CRUISE REPORT: A20
(Updated JUL 2012)


HIGHLIGHTS

                           Cruise Summary Information

          WOCE Section Designation  A20
Expedition designation (ExpoCodes)  33AT20120419
                  Chief Scientists  Dr. Michael McCartney/WHOI
                             Dates  Apr 19, 2012 - May 15, 2012
                              Ship  R/V ATLANTIS
                     Ports of call  Bridgetown, Barbados - Woods Hole, MA

                                                  43° 6.31' N
             Geographic Boundaries  53° 28.77' W               50° 43.88' W
                                                  6° 52.08' N

                          Stations  83
      Floats and drifters deployed  0
    Moorings deployed or recovered  0

                          Recent Contact Information:
                              Michael S. McCartney
                      Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
            266 Woods Hole Rd. • MS# 21 • Woods Hole, MA 02543-1050
      Phone: +1 508 289 2797 • Fax: +1 508 457 2181 • mmccartney@whoi.edu






















 US Global Ocean Carbon and Repeat Hydrography Program Section CLIVAR A20
                             RV Atlantis AT20
                        19 April 2012 - 15 May 2012
             Bridgetown, Barbados - Woods Hole, Massachusetts
                  Chief Scientist:  Dr. Michael McCartney
                   Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
                   Co-Chief Scientist: Dr. Donglai Gong
                   Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution



                               Cruise Report
                                14 May 2012





























































Narrative


A20 station planning and implementation, and an overview of the circulation
encountered.

Section designation: CLIVAR A20
Expedition:  33AT20120419
Chief Scientist:  Dr. Michael McCartney, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Ship:  R/V Atlantis 20-01
Ports:  Bridgetown, Barbados - Woods Hole, MA
Dates:  19 April - 15 May 2012


Cruise Narrative

The 2012 A20 section follows the WOCE A20 section completed in 1997, which
itself was repeat of a CTD hydrography section made in 1983 (McCartney,
1993).  The main change from WOCE A20 was a slight eastward shift of the
South American (SA) continental shelf stations from the Suriname EEZ to the
French Guiana EEZ.  For the cruise there were 86 stations planned, and a
total of 83 stations were actually completed.  Unlike previous north to
south transects, the 2012 survey was a south to north transect; the April-
May timing matched that for the 1983 occupation, while WOCE A20 itself was
in July-August, and a 2003 repeat in this program of repeating WOCE
sections was in Sept.-Oct.  The full suite of physical and chemical
measurements will be inter-compared for three occupations across a 15 year
span, while the 1983 section will extend the comparison to a 29 year span
for T,S.P, Oxygen, Silicate, Phosphate and Nitrate/Nitrite.  See the
accompanying station map and property sections for the highlights described
in Appendix F.

The 2012 A20 survey did not use the same stations from the previous two A20
surveys (1997 and 2003).  The planning objective was to balance station
resolution with available time for sampling.  The survey was divided into
shelfbreak, slope, continental rise, and basin segments.  Station spacing
was kept even for each segment of the survey.  Closely spaced station
spacing of 4.6 nm was used on the SA shelf (Sta 1-7), the stations opened
up to 10.6 nm in the SA slope region (Sta 8-20), and 13.3 nm at the SA
continental rise (Sta 21-23).  The station spacing remained relative tight
out to 4900 m in order to resolve the southern crossing of the Deep Western
Boundary Current (DWBC).  The station spacing between 10 N and 21 N were
approximately 40 nm (sta 24-39) and between 21 N and 38 N were 45 nm (sta
40-62).  Station 59 was moved by 8 nm westward from it original location
along 52 20W in order to avoid a sea mount.  While basin interior spacing
of 40-45 nm was sufficient for resolving mesoscale features in the upper
ocean, it likely did not resolve patterns of abyssal circulation around
regions of rough topography in the central basin.

In the south, a well-developed North Brazil Current in the upper kilometer
of the waters over the upper continental slope, with southwest surface
speeds in excess of 45 cm/sec in the LADCP data.  Underway Shipboard ADCP
measurements during the transit from Barbados to Station 1 of A20 and
during the first few stations indicate a clockwise veering of the North
Brazil Current from southwest to northeast over a distance of 450 km.  Over
the continental shelf of French Guiana we encountered a thin (10-20m) layer
of dilute Amazon River water atop the Current - spanning about 400 km.
This was extraordinary in that its surface salinity was lower than 26.  It
appears from our examination of all the NODC archive data (Bottle, CTD and
ARGO) that this is an extreme event, larger in span, and lower in salinity,
than ever directly measured (salinities this low have been restricted to
the continental shelf in that data base).  Included in the figure set are
illustrations of the feature in salinity, silicate, total carbon and
alkalinity:  consistent with its distant origin in the Amazon at the
equator, as its elevated silicate, and strongly depressed total carbon and
alkalinity - the latter a player in setting the upper ocean conditions as a
carbon sink in the western tropical North Atlantic.  We appear to have
captured a mesoscale process that is conveying Amazon-flavored shelf water
offshore into the deep ocean.  At its northern edge there is some evidence
(a station profile and the underway thermosalinograph) for it being eroded
by the action of surface waves crewing on the edge.  The plume also
thickens significantly at its offshore edge with distinctive salinity and
alkalinity signal detectable down to depth of 50m.  This could be a result
of the entrainment and mixing of the river water with offshore water.  In




                             -2-

the middle of the feature the interface at its base is remarkable thin (not
shown - it requires examination of the 0.5 second averaged CTD data time
series).

Beneath, and down-slope of, the Brazil Current, we measured a strong DWBC
flowing southeast.  Part of what emerged from the 1983 occupation of this
section, and additional nearby sections and measurements (Friedrichs and
Hall, 1982, Schmitz and McCartney, McCartney, 1993 and Johns and
Fratantoni, 1993) was the concept of a "too-strong" DWBC - transporting 2
or 3 times the expected transport net export of the cold limb of the
meridional overturning circulation.  The reason for this is a "Guiana
Abyssal Gyre" that returns a large part of the Lower North Atlantic Deep
water (LNADW) back northward in the western Basin (rather than exporting
south across the equator.  This recirculation crosses A20, partly by a
narrow recirculation immediately north of the DWBC, and the rest in a near
bottom westward flow near 15 N (around 1000 km on the section plot.  This
recirculating water is mixed with the transequatorial flow of  Antarctic
Bottom Water (AABW).  This mixing is the cause for the band of LNADW/AABW
with water mass characteristics that are intermediate between those of the
boundary current regime and those of the mid basin area of the section.
The mixing is much enhanced by bottom intensified mixing over the rough
topography of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge's western flank (Mauritzen et al,
2002) For the southern half of the A20 transect, at depths above the upper
North Atlantic Deep Water reside the Antarctic Intermediate Water (AAIW).
The thickness of this water mass is approximately 1000 m with a mean depth
of approximately 800-1000 m.  The AAIW is significantly fresher than the
surrounding water masses below and above it with a salinity minima of 34.6.
The AAIW also has distinctive geochemical properties such as low dissolved
oxygen, high nutrients, and much lower level of man-made transient tracers
such as CFCs and CCL4.  Interestingly, the low salinity core and the
geochemical property core maxima/minima associated with the AAIW are not
necessarily collocated at the same depth.  This is likely a result of
mixing and biogeochemical processes in the upper ocean that differentially
modify AAIW's vertical property distribution after its formation.  The
northward influence of the AAIW does not appear to extend past 25 N along
the A20 section.

