bottle  9   Bottle  did not trip. Lanyard caught on hose clamp. 
                        Not sampled. 
 
 74/1  117  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle  oxygen. 
 
 77/1  101  bottle  2   Bottles were tripped on-the-fly for the entire cast. 
 
 77/1  101  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and with 
                        Station 75, within accuracy of measurement. Bottles 
                        tripped on-the-fly, salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 77/1  102  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and with 
                        Station 75, within accuracy of measurement. Bottles 
                        tripped on-the-fly, salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 77/1  103  salt    4   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and 
                        Station 75. Bottle salinity thimble came out with 
                        cap. Bottles tripped on-the-fly, code salinity bad, 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 
Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
 77/1  112  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and 
                        adjoining stations. po4 and no3 are appropriately low 
                        oxygen a little higher, sio3 does not show this feature. 
                        Bottles were tripped on-the-fly, salinity appears to 
                        show the water from lower in the water column.  
 
 78/1  108  sio3    2   sio3 appears 3 uM/kg low. No analytical problems noted. 
                        JHS: o2 vs. sio3 relationship is good. Signal is 
                        oceanographic and acceptable. 
 
 78/1  114  o2      2   Endpoint curve started at 2. 1 and ended at 2. 3 
                        making a straight line.  Oxygen low compared with CTDO 
                        and adjoining stations. Rechecked endpoint, resolved 
                        issue. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are 
                        acceptable. 
 
 78/1  136  bottle  2   Bottle  was tripped on-the-fly. 
 
 79/1  112  salt    2   Salinity thimble came out with cap. Salinity a little 
                        high, within accuracy of measurement. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 79/1  124  salt    4   Salinity appears to have been drawn from bottles 29. 
                        Code salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients acceptable. 
 
 79/1  132  o2      2   Oxygen appears high compared with the CTDO down trace, 
                        agrees with the up trace and the adjoining stations. 
                        Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
                        Analyst: "No analytical problem, endpoint/titration 
                        looks good." 
 
 79/1  133  o2      2   Oxygen appears high compared with the CTDO down trace, 
                        agrees with the up trace and the adjoining stations. 
                        Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
                        Analyst: "No analytical problem, endpoint/titration 
                        looks good." 
 
 80/1  102  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as 
                        well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 80/1  122  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as 
                        well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 80/1  133  o2      2   Bad endpoint on oxygen, recalculated and entered 
                        new titer. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients 
                        are acceptable. 
 
 82/1  105  o2      2   Oxygen slightly high compared with CTDO, agrees with 
                        adjoining stations.  Oxygen as well as salinity and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. Analyst: "No analytical 
                        problem, endpoint/titration looks good." 
 
 82/1  113  bottle  2   Bottle tripped without the 30 second wait. Salinity, 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 82/1  123  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 82/1  132  no3     2   po4 and no3 look high compared with adjoining stations, 
                        low feature in oxygen. No corresponding feature seen in 
                        salinity or silicate. Analyst: "The peaks are great, 
                        there were no analytical problems." Nutrients as well 
                        as salinity and oxygen are acceptable. 
 
 84/1  105  sio3    2   sio3 high, no corresponding feature in NO3, PO4, o2 or 
                        salinity. Analyst: "CheckedSiO3 peaks, no analytical 
                        problems found." 
 
 84/1  106  sio3    2   sio3 high, no corresponding feature in NO3, PO4, o2 or 
                        salinity. Analyst: "CheckedSiO3 peaks, no analytical 
                        problems found." 
 
 84/1  125  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First treading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 85/2  213  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 85/2  221  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 
Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
 85/2  225  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.  
 
 85/2  229  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        did not completely resolve salinity discrepancy, within 
                        accuracy of measurement. Salinity as well as oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 85/2  231  salt    2   4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 85/2  235  salt    2   4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 86/1  126  salt    2   Salinity thimble came out when cap was removed. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 87/2  201  o2      2   Oxygen appears low compared with CTDO, agrees with 
                        adjoining stations.  Oxygen as well as salinity and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. Analyst: "Rechecked end 
                        points, no analytical problems found." 
 
 88/1  102  o2      2   Oxygen appears high compared with adjoining stations, 
                        0. 02ml/l. No corresponding feature seen in salinity 
                        or nutrients. Analyst: "No analytical problem, endpoint/
                        titration looks good." 
 
 88/1  119  o2      2   Oxygen appears high compared with adjoining stations, 
                        and o2 vs. sio3 relationship, but agrees with CTDO. No 
                        corresponding feature seen in salinity or nutrients. 
                        Analyst: "No analytical problem, endpoint/titration 
                        looks good." 
 
 88/1  121  o2      4   Oxygen flask 1377 was used with stopper from Flask 1601 
                        o2 value maybe incorrect. Code oxygen bad. 
 
 91/2  201  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable 
 
 91/2  202  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable 
 
 91/2  209  po4     4   po4 ˜0. 04um/l high compared with adjoining stations. 
                        Salinity, oxygen and other nutrients are acceptable. 
                        Analyst: "CheckedPO4 peak, peak manually read due to 
                        bubble, possibly too high, code data as bad." 
 
 91/2  215  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  Salinity 
                        as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 91/2  221  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  Gradient, 
                        salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 91/2  232  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD.  Variation in 
                        CTD, salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 91/2  233  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, does appear 
                        slightly higher than station 90 salinity, but acceptable. 
                        Variation in CTD, but still not "in-line" with bottle  
                        salinity, leave as is. Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 93/1  134  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees 
                        reasonably well with adjoining stations. Salinity, 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 93/1  136  no2     4   
 
 93/1  136  no3     4   
 
 93/1  136  o2      4   
 
 93/1  136  po4     4   
 
 93/1  136  salt    4   
 
 93/1  136  sio3    4   
 
 94/1  101  bottle  2   Special bottle tripped with 2 for CFC in growth/
                        incubation experiment. 
 
 
Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
 94/1  101  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle  oxygen.  94/1 108 salt 4 
                        Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. Could 
                        not resolve salinity discrepancy. Code salinity bad, 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 94/1  133  o2      2   Oxygen bad endpoint, recalculated new titer. Oxygen as 
                        well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 95/2  210  salt    4   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. Appears to have been drawn from bottle 12, is 
                        not a bottle problem. Code salinity bad, oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 95/2  211  po4     2   Nutrients as well as salinity and oxygen are acceptable. 
 
 95/2  233  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, agrees with 
                        adjoining stations.  Spike in CTD trace at bottle trip. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 96/1  101  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy within accuracy of 
                        measurement. po4 and sio3 appeared a little low , but 
                        within accuracy of the measurement. Salinity, oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 96/1  115  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  No analytical 
                        problems noted, gradient area. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 96/1  134  ctds    4   CTD spike at trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 
 
 96/1  134  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD.  CTD spike 
                        at trip. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 97/1  121  o2      2   Oxygen bad end point, recalculated new titer. Oxygen as 
                        well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 97/1  125  o2      2   Oxygen bad end point, recalculated new titer. Oxygen as 
                        well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 
 
 98/1  103  bottle  2   Special bottle tripped with 4 for CFC in growth/
                        incubation experiment. 
 
 98/1  103  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle  oxygen. 
 