Sea Surface Temperature map indicated that the Gulf Stream (GS) at 52 W was
located between 38 and 39 N.  This was a distinctly more southerly location
compared to its climatological mean location, and at the southerly limit of
its meander envelope.  However, the GS path was apparently nearly
stationary at this location for at least a two weeks period leading up to
our crossing.  Four stations spaced 20 nm apart were allocated for sampling
the GS core (sta 63-65), and the GS cooperated by being where we had
planned for it.  Lowered ADCP indicate that the GS had a strong baroclinic
structure in the upper 1000 m with a maximum velocity of 98 cm/s, and near
bottom a barotropic flow contribution of 25 cm/s was deduced.  Two aspect
features disrupted the situation to the immediate south of the GS where the
"Worthington Gyre" westward recirculation would be anticipated.  First, its
southerly position placed the south edge of the GS only about 250 km north
of the Corner Rise Seamounts intersection with the section.  Second, a
cyclonic cold core ring was observed south of the Gulf Stream at 35 N, with
a center indicated as slightly west of the section by there being a
northward velocity component to the ring vector velocity in the LADCP and
underway SADCP data.  The ring primarily influenced flow field in the upper
2000 m with a maximum speed of 40 cm/s.  Separation of the Ring and
Worthington Gyre velocity contributions, for that area the north of the
seamounts and south of the GS, remains for future analysis by combined ADCP
and hydrographic shear.

North of the Gulf Stream, the spacing was opened up again to 42 nm in the
slope sea until 41 N (sta 66-68).  No Warm Core Rings were observed in the
slope region.  There appears to be a very strong Northern Recirculation
Gyre (NRG) structure emerging from the left side of the GS, with the nearly
eastward GS flow transitioning to a northwest flow nearly paralleling the
western flank of the Grand Banks (which lies Northwest of this part of the
section).  As anticipated by Hogg, Pickart and colleague in their papers
inferring the NRG, this recirculation has a significant barotropic
component in the LADCP data, about 29 cm/sec . with surface velocity to the
Northwest of about 55 cm/sec indicating a baroclinic addition of 25 cm/sec.
The NRG element is limited to the gentle bottom slope southward of the
continental slope, consistent with Hogg and Stommel (1985) deduction of a
potential vorticity - constraint on the recirculation.  In the southern
part of the continental slope region of the Grand Banks, the station




                             -3-

spacing was 13.3 nm (69-77).  The water mass on the continental slope below
4500 m is a blend of Antarctic Bottom Water  (AABW) and Denmark Strait
Overflow Water (DSOW).  Above 4500m the DSOW and lighter northern
components become predominant in the narrow DWBC that flows northwest along
the Grand Banks.  On the shallowest part of the continental shelf of the
Grand Banks, the spacing was 3.4 nm (sta 78-83).  Cold Labrador Sea coastal
water with temperature less than 3 degrees were observed on the shelf and
shelf Break, while just offshore of the shelfbreak, a significant southeast
flow of Labrador Current flow with velocity in excess of 30 cm/s was
measured, indicative of the retroflection of the Labrador Current in this
general area (Fratantoni and McCartney, 2010).  A weaker shelfbreak flow to
the northwest (~15 cm/s) shoreward of the Labrador Current retroflection is
seen in the underway SADCP data.  CTD rosette operation switched from the
starboard winch (0.322 inch wire) to the port side traction winch using a
much heavier 0.681 inch wire at station 37.  The traction winch was not
operational for most of the preceding (A22) leg, but it was repaired during
the first half of this A22 cruise.  Many long hours were put into that
repair, in port and during this leg, by the ship's able engineers, and it
was successful - and much appreciated.  The reason for the switch was
mainly to keep the samplers dry and safe in the Jason hangar during rough
seas - and in particularly to avoid losing station time by heaving to while
sampling.  By eliminating the spray from the sea, there is also a lessened
chance of sample contamination during sampling.  It was fortunately that no
significant weather was encountered during the cruise.  The seas were
generally 2-5 ft and the winds were generally less than 25 knots.  In terms
of sampling, the chemistry samplers took on average 1.5-2 hours to sample
the entire CTD rosette.  For the deep and closely-spaced stations, the ship
sometimes would arrive on station before the bottle sampling is done.  For
most of the cruise, this was not an issue.  Sampling was completed on May
11, 2012 20:00 UTC.  Major data quality issues encountered during the
sampling were a systematic bias between the two CFC systems onboard and no
pH measurements past station 66.  The cause of the CFC bias is currently
under investigation.  When the measurement bias combined with the
alternating sampling routine of the two CFC teams resulted in the
appearance of oscillatory banded structures in the along transect CFC data
(see plots).  CFC-11 measurements suffered the most from this effect.
Extreme care should be taken when interpreting station to station
variability in the CFC measurements.  pH measurements were not available
for stations past 66 due to broken sensors.







