 99/2  230  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved the salinity discrepancy within accuracy of 
                        the measurement. Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

101/1  110  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and 
                        adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity 
                        reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

102/2  202  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and 
                        adjoining stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity 
                        reading. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

102/2  217  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees with 
                        adjoining stations.  Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

103/1  103  salt    2   Salinity bottle  1 and 3 were reversed in the sampling  
                        crate. Salinity for bottle 3does appear slightly high, 
                        but certainly not from bottle 1. Salinity within 
                        measurement accuracy. Salinity as well as oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 

103/1  104  o2      2   Oxygen appears high compared with CTDO, but agrees with 
                        Station 102.  sio3    relationship also acceptable. 
                        Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 

103/1  104  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

103/1  107  o2      2   Oxygen appears high compared with CTDO, but agrees with 
                        Station 102.  Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients 
                        are acceptable. 


Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
103/1  109  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

103/1  117  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD agrees with 
                        adjoining stations.  Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

103/1  130  salt    2   4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 

104/1  101  bottle  2   Only equilibrated the sensor for 18 seconds, bottom was 
                        changing rapidly per altimeter. 

104/1  109  o2      2   Oxygen drawn twice, first flask 1136 broke. Oxygen as well 
                        as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 

104/1  136  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble came out 
                        with cap. Liquid appeared to run back down inside bottle. 
                        First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as 
                        well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

105/1  112  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble came out 
                        with cap. Readings increased in the classic contamination 
                        fashion. Took first reading only.  Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

105/1  123  bottle  2   Bottle  loose on frame. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients 
                        are acceptable. 

106/2  205  bottle  2   Special bottle tripped with 4 for CFC incubation/incubation 
                        experiment. 

106/2  205  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle  oxygen. 

107/1  101  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved most of the discrepancy, still appears 
                        slightly high, within accuracy of measurement. Salinity 
                        as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

107/1  123  salt    2   4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

107/1  127  salt    2   4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

107/1  133  ctds    4   CTD is spiky at bottle trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 

107/1  133  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD.  CTD is spiky 
                        at bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

108/1  130  ctds    4   CTD spiky at trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 

108/1  130  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  CTD spiky 
                        at trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are 
                        acceptable. 

108/1  131  ctds    4   CTD spiky at trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 

108/1  131  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  CTD spiky 
                        at trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are 
                        acceptable. 

108/1  132  ctds    4   CTD spiky at trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 

108/1  132  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD.  CTD spiky 
                        at trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are 
                        acceptable. 

108/1  133  ctds    4   CTD spiky at trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 

108/1  133  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  CTD spiky 
                        at trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are 
                        acceptable. 

109/1  114  o2      4   Overshot oxygen endpoint over titrate did not work, 
                        lost sample. Code oxygen bad. 

109/1  118  bottle  4   Anomalous features in oxygen and nutrients, could be 
                        real, will wait for salinity to be analyzed before 
                        making a determination. Bottle mistripped, code bottle 
                        4, salinity, oxygen and nutrients bad. 

109/1  118  no2     4   

109/1  118  no3     4   

109/1  118  o2      4   


Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
109/1  118  po4     4   109/1 118 salt 4 109/1 118 sio3 4 109/1 133 o2 2 Bad 
                        o2 endpoint, recalculated new titer. Oxygen as well as 
                        salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 

110/2  201  bottle  2   Bottom endcap knocked on recovery, small amount of water 
                        leaked. Salinity is high, but within accuracy of the 
                        measurement. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

110/2  203  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

110/2  225  salt    2   4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

111/1  107  no2     4   

111/1  107  no3     4   

111/1  107  po4     4   po4 and no3 high, sio3 low compared with adjoining 
                        stations. No corresponding feature seen in salinity 
                        and oxygen. Looks like a drawing error.  Analyst: "No 
                        analytical problems. "Code nutrients bad, oxygen and 
                        salinity acceptable. 

111/1  107  sio3    4   

111/1  115  salt    2   8 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity agrees 
                        with CTD and adjoining stations. First reading results 
                        in a high reading as much as last readings were low. 
                        Salinity agrees with CTD and adjoining stations within 
                        accuracy of the measurement. Salinity as well as oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 

111/1  119  o2      2   Oxygen titration curve for choosing and endpoint was not 
                        reasonable, value may not be good. Oxygen high compared 
                        with CTDO, but agrees with Station 110. Analyst: 
                        "Recalculated and updated titer." 111/1 121 salt    
                        2 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity 
                        agrees with CTD and adjoining stations. Salinity as 
                        well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.  

111/1  125  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        would result in a low reading as much as the second and 
                        third reading was high. Salinity agrees with CTD and 
                        adjoining stations and within accuracy of the measurement.  
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

111/1  133  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees with 
                        adjoining stations, full sampling station. Variation at 
                        bottle trip, but none of the sampling points are with 
                        the bottle. The CTD up and down agree fairly well. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

112/1  101  salt    2   Salinity ending SSW gave a large drift, suspect initial 
                        standard was low.  Salinity values agree with adjoining 
                        stations and CTD, lab temperature was almost 1 degree 
                        lower than 4 hours early. Salinity is acceptable. 

113/1  119  salt    2   5 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional 
                        readings do not resolve the salinity discrepancy. 
                        Gradient, salinity agrees with adjoining stations. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

113/1  127  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional 
                        readings do not resolve the slight salinity discrepancy. 
                        Salinity agrees with adjoining stations. Salinity as 
                        well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

114/2  201  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.  


Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
114/2  214  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 5 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

114/2  217  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 5 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

114/2  218  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

114/2  231  salt    2   4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

114/2  232  ctds    4   CTD spiky at bottle trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 

114/2  232  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD.  CTD spiky at 
                        bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients 
                        are acceptable. 

114/2  236  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

115/1  104  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. Salinity operator error, removed the sample 
                        bottle too early and starting analyzing 5, corrected 
                        error. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are 
                        acceptable. 

115/1  115  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

115/1  126  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional 
                        readings did not make a significant difference in 
                        salinity value. Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

115/1  130  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

115/1  133  ctds    4   CTD spiky at bottle trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 

115/1  133  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. CTD spiky at bottle trip. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

116/1  110  sio3    2   sio3 high, does not agree with adjoining stations or 
                        station profile and high in relationship to oxygen. 
                        Station 114 and 115 did exhibit a higher sio3 at this 
                        density level. JHS: This may be a boundary between 
                        two water masses, with all sio3 data good in this 
                        depth range at these stations, 114-119. 

117/1  129  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First salinity 
                        reading resolve discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 

118/2  201  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy.  Salinity, 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

118/2  202  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy.  Although still a 
                        little high, it is within the accuracy of the measurement.  
                        Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

118/2  230  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        was a little realistic, within accuracy of measurement. 
                        Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

118/2  232  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity, oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

118/2  236  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity, oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

119/1  136  bottle  2   Surface bottle  was tripped at 12m, console operator 
                        asked to bring up to 5 meters instead of the surface. 


Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
119/1  136  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional 
                        readings did not resolve salinity discrepancy, salinity 
                        within accuracy of the measurement. Salinity, oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable.  

120/1  121  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble came 
                        out with cap. First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients. 

120/1  130  ctds    4   CTD spiky at trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 

120/1  130  salt    2   Salinity thimble came out with cap. Salinity agrees 
                        with adjoining stations, CTD spiky at trip. Salinity 
                        as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

120/1  131  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional 
                        reading did not resolve salinity discrepancy, within 
                        accuracy of the measurement. CTD spiky at trip.  
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

121/1  118  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Operator error, 
                        removed bottle  before finished analyzing second set of 
                        readings, corrected. Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

121/1  132  salt    2   4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

121/1  134  ctds    4   CTD spiky at trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 

121/1  134  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  CTD spiky 
                        at trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are 
                        acceptable. 

123/1  131  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. May have not 
                        flushed well before starting the readings, second 
                        reading gives better results. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

123/1  132  ctds    4   CTD is spiky at bottle trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 

123/1  132  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  CTD is 
                        spiky at bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 

124/1  105  salt    4   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees 
                        with Station 123. 3 attempts for a good salinity 
                        reading, could not resolve salinity discrepancy with 
                        additional readings. Code salinity bad, oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

124/1  107  sio3    2   sio3 appears low on the station profile. Agrees with 
                        Station 123 and oxygen has a higher feature. po4 and 
                        no3 also exhibit lower feature. Salinity, oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

124/1  130  ctds    4   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD.  CTD spiky at 
                        bottle trip. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

124/1  130  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD.  CTD spiky at 
                        bottle trip. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

125/1  132  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 

125/1  136  salt    2   4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 

126/2  207  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

126/2  234  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  Variation 
                        also seen in the up and down trace. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

126/2  235  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  Variation 
                        also seen in the up and down trace. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

127/1  101  bottle  2   CFC and Helium sample 1-7 then waited ˜10 minutes for 
                        oxygen to start. 

127/1  108  salt    2   Salinity thimble popped off when cap was removed. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.  


Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
127/1  119  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved small salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.  

127/1  126  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble jarred 
                        loose by cap - liquid almost certainly ran inside bottle. 
                        Took first reading only. Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

127/1  129  ctds    4   CTD spiky at bottle trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 

127/1  129  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD.  CTD spiky at 
                        bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients 
                        are acceptable. 

128/1  134  bottle  2   Vent was open. Oxygen is a little high compared with 
                        CTD, agrees with adjoining stations. Oxygen, salinity 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 

129/1  104  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy.  Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

129/1  110  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy.  Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

129/1  114  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

129/1  115  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy.  Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

129/1  122  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

129/1  125  salt    2   4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

130/1  101  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 5 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resoled salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

130/1  102  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resoled salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 

130/1  103  salt    2   4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resoled salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 

130/1  104  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

130/1  105  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

130/1  109  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

130/1  113  salt    2   4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

130/1  114  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

130/1  119  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

130/1  120  salt    2   4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

130/1  123  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 


Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
130/1  125  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional 
                        reading did not resolve discrepancy, leave as is. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.  

130/1  128  salt    2   4 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional 
                        reading did not resolve discrepancy, leave as is. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

130/1  130  bottle  2   Bottles 31-35 were not tripped per sampling schedule. 

131/2  222  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        would result in a higher salinity, second and third 
                        are reasonable. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients 
                        are acceptable. 

131/2  224  ctds    4   CTD spiky at bottle trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 

131/2  224  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations, but CTD trace shows lower salinity. CTD spiky 
                        at bottle trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients 
                        are acceptable. 

132/1  102  salt    4   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD on station 
                        profile. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Second 
                        reading did not resolve salinity discrepancy, contamination. 
                        Code salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

132/1  103  bottle  2   Special bottle tripped with 4 for pH only. 

132/1  103  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle  oxygen. 

132/1  124  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

132/1  129  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. Spiky CTD at bottle trip. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

133/1  103  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees with 
                        adjoining stations.  Bottle  2 appears low compared 
                        with adjoining stations, although the agreement with 
                        the CTD was better. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are 
                        acceptable. 

133/1  106  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

133/1  116  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

134/1  102  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 5  attempts for a good salinity reading. Rim 
                        chip, does not affect sample. First reading resolved 
                        salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

134/1  105  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

134/1  125  salt    2   4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 

135/2  201  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy.  Salinity, oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 

135/2  210  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy.  Salinity, oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 

135/2  211  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy.  Salinity, oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 


Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
135/2  222  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        did not resolve small salinity discrepancy, but reasonable 
                        value. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

135/2  234  ctds    4   Variation in CTD at bottle trip, CTD spiky. Code CTD 
                        salinity bad. 

135/2  234  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  Variation in 
                        CTD at bottle trip, CTD spiky. Salinity, oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

136/1  101  salt    2   Salinity bottles were cleaned prior to this cast. 

136/1  103  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy.  Thimble came out 
                        with cap. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are 
                        acceptable. 

136/1  124  salt    3   Salinity Thimble came out with cap. Salinity although 
                        a high compared to CTD is acceptable as are oxygen and 
                        nutrients. 

138/1  101  salt    2   Room temperature increased 4. 3 degrees in one hour. 
                        Analyst had been away from the salinometer for that 
                        long, samples 1-8 had been run. A new salinity run was 
                        started one hour later, the room temperature decreased 
                        3.4 degrees. Salinity agreement with adjoining stations 
                        and CTD seems reasonable. 

138/1  119  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity, oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

138/1  120  o2      2   Oxygen bad endpoint, recalculated, entered new titer. 
                        Oxygen agrees with CTD and adjoining stations. Salinity, 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

138/1  123  salt    2   4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity, oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

138/1  134  ctds    4   Large CTD spike at bottle trip, code CTD salinity bad. 

138/1  134  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD.  Large CTD 
                        spike at bottle trip.  Salinity, oxygen and nutrients 
                        are acceptable. 

139/2  201  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 5  attempts for a good salinity reading. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

139/2  206  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

139/2  207  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

139/2  208  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

139/2  212  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

139/2  216  salt    5   Sampling error, salinity not collected. 

139/2  233  ctds    4   Variation in CTD trace, CTD spiky. Code CTD salinity bad. 

139/2  233  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  Variation in 
                        CTD trace, CTD spiky.  Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

139/2  234  ctds    4   Variation in CTD trace, CTD spiky. Code CTD salinity bad. 

140/1  109  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Second reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 

140/1  110  salt    2   Salinity thimble came out with cap. Salinity is a little 
                        low compared with CTD.   Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable.  


Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
140/1  112  sio3    2   sio3 looks high, fits well with stations >140, sio3 is 
                        acceptable. Analyst: "Peak slightly higher than 11, 
                        looks valid." 

140/1  120  salt    2   Salinity severe rim chip, seal affected, bottle 
                        discarded. Salinity agreement with CTD is acceptable. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

140/1  127  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Cap jarred 
                        thimble loose, apparent contamination. Took first 
                        reading only. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients 
                        are acceptable. 

141/1  101  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations, appears to have been a drawing error with 
                        bottle 2. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

141/1  124  o2      2   Oxygen bad endpoint, recalculated and entered new titer. 
                        Oxygen appears slightly high compared with adjoining 
                        stations, but is acceptable as are salinity and nutrients. 

141/1  134  ctds    4   Variation in CTD at bottle trip, CTD spiky. Code CTD 
                        salinity bad. 

141/1  134  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD.  Variation in 
                        CTD at bottle trip, CTD spiky. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

142/1  101  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 5 attempts for a good salinity reading. 
                        Additional readings did not resolve salinity discrepancy. 
                        Lab temperature change, suspect that salinity was 
                        affected.  Code salinity questionable, oxygen and 
                        nutrients acceptable. 

142/1  102  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD agrees with 
                        141 and ˜0. 001 higher than 140, both 141 and 142 are 
                        higher than 143. Lab temperature change, suspect that 
                        salinity was affected. Code salinity questionable, 
                        oxygen and nutrients acceptable. 

142/1  103  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD agrees with 
                        141 and ˜0. 001 higher than 140, both 141 and 142 are 
                        higher than 143. Lab temperature change, suspect that 
                        salinity was affected. Code salinity questionable, 
                        oxygen and nutrients acceptable. 