                             -4-

Principal Programs of CLIVAR A20


+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Program                           Affiliation   Principal Investigator   email                      |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|CTDO/Rosette, Nutrients, O2,      UCSD/SIO      James H. Swift           jswift@ucsd.edu            |
|Salinity, Data Processing                                                                           |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|ADCP/LADCP                        UH            Eric Firing              efiring@soest.hawaii.edu   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|CFCs                              LDEO          Bill Smethie             bsmeth@ldeo.columbia.edu   |
|SF6                               UM/RSMAS      Rana Fine                rfine@rsmas.miami.edu      |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|3He-3H                            WHOI          Bill Jenkins             wjenkins@whoi.edu          |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|CO2-DIC                           NOAA/AOML     Rik Wanninkhof           rik.wanninkhof@noaa.gov    |
|                                  NOAA/PMEL     Richard Feeley           richard.a.feeley@noaa.gov  |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Total Alkalinity, pH              UCSD/SIO      Andrew Dickson           adickson@ucsd.edu          |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)/   UM/RSMAS      Dennis Hansell           dhansell@rsmas.miami.edu   |
|Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN)                                                                      |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Underway pCO2 with underway T&S   NOAA/AOML     Rik Wanninkhof           Rik.Wanninkhof@noaa.gov    |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Carbon Isotopes 13C/14C-DIC       WHOI          Ann McNichol             amcnichol@whoi.edu         |
|                                  PU            Robert Key               key@princeton.edu          |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Level III Programs                                                                                  |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Carbon Isotopes 14C-DOC           UCI           Ellen Druffel            edruffel@uci.edu           |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Transmissometer                   TAMU          Wilf Gardner             wgardner@tamu.edu          |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Surface Skin SST                  UM/RSMAS      Peter Minnett            pminnett@rsmas.miami.edu   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Oxygen Isotope                    WHOI          Rachel Stanley           rstanley@whoi.edu          |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Stable Isotope Probing            RU            Lauren Seyler            mseyler@marine.rutgers.edu |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  * Affiliation abbreviations listed on page 5



































                             -5-

Shipboard Scientific Personnel on CLIVAR A20


+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Name                  Affiliation  Shipboard Duties       Shore Email                      |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Mike McCartney        WHOI         Chief Scientist        mmccartney@whoi.edu              |
|Donglai Gong          WHOI         Co-Chief Scientist     donglai@whoi.edu                 |
|Yasuhiro Arii         MWJ          Nutrients              ariiy@mwj.co.jp                  |
|Susan M. Becker       SIO/STS/ODF  Nutrients              sbecker@ucsd.edu                 |
|Emily Bockmon         SIO          Total Alkalinity       ebockmon@ucsd.edu                |
|Sarah Brody           DUKE         CTD Watch              sarah.brody@duke.edu             |
|Bob Castle            NOAA/AOML    DIC                    robert.castle@noaa.gov           |
|David Cooper          UM/RSMAS     CFCs                   davidcooper59@gmail.com          |
|Silvia Gremes Cordero UM/RSMAS     13C & 14C-DIC, DOC/TDN sgremes@rsmas.miami.edu          |
|                                   Surface Skin SST                                        |
|Ryan J. Dillon        SIO/STS/ODF  O2/Bottle Data         rjdillon@ucsd.edu                |
|Laura Fantozzi        SIO          Total Alkalinity       lfantozzi@ucsd.edu               |
|Stefan Gary           DUKE         CTD Watch              stefan.gary@duke.edu             |
|Eugene Gorman         LDEO         CFCs                   egorman@ldeo.columbia.edu        |
|Kristin Jackson       SIO          pH                     kjackson@ucsd.edu                |
|Beatriz Ramos Jimenez SIO          CTD Watch                                               |
|Mary Carol Johnson    SIO/STS/ODF  O2/CTD Data            mcj@ucsd.edu                     |
|Katherine McCaffrey   UCOL         CTD Watch              katherine.mccaffrey@colorado.edu |
|Robert Palomares      SIO/STS/RT-E Deck Leader/ET         rpalomares@ucsd.edu              |
|Cynthia Peacock       UW/PMEL      DIC                    cyngoat@u.washington.edu         |
|Alejandro Quintero    SIO/STS/ODF  CTD Data/O2            a1quintero@ucsd.edu              |
|Adam Radich           SIO          pH                     jradich@ucsd.edu                 |
|Rebecca Rolph         SIO          CFCs                   rebecca.rolph@mail.mcgill.ca     |
|Kristin Sanborn       SIO/STS/ODF  Data, Group Leader     ksanborn@ucsd.edu                |
|Zoe Sandwith          WHOI         3He/3H, O2-Ar, TOI     zsandwith@whoi.edu               |
|Courtney Schatzman    SIO/STS/ODF  Deck Leader/Oxygen     cschatzman@ucsd.edu              |
|Lauren Seyler         RU           CTD Watch              lmseyler@marine.rutgers.edu      |
|Lucia Upchurch        UT           CFCs                   lucia.upchurch@gmail.com         |
|Lora Van Uffelen      UH           LADCP                  loravu@hawaii.edu                |
|Allison Heater        WHOI         SSSG Tech              sssg@atlantis.whoi.edu           |
|Dave Sims             WHOI         SSSG Tech              sssg@atlantis.whoi.edu           |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  * Affiliation abbreviations are listed on page 5







































                             -6-

Ships Crew Personnel on CLIVAR A20


+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Name             Shipboard Duties               Email                          |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allan Lunt       Captain                        master@atlantis.whoi.edu       |
|Peter Leonard    Chief Mate                     chmate@atlantis.whoi.edu       |
|Craig Dickson    Second Mate                    secondmate@atlantis.whoi.edu   |
|Rick Bean        Third Mate                     thirdmate@atlantis.whoi.edu    |
|Tim Logan        Communication Electronics Tech comet@atlantis.whoi.edu        |
|Patrick Hennessy Bosun                          bosun@atlantis.whoi.edu        |
|Raul Martinez    Able-Bodied Seaman                                            |
|Jerry Graham     Able-Bodied Seaman                                            |
|Jim McGill       Able-Bodied Seaman                                            |
|Patrick Neumann  Able-Bodied Seaman                                            |
|Ronnie Whims     Ordinary Seaman                                               |
|Jeff Little      Chief Engineer                 cheng@atlantis.whoi.edu        |
|Monica Hill      First Assistant Engineer       firsteng@atlantis.whoi.edu     |
|Glenn Savage     Second Assistant Engineer      secondeng@atlantis.whoi.edu    |
|Mike Spruill     Third Assistant Engineer       thirdeng@atlantis.whoi.edu     |
|Darren Whittaker Oiler                                                         |
|Matthew Slater   Oiler                                                         |
|Nick Alexander   Oiler                                                         |
|Leroy Walcott    Wiper/Ordinary Seaman                                         |
|Brendon Todd     Steward                        steward@atlantis.whoi.edu      |
|Mark Nossiter    Cook                                                          |
|Janusz Mlynarski Mess Attendant                                                |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+