142/1  107  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. No analytical problem noted. Code salinity 
                        questionable, oxygen is acceptable. 

142/1  110  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. 
                        First reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity 
                        as well as oxygen are acceptable. 

142/1  116  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen are acceptable. 

142/1  130  sio3    2   sio3 low ˜1unit. Oxygen slightly higher on the station 
                        profile, do not see the feature in salinity, po4 or NO3. 

142/1  134  ctds    4   Variation in CTD traces, CTD spiky at bottle trip. 
                        Code CTD salinity bad. 

142/1  134  o2      2   Oxygen bad endpoint, recalculated and entered new titer. 
                        Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable. 

142/1  134  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  Variation in 
                        CTD traces, CTD spiky at bottle trip. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen are acceptable. 

143/2  210  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble 
                        came out with cap. Classic contamination pattern. Took 
                        first reading only. Second reading resolved salinity 
                        discrepancy.  Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients 
                        are acceptable. 

143/2  224  salt    2   Salinity thimble came out with cap. Salinity appears a 
                        little high compared with CTD, agrees with adjoining 
                        stations. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are 
                        acceptable. 

143/2  234  ctds    4   Variation in CTD trace at bottle trip, CTD spiky. 
                        Code CTD salinity bad. 


Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
143/2  234  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  Variation in 
                        CTD trace at bottle trip, CTD spiky. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

144/1  104  salt    2   m 

145/2  201  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. There was a air temperature difference for 
                        some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little 
                        higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find 
                        any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity 
                        questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

145/2  202  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. There was a air temperature difference for 
                        some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little 
                        higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not 
                        find any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity 
                        questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

145/2  203  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. There was a air temperature difference for 
                        some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little 
                        higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not 
                        find any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity 
                        questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

145/2  204  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. There was a air temperature difference for 
                        some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little 
                        higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find 
                        any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity 
                        questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

145/2  205  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. There was a air temperature difference for 
                        some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little 
                        higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find 
                        any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity 
                        questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

145/2  206  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. There was a air temperature difference for 
                        some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little 
                        higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find 
                        any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity 
                        questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

145/2  207  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. There was a air temperature difference for 
                        some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little 
                        higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find 
                        any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity 
                        questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

145/2  208  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. There was a air temperature difference for 
                        some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little 
                        higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find 
                        any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity 
                        questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

145/2  209  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. There was a air temperature difference for some 
                        samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little higher 0.01 
                        on one of these samples, but could not find any reason why 
                        the higher salinities. Code salinity questionable, oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 


Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
145/2  210  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining
                        stations. There was a air temperature difference for 
                        some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little 
                        higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find 
                        any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity 
                        questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

145/2  211  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. There was a air temperature difference for 
                        some samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little 
                        higher 0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find 
                        any reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity 
                        questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

145/2  212  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. There was a air temperature difference for some 
                        samples of 0.03, bath temperature went a little higher 
                        0.01 on one of these samples, but could not find any 
                        reason why the higher salinities. Code salinity 
                        questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

146/1  102  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 6 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

146/1  103  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

146/1  112  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

147/2  216  o2      5   Oxygen sampling 16-22 were off by one bottle. Sample 16 
                        was drawn from 17 and 22 was sampled twice. Salinity and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

148/1  115  salt    4   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. Initial sample fill low. Code salinity bad, 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

148/1  133  ctds    4   

148/1  133  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  Variation in 
                        CTD salinity at bottle trip, CTD spiky. Code CTD 
                        salinity bad, salinity, oxygen and nutrients are 
                        acceptable. 

150/1  110  sio3    2   sio3 high compared with adjoining stations and in 
                        relationship to oxygen.  Analyst: "The peak is real 
                        and good, there were no analytical problems noted and 
                        the dpcal value is good. Adjoining stations have a 
                        similar spikeinSiO3 around the same depth." 

151/1  135  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  Variation at 
                        trip, CTD as well as Bottle salinity are reasonable. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

152/1  111  sio3    2   sio3 high, there is also a high sio3 for Station 150. 
                        The signal is not seen in other nutrients or oxygen. 

154/1  102  bottle  2   Special bottle tripped with 3 for CFC incubation/incubation 
                        experiment. 

154/1  102  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle  oxygen. 

155/1  101  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and on 
                        station profile. Salinity appears 0. 001 high on the 
                        station profile and almost 0. 003 compared with the 
                        CTD, within accuracy of the measurement. Salinity as 
                        well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

156/1  101  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD reasonable 
                        agreement with adjoining stations. Oxygen and no3 are 
                        low , SiO and po4 are high. Salinity as well as oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 

156/1  106  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  Salinity as 
                        well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 


Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
156/1  127  salt    2   Salinity thimble came off with cap. Salinity agrees 
                        with adjoining stations and within accuracy with the 
                        CTD considering the size of the package. Some water 
                        entrainment noticeable in the CTD up cast at bottle 
                        trip. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are 
                        acceptable. 

156/1  131  ctds    4   Variation at the bottle trip from entrained water, 
                        code CTD salinity bad. 

156/1  131  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  Variation 
                        at the bottle trip, Bottle salinity is acceptable as 
                        are oxygen and nutrients. 

156/1  133  ctds    4   Variation at the bottle trip from entrained water, 
                        code CTD salinity bad. 

157/1  102  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. Suspect that salinity was too warm for the 
                        bath temperature, most deep samples 1-5 are just outside 
                        of the accuracy of the measurement. Code salinity as 
                        questionable 1-5, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

158/1  131  ctds    4   Variation at bottle trip, code CTD salinity bad. 

158/1  131  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  Variation 
                        in CTD at bottle trip, code CTD salinity bad. Salinity 
                        as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

160/1  101  salt    2   Required 2 SSW at end of run-first read high, had 
                        higher than normal fill level before opening. 

160/1  103  bottle  2   Special bottle tripped with 2 for pH. 

160/1  103  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle  oxygen. 

160/1  117  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees with 
                        adjoining stations.  Variation in CTD at bottle trip 
                        could have caused a larger difference. Salinity as 
                        well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

160/1  124  salt    2   Salinity thimble came out with cap. Salinity high 
                        compared with CTD, agrees with adjoining stations. 

161/1  101  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees with 
                        adjoining stations.  Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

161/1  113  bottle  2   Endcap knocked open during recovery. Salinity, oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 

161/1  132  bottle  2   Bottles 33-35 were not tripped per sampling schedule. 

162/1  133  ctds    4   Variation in CTD up trace at bottle trip, code CTD 
                        salinity bad. 

162/1  133  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees with 
                        adjoining stations.  Variation in CTD up trace at 
                        bottle trip, code CTD salinity bad. Salinity, oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 

163/2  201  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. No analytical problems noted may not have been 
                        flushed after the beginning SSW. Code salinity 
                        questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

164/1  133  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  Variations in 
                        CTD up trace at bottle trip. Code CTD salinity bad. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

165/1  101  salt    4   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. Suspect cells in salinometer were not flushed 
                        adequately after SSW. Code salinity bad, oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

166/1  110  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, agrees with 
                        adjoining stations in the gradient. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

166/1  132  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD.  Variations in 
                        the CTD up trace responding to less saline water from below. 
                        Code CTD salinity questionable.  Salinity, oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

167/1  127  o2      2   Oxygen appears high compared with adjoining stations, 
                        agrees with CTD up trace. Nutrients do not show this same 
                        feature. Salinity is a little high compared with CTD and 
                        acceptable. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.  


Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
168/1  119  salt    4   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Slightly low 
                        compared with CTD.  Operator pulled 19 early. Took first 
                        reading and keyboard entered it for reading 3, reading 2 
                        is from sample 20. Code salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients 
                        are acceptable.  

170/2  201  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  Station 168 
                        is the deepest adjoining station and is within accuracy 
                        of measurement. Suspect cells on salinometer were not 
                        flushed enough after the higher SSW. Code salinity 
                        questionable, oxygen and nutrients acceptable. 

170/2  209  bottle  2   Vent was open. Oxygen looks reasonable. There was minimal 
                        sampling on this bottle, salinity, oxygen and nutrients. 
                        Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

170/2  234  bottle  2   Vent was open. Oxygen a little high compared with CTD, 
                        but higher features on adjoining stations. There was 
                        minimal sampling on this bottle, salinity, oxygen and 
                        nutrients. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

171/1  112  bottle  2   Bottle  fired with 13, missed firing the bottle  depth 
                        of 1635, operator error.  Does not effect the samples, 
                        bottle  was properly equilibrated when tripped. 

171/1  128  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD.  Appears to be 
                        the difference in physical location of the CTD versus 
                        the bottle. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are
                        acceptable. 

171/1  131  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, agrees with 
                        Station 170 and 173.  Appears to be the difference in 
                        physical location of the CTD versus the bottle.  
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

173/1  131  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, agrees with 
                        adjoining stations. CTD has a spike at the bottle trip, 
                        code CTD salinity bad. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients 
                        are acceptable. 

174/1  102  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. At the salinity run for Station 176, the analyst 
                        found that the heater lamp had burnt out. Salinities on 
                        this station are all a little high with this sample being 
                        out of measurement accuracy. The lab temperature, although 
                        it did not change but by a few tenths, was also a degree 
                        lower than 5 hours before this run. sio3 is high on the 
                        station profile, agrees with adjoining stations. Code 
                        salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

175/2  201  salt    3   The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning on Station 
                        176. It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 
                        also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code 
                        salinities questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

175/2  202  salt    3   The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning on Station 
                        176. It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 
                        also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code 
                        salinities questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

175/2  203  salt    3   The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning on Station 
                        176. It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 
                        also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code 
                        salinities questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

175/2  204  salt    3   The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning on Station 
                        176. It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 
                        also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code 
                        salinities questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 


Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
175/2  205  salt    3   The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning on Station 
                        176. It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 
                        also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code 
                        salinities questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.  

175/2  206  salt    3   The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning on Station 
                        176. It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 
                        also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code 
                        salinities questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

175/2  208  salt    3   The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning on Station 
                        176. It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 
                        also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code 
                        salinities questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

175/2  210  salt    3   The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning on Station 
                        176. It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 
                        also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code 
                        salinities questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

175/2  211  salt    3   The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning on Station 
                        176. It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 
                        also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code 
                        salinities questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

175/2  225  o2      2   Oxygen temp sensor malfunction. Oxygen draw temp estimated 
                        from bottles above and below. Oxygen um/kg appears reasonable. 

176/1  101  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning. 
                        It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 
                        also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code 
                        salinities questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

176/1  103  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. The heater lamp was reported as malfunctioning. 
                        It appears that it malfunctioned on Stations 174-175 
                        also. There was also a large drift on the run. Code 
                        salinities bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

176/1  132  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD.  CTD is spiky 
                        at bottle trip. Code CTD salinity bad. Salinity, oxygen 
                        and nutrients are acceptable. 

178/1  101  salt    3   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. Suspect salinometer cell not properly flushed 
                        after higher SSW. Code salinity questionable, oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

178/1  106  bottle  2   Special bottle tripped with 5 for CFC incubation/incubation 
                        experiment. 

178/1  106  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle  oxygen. 

178/1  125  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Second and third 
                        reading resolved slight salinity discrepancy. Salinity 
                        as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

178/1  129  ctds    4   CTD spiky from water entrainment. 

178/1  129  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. CTD spiky from water entrainment below , code 
                        CTD salinity bad. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are 
                        acceptable. 

179/2  222  salt    4   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. Salinity appears to have drawn from 21. Code 
                        salinity bad, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

180/1  102  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and adjoining 
                        stations. 4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First 
                        reading resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well 
                        as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

182/1  108  bottle  2   Special bottle tripped with 7 for CFC incubation/incubation 
                        experiment. 


Stn/   Samp       Qual. 
Cast   No.  Prop. Code  Comment 
-----  ---- ----- ----  ---------------------------------------------------------------
182/1  108  CTDOXY  5   CTDO sample lost, no bottle  oxygen. 

182/1  133  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD.  Variation in 
                        CTD at bottle trip.  Salinity as well as oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

183/2  218  salt    2   Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD.  Feature in CTD 
                        up trace. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are 
                        acceptable. 

184/1  114  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Thimble came out 
                        with cap; suspect some contamination. Additional readings 
                        did not resolve the small salinity difference, within 
                        accuracy of the measurement. Salinity, oxygen and 
                        nutrients are acceptable. 

186/1  103  salt    2   Salinity 3 and 4 were in the wrong spots in the case. 
                        Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

186/1  104  salt    2   Salinity 3 and 4 were in the wrong spots in the case. 
                        Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

186/1  105  salt    3   Bottle salinity high compared with CTD, and adjoining 
                        stations. No analytical problems noted. Code salinity 
                        questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

186/1  118  o2      3   Oxygen sample was cloudy added additional acid to get 
                        it to clear and finish titrating. Slightly high 
                        compared with adjoining stations and CTDO. Code oxygen 
                        questionable, salinity and nutrients acceptable. 

187/1  101  o2      4   Black particles in the sample which may have resulted in 
                        a bad endpoint and result. End point reviewed and 
                        recalculated, did not resolve oxygen discrepancy. Code 
                        oxygen bad. 

187/1  128  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. First reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. Salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

188/1  110  salt    2   4 attempts for a good salinity reading. Second reading 
                        resolved salinity discrepancy. salinity as well as 
                        oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

189/2  216  salt    2   Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, agrees with 
                        adjoining stations, gradient. Oxygen shows a low 
                        feature, nutrients higher. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients 
                        are acceptable. 

190/1  118  salt    2   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional 
                        readings did not resolve small salinity discrepancy. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

190/1  122  salt    2   5 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional 
                        readings did not resolve small salinity discrepancy. 
                        Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

192/1  110  salt    3   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional 
                        reading did not resolve salinity difference. Code 
                        salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. 

194/1  103  salt    3   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional 
                        readings did not resolve salinity discrepancy. 
                        Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients 
                        are acceptable. 

194/1  114  salt    3   3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Additional 
                        readings did not resolve salinity discrepancy. 
                        Code salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients 
                        are acceptable. 

 




                                   APPENDIX B 

                              BOTTLE DEPTH SCHEMES 

The bottle depths followed the 3-scheme plan originally developed by Paul 
Robbins, adapted and refined by Greg Johnson for this cruise. The I5 version was 
more easily adjusted for bottom depth than the versions used in the past cruises 
for the program. Stations rotated through the three schemes, so samples 
collected principally on alternate stations received the same pattern, but every 
six stations. The tables show the three schemes used during I5. 