   +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                 KEY to Institution Abbreviations                   |
   +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |AOML    Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (NOAA) |
   |DUKE    Duke University                                             |
   |LDEO    Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory                            |
   |MWJ     Marine Works Japan Ltd.                                     |
   |NOAA    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration             |
   |ODF     Oceanographic Data Facility (SIO/STS)                       |
   |PMEL    Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (NOAA)              |
   |RSMAS   Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (UM)    |
   |RT-E    Research Technicians - Electronics (SIO/STS)                |
   |RU      Rutgers University                                          |
   |SIO     Scripps Institution of Oceanography (UCSD)                  |
   |SSSG    Shipboard Scientific Services Group (WHOI)                  |
   |STS     Shipboard Technical Support (SIO)                           |
   |TAMU    Texas A&M University                                        |
   |UCOL    University of Colorado                                      |
   |UCSD    University of California, San Diego                         |
   |UH      University of Hawaii                                        |
   |UT      University of Texas                                         |
   |UM      University of Miami                                         |
   |UW      University of Washington                                    |
   |WHOI    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution                        |
   +--------------------------------------------------------------------+






















                             -7-

Hydrographic/CTD Data, Salinity, Oxygen and Nutrients

 PI: Dr. James H. Swift
 Cruise Participants: Oceanographic Data Facility and Research Technicians
 Shipboard Technical Support/Scripps Institution of Oceanography
 La Jolla, CA 92093-0214

The CLIVAR A20 repeat hydrographic line was reoccupied for the US Global
Ocean Carbon and Repeat Hydrography Program (sometimes referred to as
"CLIVAR/CO2") during April-May 2012 from RV Atlantis during a survey
consisting of CTD/rosette/LADCP stations and a variety of underway
measurements.  The ship departed Bridgetown, Barbados on 19 April 2012 and
arrived Woods Hole, Massachusetts on 15 May 2012 (UTC dates).

CTDO data and water samples were collected on each CTD/rosette/LADCP cast,
usually to within 10 meters of the bottom.  Water samples were measured on
board as tabulated in the Bottle Sampling section.

A sea-going science team gathered from 12 oceanographic institutions
participated on the cruise.  The programs and PIs, and the shipboard
science team and their responsibilities, are listed in the Narrative
section.

Description of Measurement Techniques

1.  CTD/Hydrographic Measurements Program

A total of 83 CTD/rosette/LADCP casts were made.  Most casts were lowered
to within 10m of the bottom.  Stations 3 through 7 and Station 81 through
83 came within 5m of the bottom as requested by the Co-Chief Scientist, Dr.
Donglai Gong, for the shelf sampling.  Under the watchful eye of SSSG and
the SIO/STS technician, the CTD watchstanders accomplished this task.

Hydrographic measurements consisted of salinity, dissolved oxygen and
nutrient water samples taken from each rosette cast.  Pressure,
temperature, conductivity/salinity, dissolved oxygen, and transmissometer
data were recorded from CTD profiles.  Current velocities were measured by
the RDI workhorse LADCP.  The distribution of samples are shown in the
following figure.

         Figure 1.0 CLIVAR A20 Sample distribution, stations 1-83.


The expedition sampling plan for individual measurements is included in
Appendix E.

1.1.  Water Sampling Package

CTD/rosette/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 with
dual pumps (SBE5), dual temperature (SBE3plus), reference temperature
(SBE35RT), dual conductivity (SBE4C), dissolved oxygen (SBE43),
transmissometer (Wetlabs), 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 in the CTD cage,
as recommended by SBE.  Pump exhausts were attached to the CTD cage on the
side opposite from the sensors and directed downward. The transmissometer
was mounted horizontally near 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 sensors referenced to the bottom of the
frame.









                             -8-

         +--------------------------------------------------------+
         |Instrument                                 Height in cm |
         +--------------------------------------------------------+
         |Temperature/Conductivity Inlet                        9 |
         |SBE35                                                 9 |
         |Altimeter                                             2 |
         |Transmissometer                                       5 |
         |Pressure Sensor, inlet to capillary tube             17 |
         |Inner bottle midline                                109 |
         |Outer bottle midline                                113 |
         |LADCP face midline (bottom)                           7 |
         |Zero tape on wire                                   280 |
         +--------------------------------------------------------+
         Table 1.1.0 Heights referenced to bottom of rosette frame

A few mis-trips were encountered on this expedition.  Most could be
explained as improper set-up of the bottles during cocking.  However,
bottle 11 exhibited random tripping incidents starting on Station 26.
Other stations affected were 39, 52 59, 63 and 74.  These mis-trips are
documented in Appendix C, Bottle Quality Comments.  The CTD Electronics
Technician stated it was not the carousel.  Starting at Station 67, it was
decided to trip bottles 11 and 12 at the same depth to ensure that
different maintenance scenarios had in fact changed the reaction of bottle
11.  At Station 69, the bottle was raised in the scallop of the rosette
frame.  None of the techniques made any difference, and at Station 76 the
bottle and tripping position were no longer employed.

1.2.  Deck and CTD Console Operations

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.  The deployment area was secured with signs and rope
barriers to safely secure the area for the duration of the cast.  Once
stopped on station, the LADCP data acquisition was started from a computer
station in a lab space adjacent to the secure sampling area. Once started,
the cables to the LADCP were disconnected and replaced with dummy plugs. At
least 3 minutes prior to the package deployment, the CTD was powered-up and
the data acquisition system was started from the Computer Lab. The rosette
was then unstrapped from its location in the sampling area and moved out to
the deployment location using an air-powered winch with a cart and track
system. At the deployment location the rosette cart was secured to the
track, tag lines were threaded through the rosette frame and syringes were
removed from CTD intake ports.

In the Computer Lab, the deployment and acquisition software presented a
short dialog instructing the operator to turn on the deck unit, to examine
the on-screen CTD data displays and to notify the deck watch that this was
accomplished and the lab was ready for deployment.  The console 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.

Once cleared by the bridge and the console operator, the deck watch leader
directed the winch operator to raise the package. The 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 a depth of 10 meters. The
CTD sensor pumps were configured with a 5-second start-up delay after
detecting seawater conductivities. The console operator checked the CTD
data for proper sensor operation and waited for sensors to stabilize, then
instructed the winch operator to bring the package to the surface and
descend to a specified target depth.  While at the surface, the winch
operator would re-zero the wire-out reading before the descent.  The winch
operator then took the package down to 100 meters and stopped the winch for
approximately 10-15 seconds while control of the winch was transferred to
an operator in the Computer Lab.

Most rosette casts were lowered to within 10 meters of the bottom using the
altimeter, CTD depth, winch wire-out, and multi-beam depth to determine the
distance. The CTD profiling rate was monitored in meters of winch wire-out
per minute. The profiling rate was not allowed to exceed speeds of 30m/min
to a depth of 200m and 60m/min when below 200m. As the package descended
toward the target depth, the descent rate was reduced to 30m/min at 100m
off of the bottom, 20m/min at 50m off of the bottom, and 10m/min at 20m off
of the bottom. These speeds were further reduced if required by the sea




                             -9-

cable tension and sea state experienced during the cast.