Scheme 1: 

 1     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5 
 2    20    20    20    20    20    20    20    20    20    20    20    20    20    20 
 3    40    40    40    40    40    40    40    40    40    40    40    40    40    40 
 4    65    65    65    65    65    65    65    65    65    65    65    65    65    65 
 5    90    90    90    90    90    90    90    90    90    90    90    90    90    90 
 6   135   135   135   135   135   135   115   115   115   115   115   115   115   115 
 7   185   185   185   185   185   185   140   140   140   140   140   140   140   140 
 8   235   235   235   235   235   235   185   185   185   185   185   165   165   165 
 9   285   285   285   285   285   285   235   235   235   235   235   190   190   190 
10   335   335   335   335   335   335   285   285   285   285   285   235   215   215 
11   385   385   385   385   385   385   335   335   335   335   335   285   240   240 
12   465   465   465   465   465   435   385   385   385   385   385   335   285   285 
13   565   565   565   565   565   485   435   435   435   435   435   385   335   335 
14   665   665   665   665   665   565   485   485   485   485   485   435   385   385 
15   765   765   765   765   765   665   565   565   565   565   565   485   435   435 
16   865   865   865   865   865   765   665   665   665   665   665   565   485   485 
17   965   965   965   965   965   865   765   765   765   765   765   665   565   565 
18  1065  1065  1065  1065  1065   965   865   865   865   865   865   765   665   665 
19  1165  1165  1165  1165  1165  1065   965   965   965   965   965   865   765   765 
20  1265  1265  1265  1265  1265  1165  1065  1065  1065  1065  1065   965   865   865 
21  1365  1365  1365  1365  1365  1265  1165  1165  1165  1165  1165  1065   965   965 
22  1535  1535  1535  1535  1465  1365  1265  1265  1265  1265  1265  1165  1065  1065 
23  1735  1735  1735  1735  1565  1465  1365  1365  1365  1365  1365  1265  1165  1165 
24  1935  1935  1935  1935  1735  1565  1465  1465  1465  1465  1465  1365  1265  1265 
25  2165  2165  2165  2165  1935  1735  1565  1565  1565  1565  1565  1465  1365  1365 
26  2415  2415  2415  2415  2165  1935  1735  1665  1665  1665  1665  1565  1465  1465 
27  2665  2665  2665  2665  2415  2165  1935  1765  1765  1765  1765  1665  1565  1565 
28  2915  2915  2915  2915  2665  2415  2165  1935  1935  1935  1935  1765  1665  1665 
29  3200  3200  3200  3200  2915  2665  2415  2165  2165  2135  2135  1935  1765  1765 
30  3500  3500  3500  3500  3200  2915  2665  2415  2415  2335  2335  2135  1935  1865 
31  3865  3800  3800  3800  3500  3200  2915  2665  2665  2535  2535  2335  2135  1965 
32  4265  4165  4100  4100  3800  3500  3200  2915  2915  2735  2735  2535  2335  2135 
33  4665  4565  4400  4400  4100  3800  3500  3200  3165  2935  2935  2735  2535  2335 
34  5065  4965  4765  4700  4400  4100  3800  3500  3415  3200  3135  2935  2735  2535 
35                           split spacing with bottle above 
36                           8 to 10 meters above the bottom 



Scheme 2: 

 1     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5
 2    35    35    35    35    35    35    35    35    35    35    35    35    35    35
 3    60    60    60    60    60    60    60    60    60    60    60    60    60    60
 4    85    85    85    85    85    85    85    85    85    85    85    85    85    85
 5   115   115   115   115   115   115   110   110   110   110   110   110   110   110
 6   165   165   165   165   165   165   135   135   135   135   135   135   135   135
 7   215   215   215   215   215   215   165   165   165   165   165   160   160   160
 8   265   265   265   265   265   265   215   215   215   215   215   185   185   185
 9   315   315   315   315   315   315   265   265   265   265   265   215   210   210
10   365   365   365   365   365   365   315   315   315   315   315   265   235   235
11   435   435   435   435   435   415   365   365   365   365   365   315   265   265
12   535   535   535   535   535   465   415   415   415   415   415   365   315   315
13   635   635   635   635   635   535   465   465   465   465   465   415   365   365
14   735   735   735   735   735   635   535   535   535   535   535   465   415   415
15   835   835   835   835   835   735   635   635   635   635   635   535   465   465
16   935   935   935   935   935   835   735   735   735   735   735   635   535   535
17  1035  1035  1035  1035  1035   935   835   835   835   835   835   735   635   635
18  1135  1135  1135  1135  1135  1035   935   935   935   935   935   835   735   735
19  1235  1235  1235  1235  1235  1135  1035  1035  1035  1035  1035   935   835   835
20  1335  1335  1335  1335  1335  1235  1135  1135  1135  1135  1135  1035   935   935
21  1465  1465  1465  1465  1435  1335  1235  1235  1235  1235  1235  1135  1035  1035
22  1665  1665  1665  1665  1535  1435  1335  1335  1335  1335  1335  1235  1135  1135
23  1865  1865  1865  1865  1665  1535  1435  1435  1435  1435  1435  1335  1235  1235
24  2085  2085  2085  2085  1865  1665  1535  1535  1535  1535  1535  1435  1335  1335
25  2335  2335  2335  2335  2085  1865  1665  1635  1635  1635  1635  1535  1435  1435
26  2585  2585  2585  2585  2335  2085  1865  1735  1735  1735  1735  1635  1535  1535
27  2835  2835  2835  2835  2585  2335  2085  1865  1865  1865  1865  1735  1635  1635
28  3100  3100  3100  3100  2835  2585  2335  2085  2085  2065  2065  1865  1735  1735
29  3400  3400  3400  3400  3100  2835  2585  2335  2335  2265  2265  2065  1865  1835
30  3735  3700  3700  3700  3400  3100  2835  2585  2585  2465  2465  2265  2065  1935
31  4135  4035  4000  4000  3700  3400  3100  2835  2835  2665  2665  2465  2265  2065
32  4535  4435  4300  4300  4000  3700  3400  3100  3085  2865  2865  2665  2465  2265
33  4935  4835  4635  4600  4300  4000  3700  3400  3335  3100  3065  2865  2665  2465
34  5335  5235  5035  4900  4600  4300  4000  3700  3585  3400  3265  3065  2865  2665
35                           split spacing with bottle above 
36                           8 to 10 meters above the bottom 




Scheme 3: 