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.

For each up cast, the winch operator was directed to stop the winch at up
to 36 pre-determined sampling depths. These standard depths were staggered
every station using 3 sampling schemes. To ensure package shed wake had
dissipated, the CTD console operator waited 30 seconds prior to tripping
sample bottles.  An additional 10 seconds elapsed before moving to the next
consecutive trip depth, to allow the SBE35RT time to take its readings.
The Computer Lab winch operator transferred control of the winch back to
the ship's winch operator at a bottle stop around 100 meters below the
surface.  The deck watch leader directed the package to the surface for the
final bottle stop before recovery.

Recovering the package at the end of the deployment was essentially the
reverse of launching, with the additional use of poles and snap-hooks
attached to tag lines and air-powered winches for controlled recovery.  The
rosette was secured on the cart and moved forward to its secure sampling
location.  The bottles and rosette were examined before samples were taken,
and anything unusual was noted on the sample log.

Each bottle on the rosette had a unique serial number, independent of the
bottle position on the rosette.  Sampling for specific programs was
outlined on sample log sheets prior to cast recovery or at the time of
collection.

Routine CTD maintenance was performed between casts, which included soaking
the conductivity and oxygen sensors with 1% Triton-X solution to maintain
sensor stability and eliminate accumulated bio-films.  Rosette and bottle
maintenance was also performed on a regular basis including inspecting
valves and o-rings for leaks and rinsing the carousel with fresh water.

For stations 1 to 36, the rosette was secured for sampling in the covered
portion of the starboard quarterdeck.  This was a non-ideal location for
sampling as it was not protected from weather conditions.  After sampling
for Station 36 was completed, the rosette was moved to the port side to
utilize the protection of the ROV hangar during sampling and to employ the
0.681" fiber optic cable.  The port-side boom clearance required that the
package be lifted through an opening in the port bulwarks.  Life-lines were
strung across this opening between casts to ensure the area would be safe.
The life-lines were removed during the launching and recovery of the CTD.
During the profiling at Station 37, the cart and tracks were installed,
allowing for the rosette to be moved into the ROV hangar for sampling.
This arrangement was used for the remaining stations.

1.3.  Underwater Electronics

The SBE9plus CTD supplied a standard SBE-format data stream at a data rate
of 24 frames/second.  The sensors and instruments used during CLIVAR A20,
along with pre-cruise laboratory calibration information, are listed below
in Table 1.3.0.  Copies of the pre-cruise calibration sheets for various
sensors are included in Appendix D.






















                            -10-

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                              Serial        CTD      Stations   Pre-Cruise Calibration |
|Instrument/Sensor*       Mfr.**/Model         Number        Channel    Used        Date     Facility** |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Carousel Water Sampler   SBE32 (36-place)     3216715-0187  n/a        1-83         n/a        n/a     |
|Reference Temperature    SBE35                3528706-0035  n/a        1-83     16-Feb-2012  SIO/STS   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|CTD                      SBE9plus SIO         09P39801-0796            1-83                            |
|Pressure                 Paroscientific       796-98627     Freq.2     1-83     25 Oct 2011  SIO/STS   |
|                         Digiquartz 401K-105                                                           |
|                                                                                                       |
|Primary Pump Circuit                                                                                   |
|    Temperature (T1)     SBE3plus             03P-4924      Freq.0     1-83     24 Oct 2011  SIO/STS   |
|    Conductivity (C1a)   SBE4C                04-3369       Freq.1     1-45     21 Feb 2012    SBE     |
|    Conductivity (C1b)   SBE4C                04-3429       Freq.1     46-86    21 Feb 2012    SBE     |
|    Pump                 SBE5T                05-4374                  1-83                            |
|                                                                                                       |
|Secondary Pump Circuit                                                                                 |
|    Temperature (T2)     SBE3plus             03P-4907      Freq.3     1-83     08 Feb 2012  SIO/STS   |
|    Conductivity (C2)    SBE4C                04-3399       Freq.4     1-86     21 Feb 2012    SBE     |
|    Pump                 SBE5T                05-4160                  1-53                            |
|    Pump                 SBE5T                05-4377                  54-83                           |
|    Dissolved Oxygen     SBE43                43-0614       Aux2/V2 1-53, 55-83 18 Feb 2012    SBE     |
|    Dissolved Oxygen     SBE43                43-0186       Aux2/V2     54      18 Feb 2012    SBE     |
|                                                                                                       |
|                                                                                                       |
|Transmissometer (TAMU)   WET Labs C-STAR      CST-327DR     Aux2/V3    1-43     30 Nov 2010  WET Labs  |
|Transmissometer          WET Labs C-STAR      CST-492DR     Aux2/V3    44-83    02 Dec 2008  WET Labs  |
|                                                                                                       |
|Altimeter (500m range)   Simrad 807           9711091       Aux1/V0    1-83                            |
|                                                                                                       |
|Load Cell/Tension (WHOI) 3PSInc LP-5K-2000    A0512124      Aux3/V4    1-83                            |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|LADCP Down (UH)          RDI Workhorse 150kHz 16283                    1-83                            |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Deck Unit (in lab)       SBE11plus V2         11P21561-0518            1-83                            |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   * All sensors belong to SIO/STS/ODF, unless otherwise noted.
   ** SBE = Sea-Bird Electronics

            Table 1.3.0 CLIVAR A20 Rosette Underwater Electronics.


An 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 SBE35RT was utilized
per the manufacturer's specifications and instructions, as described on the
Sea-Bird Electronics website
( http://www.seabird.com ).

The SBE9plus CTD was connected to the SBE32 36-place carousel, providing
for sea cable operation.  The Markey DESH-5 starboard/aft winch, with an
0.322" EM sea cable, was used for Stations 1 through 36.  The 0.681" fiber
optic cable on the RV Atlantis's Markey DUTW-9-11 port-side winch was used
for all remaining casts.

A new termination was done before the first use of each sea cable.  Only
one conductor in the DESH-5 three-conductor wire was used for power and
signal; the sea cable armor was used for ground.  Two inner conductors from
the 0.681" fiber optic cable were used, one for power and signal, the other
for ground (return).  Power to the SBE9plus CTD and sensors, SBE32 carousel
and Simrad altimeter was provided through the sea cable from the SBE11plus
deck unit in the computer lab.

1.4.  Navigation and Bathymetry Data Acquisition

Navigation data were acquired at 1-second intervals from the ship's SeaNav
2050 GPS receiver by a Linux system beginning 19 April 2012 at 1330z,
before the RV Atlantis left the dock in Bridgetown, Barbados.