 1    5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5 
 2   35    35    35    35    35    35    35    35    35    35    35    35    35    35 
 3   60    60    60    60    60    60    60    60    60    60    60    60    60    60 
 4   85    85    85    85    85    85    85    85    85    85    85    85    85    85 
 5  115   115   115   115   115   115   110   110   110   110   110   110   110   110 
 6  165   165   165   165   165   165   135   135   135   135   135   135   135   135 
 7  215   215   215   215   215   215   165   165   165   165   165   160   160   160 
 8  265   265   265   265   265   265   215   215   215   215   215   185   185   185 
 9  315   315   315   315   315   315   265   265   265   265   265   215   210   210 
10  365   365   365   365   365   365   315   315   315   315   315   265   235   235 
11  435   435   435   435   435   415   365   365   365   365   365   315   265   265 
12  535   535   535   535   535   465   415   415   415   415   415   365   315   315 
13  635   635   635   635   635   535   465   465   465   465   465   415   365   365 
14  735   735   735   735   735   635   535   535   535   535   535   465   415   415 
15  835   835   835   835   835   735   635   635   635   635   635   535   465   465 
16  935   935   935   935   935   835   735   735   735   735   735   635   535   535 
17 1035  1035  1035  1035  1035   935   835   835   835   835   835   735   635   635 
18 1135  1135  1135  1135  1135  1035   935   935   935   935   935   835   735   735 
19 1235  1235  1235  1235  1235  1135  1035  1035  1035  1035  1035   935   835   835 
20 1335  1335  1335  1335  1335  1235  1135  1135  1135  1135  1135  1035   935   935 
21 1465  1465  1465  1465  1435  1335  1235  1235  1235  1235  1235  1135  1035  1035 
22 1665  1665  1665  1665  1535  1435  1335  1335  1335  1335  1335  1235  1135  1135 
23 1865  1865  1865  1865  1665  1535  1435  1435  1435  1435  1435  1335  1235  1235 
24 2085  2085  2085  2085  1865  1665  1535  1535  1535  1535  1535  1435  1335  1335 
25 2335  2335  2335  2335  2085  1865  1665  1635  1635  1635  1635  1535  1435  1435 
26 2585  2585  2585  2585  2335  2085  1865  1735  1735  1735  1735  1635  1535  1535 
27 2835  2835  2835  2835  2585  2335  2085  1865  1865  1865  1865  1735  1635  1635 
28 3100  3100  3100  3100  2835  2585  2335  2085  2085  2065  2065  1865  1735  1735 
29 3400  3400  3400  3400  3100  2835  2585  2335  2335  2265  2265  2065  1865  1835 
30 3735  3700  3700  3700  3400  3100  2835  2585  2585  2465  2465  2265  2065  1935 
31 4135  4035  4000  4000  3700  3400  3100  2835  2835  2665  2665  2465  2265  2065 
32 4535  4435  4300  4300  4000  3700  3400  3100  3085  2865  2865  2665  2465  2265 
33 4935  4835  4635  4600  4300  4000  3700  3400  3335  3100  3065  2865  2665  2465 
34 5335  5235  5035  4900  4600  4300  4000  3700  3585  3400  3265  3065  2865  2665 
35                           split spacing with bottle above 
36                           8 to 10 meters above the bottom 






                        GRADUATE STUDENT EXPERIENCE AT SEA

The National Science Foundation grant which supports the chief scientist's and 
co-chief scientist's participation also includes support for graduate students 
to participate at sea. At least two students work on the physical oceanography 
team on each cruise, and any savings from other program expenses are used to 
support up to two additional students, berths and other considerations allowing. 
Plus one graduate student is supported to work with the CFC group at sea. We had 
five students from this program on the I5 cruise. Below are short statements and 
a photo from each. 


Sarah Purkey, University of Washington: 

"Going to sea is always an enjoyable and educational experience for me, and I5 
has been no exception. It is more satisfying to work with data that you helped 
to collect. In my graduate studies, I have worked primarily with data from 
CLIVAR/CO2 repeats of WOCE section, and the data collected on this trip will 
certainly be an important contribution to my future research. I have enjoyed 
comparing the water properties of this cruise to previous occupations of I5 as 
we made our way across the Indian Ocean. My area of research is temperature 
changes in the abyss, so seeing basin wide temperature trends compared to those 
of previous occupations was particularly exciting. While this wasn't my first 
cruise, it was my first cruise in the subtropics and my first cruise on the 
Revelle. I quickly learned the perks of not being in the Southern Ocean and took 
full advantage of the seemingly endless good weather. The crew of the Revelle, 
especially the cooks, have also made this trip especially easy. One of my 
favorite parts of going to sea is meeting new people, and it is an excellent 
opportunity to get to know faculty and other students outside of the classroom 
environment." 



Kelly Kearney 

My current research focuses on modeling oceanic food webs, so I have spent my 
three years as a graduate student in front of a computer. However, I missed the 
hands-on experience of going to sea (I had several months worth of sea time from 
a previous job with the Navy), and was curious about the methods used to collect 
the biogeochemical data I use in my models, so I applied to work on one of the 
CLIVAR cruises. 

Overall, I've had a great time on this cruise. As part of the CTD team, I 
helped with launching and recovering the CTD out on deck, monitoring the decent 
and ascent of the CTD in the lab, and sampling the nutrients and salts. Although 
tedious, there's a feeling of accomplishment that comes with the repetitive 
process, knowing how valuable well-measured datasets like this one can be to 
countless researchers. I also had a chance to step outside my area of expertise 
and do some research with the cochief scientist, Greg Johnson, based on the CTD 
data we were collecting, analyzing some of the changes in temperature and 
salinity and their contribution to density compared to previous cruises in the 
same area. This short project allowed me to learn a bit more about the water 
mass properties of the Indian Ocean and brush up my physical oceanography. We 
have written a draft of the analysis that will be submitted for publication 
shortly; it was pretty rewarding to see work move so quickly from data gathering 
to an article draft. Finally, I enjoyed getting to know the other members of 
both the scientific party and the crew; it was a very diverse group, both in 
research focus and personality, and I hope I will run into many of them at 
conferences and such in the future. 



Alison Rogers (University of Washington) 

My participation in the I05 cruise has been one of the highlights of my graduate 
education thus far. Although, at 55 days at sea, this cruise was quite long, it 
served as a wonderful introduction to the fieldwork side of oceanography. As a 
CTD watchstander, I was involved in all aspects of the CTD casts, including 
cocking the 36 Niskin bottles, helping on deck to deploy and recover the 
rosette, operating the computer console and tripping the bottles, drawing 
nutrient and salt samples, and monitoring the sampling as "sample cop". I also 
helped to deploy a number of autonomous profiling floats that are part of the 
Argo program. 

This experience has been beneficial in several ways. I have gained in-depth 
knowledge of how high- quality hydrographic data are collected. Since I use 
these datasets in my research, it is very helpful to have an understanding of 
the practical aspects involved in their generation, as well as the time and 
effort that are required. My research primarily involves data collected by the 
Argo global array of floats, and thus deploying some of these instruments has 
been a valuable experience. After 195 stations across the southern Indian Ocean, 
I have learned about the water properties and currents of this part of the 
ocean, knowledge which will serve me well as I extend my research to this 
region. Lastly, I have benefited immensely from my experiences working at sea as 
a part of a team and from my interactions with all of the scientists on board. 



Caitlin Whalen (headed to UCSD/SIO) 

Shock was the typical response whenever I mentioned my participation on the I5 
cruise with 57 days of scheduled time at sea. "57 days!" I would often hear, 
"you know that's quite a long time, right?" The accumulation of shocked looks, 
however, failed to deter me from participation, and I shortly found myself at 
sea as a CTD watchstander. 

I thankfully did not encounter anything during the duration of the cruise that 
would merit the these reactions. While the monotonous work most certainly breeds 
boredom, I found that this ailment is easily mitigated by a healthy dose of 
creativity. This simple cure was triggered Argo float boxes to morph into zombie 
coffins, and picket lines to materialize around the rosette during sampling. 

I originally hoped to not just to survive being at sea for 57 days, but for a 
hands-on introduction to oceanography since I have not yet begun my graduate 
studies. This goal was certainly realized. I assisted with watch-standing, 
sampling, and rosette work while learning basic oceanography concepts. I also 
worked on a data analysis project considering changes in temperature and 
salinity using the data we were collecting combined with historical data. 
Additionally I was able to observe how each water sample is dealt with by an 
army of chemical analysts. What I didn't predict was the benefit of being 
introduced to these facets of oceanography in parallel. I will enter my first 
year of graduate study, not traumatized from my 57 days, but with an 
appreciation for the larger picture. 