Centerbeam bathymetric data from the Kongsberg EM-122 multibeam echosounder
system were available shortly after leaving port.  Bottom depths associated
with rosette casts were recorded on the Console Logs during deployments.





                            -11-

Depth data displayed by the ship were 6m deeper than the data from the
feed.  The 6m hull depth offset was added to STS stored depth data for all
events in the hydrographic database.

Corrected multibeam center depths are reported for each cast event in the
WOCE and Exchange format files.

1.5.  CTD Data Acquisition and Processing

The CTD data acquisition system consisted of an SBE-11plus (V2) deck unit
and four networked generic PC workstations running CentOS-5.6 Linux.  Each
PC workstation was configured with a color graphics display, keyboard,
trackball and DVD+RW drive. One system had a Comtrol Rocketport PCI
multiple port 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 as 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
as the website and database server and maintained the hydrographic database
for A20. Redundant backups were managed automatically.

Shipboard CTD data processing was performed automatically during and after
each deployment using SIO/STS CTD processing software v.5.1.6-1.

During acquisition, the raw CTD data were converted to engineering units,
filtered, response-corrected, calibrated and decimated to a more manageable
0.5-second time series. Pre-cruise laboratory calibrations for pressure,
temperature and conductivity were also 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 data 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 raw 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 generated from the down cast data.  The pressure-series
data were used by the web service for interactive plots, sections and CTD
data distribution.  Time-series data were also available for distribution
through the website.

CTD 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.  CTD dissolved oxygen sensor data were
calibrated to check sample data.

As bottle salinity and oxygen results became available, they were used to
refine shipboard conductivity and oxygen sensor calibrations.  Theta-
Salinity and theta-O2 comparisons were made between down and up casts as
well as between groups of adjacent deployments.

A total of 83 casts were made using the 36-place CTD/LADCP rosette.
Further elaboration of CTD procedures specific to this cruise are found in
the next section.

Secondary T/C sensors were used for all reported CTD data because:


     o   the same sensor pair was used throughout the cruise,
     o   down/up data agreed better than primaries,
     o   there was less low-level noise in the data.



The following table identifies problems noted during specific casts (NOTE:
mwo = meters of wire out on winch):




                            -12-

station/
cast                Comment
15/1                Stopped at 4100m down: pressure 4160, bouncing
                    altimeter. 500-640db has pronounced features on upcast
                    not present on downcast (mostly in TCO, not so visible
                    in transmissometer).
16/1                Wire out zeroed unexpectedly at depth of 160m down.
                    Wire out rezeroed at ctd depth of 200m, 5-sec pause
                    during the re-zeroing. Paused at bottle trip 13 1579db.
21/1                Transmissometer had two large jumps on downcast at
                    ~650m and ~800m.  Scattering has been seen on last few
                    stations, not enough time to clean the instrument and
                    check it out (close stations).  All other sensors
                    appear okay. 1-minute stop at 204dbar for winch hand-
                    off between deck and lab, TCS + offset and density
                    -0.013 offset.  Code 3 for TS at 204dbar in ctdq file.
34/1                1381db stopped to check wire (1369mwo before bottle 16.
                    Found a fish hook type kink in the wire. Will
                    investigate at next station on up cast.
35/1                Stop at 1670m to repair wire, strand of wire was broken
                    and taped to repair. Transmissometer cable changed
                    after cast.
36/1                Transmissometer cable changed prior to this cast.
                    1675.4m, the CTD was stopped to inspect the wire.
37/1                Starboard 0.681" fiber optic cable employed. 1625UTC
                    winch stopped itself, 2306m 2280mwo, started again at
                    1633UTC. Someone outside setting up the track system
                    bumped the emergency stop.
43/1                Large discontinuity in transmissometer signal, and
                    noise below 1000m. Cast delayed screw loose in winch
                    drum junction box. CTD at 200mwo out on way down. Cast
                    resumed at 1317, stopped at 1310.
44/1                Transmissometer changed with CST-492DR prior to cast.
46/1                Primary conductivity changed to 04-3429 prior to cast.
54/1                CTDO sensor changed to 43-0186 prior to cast to check
                    noise level.
55/1                CTDO sensor changed back to 43-0614 (orig.) and pump2
                    changed to 05-4377 before cast. The winch was paused at
                    ~139m for a couple of minutes to check into C1/C2
                    disagreement (resolved post-cast by using correct
                    configuration data).
62/1                Stopped at 200m on the down cast. 2220 to 2222. Ship
                    needed to reposition because the wire angle was coming
                    into the ship.
63/1                Winch stopped at 36m, 0408UTC to 0414UTC to reposition
                    because of inboard wire angle. Stopped again 0428UTC,
                    460m, large fluctuation in tension, restarted within 10
                    seconds.
65/1                675-800m slowed to 50m/min because of tension
                    fluctuations on the winch.
81/1                Lab performed winch operations from the surface on
                    down, back up to 35m, just before the surface bottle
                    was tripped.


1.6.  CTD Sensor Laboratory Calibrations

Laboratory calibrations of the CTD pressure, temperature, conductivity and
dissolved oxygen sensors were performed prior to CLIVAR A20.  The sensors
and calibration dates are listed in Table 1.2.0.  Copies of the calibration
sheets for Pressure, Temperature, Conductivity, and Dissolved Oxygen
sensors, as well as factory and deck calibrations for the TAMU and SIO/STS
Transmissometers, are in Appendix D.

1.7.  CTD Shipboard Calibration Procedures

CTD #796 was used for all CTD/rosette/LADCP casts during A20.  The CTD was
deployed with all sensors and pumps aligned vertically, as recommended by
SBE.

The SBE35RT Digital Reversing Thermometer (S/N 3528706-0035) served as an
independent calibration check for T1 and T2 sensors.  In situ salinity and
dissolved O2 check samples collected during each cast were used to
calibrate the conductivity and dissolved O2 sensors.




                            -13-

1.7.1.  CTD Pressure

The Paroscientific Digiquartz pressure transducer (S/N 796-98627) was
calibrated in October 2011 at the SIO/STS Calibration Facility.  The
calibration coefficients provided on the report were used to convert
frequencies to pressure.  The SIO/STS pressure calibration coefficients
already incorporate the slope and offset term usually provided by
Paroscientific.

Typically, CTDs are calibrated horizontally but deployed vertically.  This
usually necessitates the application of an offset in order to obtain a
reading of zero decibars on the deck. A review of this showed that an
offset of -0.7 dbar was needed.  This offset was applied to all casts on
A20.

Residual pressure offsets (the difference between the first and last
submerged pressures) varied from -0.14 to +0.22 dbar.  Pre- and post-cast
on-deck/out-of-water pressure offsets varied from -0.07 to +0.33 dbar
before the casts, and -0.12 to +0.30 dbar after the casts.

1.7.2.  CTD Temperature

Each cast on A20 utilized two SBE3plus temperature sensors (T1:03P-4924 and
T2:03P-4907).

Calibration coefficients derived from the pre-cruise calibrations, plus
shipboard temperature corrections determined during the cruise, were
applied to raw primary and secondary sensor data during each cast.

A single SBE35RT (3528706-0035) was used as a tertiary temperature check.
It was located equidistant between T1 and T2 with the sensing element
aligned in a horizontal 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 deg.C/year.
The SBE35RT on CLIVAR A20 was set to internally average over 5 sampling
cycles (a total of 5.5 seconds).

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.

Both temperature sensors were first examined for drift with time using the
more stable SBE35RT in range of deeper trip levels (1200-6000 dbar).
Neither T1 nor T2 required a time-based correction, however they both
required a slight offset to give values consistent with those of the
SBE35RT (about -0.0009 deg.C for T1 and about +0.0007 deg.C for T2).  None
of the sensors exhibited a temperature-dependent slope.

The final corrections for T2 temperature data reported on CLIVAR A20 are
summarized in Appendix A.  All corrections made to T2 temperatures had the
form:

                               T2ITS90=T2+t0


Residual temperature differences after correction are shown in figures
1.7.2.0 through 1.7.2.8.

  Figure 1.7.2.0 SBE35RT-T1 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

     Figure 1.7.2.1 Deep SBE35RT-T1 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

  Figure 1.7.2.2 SBE35RT-T2 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

     Figure 1.7.2.3 Deep SBE35RT-T2 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

     Figure 1.7.2.4 T1-T2 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

       Figure 1.7.2.5 Deep T1-T2 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

  Figure 1.7.2.6 SBE35RT-T1 by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).





                            -14-

  Figure 1.7.2.7 SBE35RT-T2 by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

    Figure 1.7.2.8 T1-T2 by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).


The 95% confidence limits for the mean low-gradient differences are
+/-0.01223 deg.C for SBE35RT-T2 and +/-0.00474 deg.C for T1-T2.  The 95%
confidence limit for deep temperature residuals (where pressure > 2000db)
is +/-0.00132 deg.C for SBE35RT-T2 and +/-0.00087 deg.C for T1-T2.


1.7.3.  CTD Conductivity

Two SBE4C primary conductivity sensors (C1a: 04-3369/stas:1-45 and C1b:
04-3429/stas:46-81) and one secondary conductivity sensor (C2: 04-3399)
were used during CLIVAR A20 .  Secondary sensor data were used to report
final CTD data because they performed better than the primary sensors on
the previous leg (CLIVAR A22).

Calibration coefficients derived from the pre-cruise calibrations were
applied to convert raw frequencies to conductivity. Shipboard conductivity
corrections, determined during the cruise, were applied to primary and
secondary conductivity data for each cast.

Corrections for both CTD temperature sensors were finalized before
analyzing conductivity differences.  Two independent metrics of calibration
accuracy were examined. At each bottle closure, the primary and secondary
conductivity were compared with each other. Each sensor was also compared
to conductivity calculated from check sample salinities using CTD pressure
and temperature.

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

Figure 1.7.3.0 Coherence of conductivity differences as a function of
                         temperature differences.


Uncorrected conductivity comparisons are shown in figures 1.7.3.1 through
1.7.3.3.

Figure 1.7.3.1 Uncorrected CBottle-C1 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.7.3.2 Uncorrected CBottle-C2 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.7.3.3 Uncorrected C1-C2 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.7.3.3 Uncorrected  CBottle-C1 by pressure (-0.01
                        deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.7.3.3 Uncorrected  CBottle-C2 by pressure (-0.01
                        deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).


Calibrations to the conductivity sensors were performed underway and were
updated as needed.  As the cruise continued, analysts began to note an
anomalous upturn in CBottle-CCTD towards the bottom of the deepest casts
(5000-6000 dbar).  Starting at about 5000 dbar, CBottle-CCTD showed a rise
with pressure resulting in a final offset of +0.0015 mS/cm in CBottle-CCTD
at around 6000 dbar.  This peculiar phenomenon was observed in all 3
conductivity sensors (C1a, C1b, and C2).  During final calibrations, all
underway corrections were cleared and reevaluated.  It was found that doing
the same type of corrections to each of the three conductivity sensors
resulted in consistent, acceptable data with the slopes removed.

First, a second-order correction was applied to CBottle-CCTD versus
pressure.  This fit was applied to remove the deep upturn feature.  In
order to minimize the effects of this correction on the surface samples,
different depth ranges were considered.  It was found that the pressure
range of 1400-6000 dbar was optimal for sensors C1a and C1b while the
pressure range of 1500-6000 dbar was optimal for C2.





                            -15-

CBottle-CCTD differences were then evaluated for response to temperature
and/or conductivity, which typically shifts between pre- and post-cruise
SBE laboratory calibrations.  A comparison of these residual C1a, C1b, and
C2 differences showed additional small conductivity-dependent corrections
were required.  For C1a, this correction lowered near-surface values by
about 0.0005 mS/cm compared to the deepest data.  For C1b, this correction
was similar and lowered near-surface values by about 0.0003 mS/cm compared
to the deepest data.  C2 also showed a strong first-order dependence on
conductivity.  The C2 correction raised near-surface values by about 0.0003
mS/cm.

Next, offsets for each conductivity sensor were evaluated for drift with
time using CBottle-CCTD differences from a deeper, limited pressure range
(1200-2500 dbars for C1a,C1b; 1500-2500 for C2).  As a result of the
previously mentioned calibrations, a second order correction was needed for
all three sensors with respect to time.

After these corrections, none of the conductivity sensors showed the
original deep, pressure-related offsets.  Details on these corrections can
be found in Appendix A.


Deep Theta-S overlays showed that deep CTD data overlaid well for the data
reported.  The residual conductivity differences after correction are shown
in figures 1.7.3.4 through 1.7.3.15.