Erin Shields (UCSD/SIO) 

Before setting off on this cruise, I didn't know if I would end up with a 
lifelong addiction or never want to see a ship again. I'm happy to report that, 
even after a maiden voyage of a mere 54 days, I would be all too happy to sail 
again. The hours are long and the work can feel repetitive, but I was never 
bored. There was such a variety of people to get to know, wildlife to see, 
sunrises and meteor showers to enjoy, that no two days were truly the same. I 
have been incredibly impressed with the quality (and sheer quantity) of data we 
managed to collect, and with the amazing attitude of everyone aboard. 

My job was to help with CFC sampling, and our lab space was in a van strapped 
to the fantail. I found myself really enjoying the van on my night shift, 
because I was just a few steps away from stargazing and sunrises whenever I had 
a moment. Drawing water samples from the rosette was always entertaining, as we 
all clustered around 'Rosy' and teased each other about anything and everything. 
And our cooks have been amazing, which was a huge bonus. I don't think the trip 
would have been nearly as enjoyable without good food and plentiful snacks. 

All in all, it has been an amazing experience. I'm very grateful for the 
opportunity to participate, and I hope I was able to make a meaningful 
contribution. It left me inspired, excited, and proud to be a part of this 
field. 



CCHDO DATA PROCESSING NOTES 

Date        Contact     Data Type      Summary
----------  ----------  -------------  --------------------------------------
2009-05-19  Swift, Jim  CTD/BTL/SUM    Data are Public
            Action: Place Online
            Notes: Data DVD contents from J. Swift on May 19, 2009. These are 
            *most* of the data files from the i05_33RR20090320 cruise except 
            for WOCE formatted CTD files and of course, NetCDF.

            This tarball contains:
            1 Alkalinity Report for Clivar Cruise I.doc
            2 I05_1_Hydrographic_DRAFT.pdf
            3 I05_3_CFC.pdf
            4 I05_6_pH.pdf
            5 I05_CTDO_SON_DRAFT.pdf
            6 I5_CTD_001_195_ct1.zip
            7 I5_cruise_summary.doc
            8 i5.sea.txt
            9 i5.sum.txt
            10 i5_hy1.csv 

2009-05-29  Swift, Jim  CTD/BTL/SUM    PRELIMINARY data online
            Changes will be forthcoming: 
            (1) the WHP-Exchange bottle data file will soon be updated to 
                include the PI contact and data citation information, and
            (2) the preliminary documentation file is currently being 
                modified to more closely fit the CCHDO standard.
            The CTDO, salinity, oxygen, and nutrient data are very close to 
            final form and are likely suitable as is for research purposes.

            As is always the case, the shipboard ocean carbon parameter data 
            (TCARBN, TALK, pH) now on line must be considered strictly 
            preliminary. These data will be examined by Alex Kozyr at CDIAC, 
            and he and the carbon PIs will later (6-12 months from now?) 
            provide an updated file to the CCHDO to replace the present ocean 
            carbon parameter data. It is very strongly urged that any 
            research use of the shipboard ocean carbon parameters include 
            close collaboration with the data originators (Feely, Wanninkhof, 
            and Dickson).

            The present CFC (F-11 and F-12) and SF6 data are preliminary and 
            subject to update (within a year?), and should be used for 
            research purposes only in close collaboration with the data 
            originators (Bullister and Warner). 

2009-06-01  Schatzman,  CTD            NetCDF format resubmission
            Name: schatzman
            Institute: odf
            Country: usa
            Expo: 33RR20090320 Line: i5
            Date: 2009-03-20
            Action: Place Online
            Notes: resubmit NetCDF data 

2009-06-01  Diggs       Cruise Report  PDF doc current, more complete
            Action: new PDF documentation file from J. Kappa 

2009-06-01  Diggs       CTD/BTL        Data Citations in Exchange files added
            Action: data citations added to hy1 and ct1.zip files


Date        Contact     Data Type      Summary
----------  ----------  -------------  --------------------------------------
2009-06-12  Kappa       Cruise Report  Website Updated; text file online 
            Both the PDF and text versions of the complete cruise report are 
            now online.

2009-06-17  Kappa       Cruise Report  Website Updated; Added ADCP report

2009-07-12  Talley      NUTs           Update Needed; Stns. 193-195 missing NUTs 
            Looking at the version of the I5 bottle data that is online at 
            the WHPO, there are no nutrient data for stations 193, 194, 195. 
            Based on the sum file, this is accurate for 195, but the sum file 
            indicates that there should be nutrient data for 193 and 194, 
            also CFC, carbon, etc etc. It looks like only salts and oxygens 
            were merged for those stations. 

2009-07-16  Schatzman   CTD            Submitted; Quality code updates 
            Quality code updates made to station 102 cast 02. 

2009-07-27  Schatzman   BTL            Submitted; Ready to go online 
            Place Online.  Previous submissions from J.Swift did not have the 
            complete bottle data set which included end of cruise data set.

2009-07-29  Schatzman   CTD            Submitted; updated quality coding 
            Place Online.  CTD WHP exchange data in the WOSE format. This 
            data has updated quality coding. 

2009-08-10  Schatzman   BTL            Submitted; updates depths & alk data 
            This file should replace existing hy1 file with missing depths 
            and alkalinity data. 

2009-11-03  Schatzman   CTD            Submitted; Data Updates 
            Updated transmissometer and fluorometer quality codes for all CTD 
            station casts.

2009-11-03  Schatzma    O2/NUTs/Thio   Submitted; Data Updates 
            Updates made to the following bottle data: 
              O2, Thio normality smoothing applied to stations 166-195.
            Additional evaluations applied to the following nutrient sample 
              stations.
            Comments in third column.
              4401   1  ??? Sta 45 instead
              6901   2  "new pump tubes, sw-dw low, correct end po4 baseline 
                        for jump at end of run"
              7001   1  "sw-dw low, adjust baselines down and recalc"
              7102      "adjust N+N, po4 end baselines for jumps after 
                        reagents added, adjust po4 baselines for low sw-dw"
              7201   1  ??? Not seen sta 07102?
              7401   2  "std-sw values possibly low, reprocess with avg 
                        factors from the previous run" 
              7701   2  reprocess ignoring last dw
              7801   1  end std-dw high use beginning factor for begin and end
              7901   1  reprocess ignoring 3rd std at end
              8001   2  std-sw low use avg factor from 08102
              10001  1  std-sw possibly too high/new pump tubes reprocess 
                        using avg factor from 10101
              10501  2  reprocessed ignore last dw
              13701  1  end std-sw high use beginning factor
              14502  2  std-sw low use avg factor from 14401
              14601  2  beginning std-sw low use end factor
              15101  1  use beginning factor
              15901  1  std-sw high use avg factor from 15801
              16601  2  ignore 2nd sw at end of run
              16801  1  ignore 2nd std at end of run 


Date        Contact     Data Type      Summary
----------  ----------  -------------  --------------------------------------
2009-11-06  Schatzman   BTL            Submitted; Data are Public 
            Action: Place Online 

2009-12-10  Bullister   CFCs           Submitted; To replace older data set 
            Please replace all shipboard CFC-11, CFC-12 and SF6 data values 
            and flags with these data 

2010-01-05  Kozyr       DOC/TDN        Submitted; To go Online 
            Action: Merge Data, Place Online
            Notes:  The final and public DOC and TDN data from Dennis 
                    Hansell/RSMAS.