Figure 1.7.3.4 Corrected CBottle-C1 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.7.3.5 Deep Corrected CBottle-C1 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

Figure 1.7.3.6 Corrected CBottle-C2 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.7.3.7 Deep Corrected CBottle-C2 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

Figure 1.7.3.8 Corrected C1-C2 by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

  Figure 1.7.3.9 Deep Corrected C1-C2 by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

Figure 1.7.3.10 Corrected CBottle-C1 by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.7.3.11 Corrected CBottle-C2 by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.7.3.12 Corrected C1-C2 by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.7.3.13 Corrected CBottle-C1 by conductivity (-0.01
                        deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.7.3.14 Corrected CBottle-C2 by conductivity (-0.01
                        deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.7.3.15 Corrected C1-C2 by conductivity (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

The final corrections for the secondary sensors used on CLIVAR A20 are
summarized in Appendix A.  Corrections made to C2 conductivity sensor had
the form:

                             C2cor=C2+c1C2+c0

Salinity residuals after applying shipboard P/T/C corrections are
summarized in figures 1.7.3.16 through 1.7.3.18.  Only CTD and bottle
salinity data with "acceptable" quality codes are included in the
differences.
Figure 1.7.3.16 Salinity residuals by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.7.3.17 Salinity residuals by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

Figure 1.7.3.18 Deep Salinity residuals by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

Figures 1.7.3.17 and 1.7.3.18 represent estimates of the salinity accuracy
of CLIVAR A20.  The 95% confidence limits are +/-0.0015 PSU relative to
bottle salinities for deep salinities, and +/-0.0421 PSU relative to bottle
salinities for all salinities, where T1-T2 is within +/-0.01 deg.C.






                            -16-

1.7.4.  CTD Dissolved Oxygen

A single SBE43 dissolved O2 sensor (DO/43-0614) was used during most of
CLIVAR A20.  A backup sensor (DO/43-0186) was used on station 54 only, in
order to see if some of the low-level noise in the oxygen sensor went away.
The DO sensor was plumbed into the T2/C2 pump circuit after C2.

The DO sensor was calibrated to dissolved O2 bottle 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 bottle
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 the sensor.  These time constants are sensor-specific but applicable to
an entire cruise.  Next, casts were fit individually to bottle sample data.
Consecutive casts were compared on plots of Theta vs O2 to verify
consistency.

At the end of the cruise, standard and blank values for bottle oxygen data
were smoothed, and the bottle oxygen values were recalculated.  The changes
to bottle oxygen values were small and had minimal effect on the CTD oxygen
fits determined during the cruise.

CTD dissolved O2 residuals are shown in figures 1.7.4.0-1.7.4.2.

 Figure 1.7.4.0 O2 residuals by station (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

 Figure 1.7.4.1 O2 residuals by pressure (-0.01 deg.C<=T1-T2<=0.01 deg.C).

    Figure 1.7.4.2 Deep O2 residuals by station (Pressure >= 2000dbar).

The standard deviations of 2.588 umol/kg for all oxygens and 0.565 umol/kg
for deep oxygens are only presented as general indicators of goodness of
fit.  SIO/STS makes no claims regarding the precision or accuracy of CTD
dissolved O2 data.

The general form of the SIO/STS DO sensor response model equation for Clark
cells follows Brown and Morrison [Brow78], Millard [Mill82] and Owens &
Millard  [Owen85].  SIO/STS models DO sensor responses with lagged CTD
data.  In situ pressure and temperature are filtered to match the sensor
responses. Time constants for the pressure response (Taup), a slow (TauTf)
and fast (TauTs) thermal response, package velocity (TaudP), thermal
diffusion (TaudT) and pressure hysteresis (Tauh) 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:
























                            -17-

     O2ml/l=[C1*VDO*e**(C2*Ph/5000)+C3]*fsat(T,P)*e**(C4*Tl+C5*Ts+C7*Pl+C6*dOc/dt+C8*dP/dt+C9*dT)(1.7.4.0)

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           in situ temperature (deg.C);
P           in situ pressure (decibars);
Ph          Low-pass filtered hysteresis pressure (decibars);
Tl          Long-response low-pass filtered temperature (deg.C);
Ts          Short-response low-pass filtered temperature (deg.C);
Pl          Low-pass filtered pressure (decibars);
dOc/dt      Sensor current gradient (uamps/sec);
dP/dt       Filtered package velocity (db/sec);
dT          low-pass filtered thermal diffusion estimate (Ts - Tl).
C4-C9       Response coefficients.


CTD O2ml/l data are converted to umol/kg units on demand.

1.8.  Bottle Sampling

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


     o   CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, SF6 and CCl4
     o   3He
     o   Dissolved O2
     o   Oxygen Isotopes
     o   Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC)
     o   pH
     o   Total Alkalinity
     o   13C- and 14C-DIC
     o   Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN)
     o   Tritium
     o   Nutrients
     o   14C-DOC
     o   Salinity
     o   Stable Isotope Probing



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 mis-tripped bottles.

Once individual samples had been drawn and properly prepared, they were
distributed for analysis.  Oxygen, nutrient and salinity analyses were
performed 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 8.1.23) running on a Linux
system. A web service (OpenACS 5.5.0 and AOLServer 4.5.1) front-end




                            -18-

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:


+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                 Rosette Samples Stations      1-    83                  |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|              Reported                  WHP Quality Codes                |
|              levels       1        2    3       4     5      7       9  |
+------------++----------+------------------------------------------------+
| Bottle     ||  2554    |  0     2541    0      11     0      0       2  |
| CTD Salt   ||  2554    |  0     2553    1       0     0      0       0  |
| CTD Oxy    ||  2545    |  0     2545    0       0     0      0       9  |
| Salinity   ||  2535    |  0     2506    4      25     4      0      15  |
| Oxygen     ||  2545    |  0     2525    4      16     1      0       8  |
| Silicate   ||  2542    |  0     2527    0      15     0      0      12  |
| Nitrate    ||  2542    |  0     2527    0      15     0      0      12  |
| Nitrite    ||  2542    |  0     2527    0      15     0      0      12  |
| Phosphate  ||  2542    |  0     2527    0      15     0      0      12  |
+------------++----------+------------------------------------------------+
          Table 1.9.0 Frequency of WHP quality flag assignments.


Additionally, data investigation comments are presented in Appendix C.

Various consistency checks and detailed examination of the data continued
throughout the cruise.  Chief Scientist, Mike McCartney, reviewed the data
and compared it with historical data sets.

1.10.  Salinity Analysis

Equipment and Techniques

A Guildline Autosal 8400B salinometer (S/N 65-740) was used for this cruise
which was located located in RV Atlantis's Hydro Lab.  The salinometer
utilizes National Instruments interface to decode Autosal data and
communicate with windows based acquisition PC.

Samples were analyzed after they had equilibrated to laboratory
temperature, usually within 4-18 hours after collection.  The salinometers
were standardized for each group of analysis (up to 36 samples) using at
least two fresh vials of standard seawater per group.

Salinometer measurements were aided by a computer using LabVIEW software
developed by SIO/STS.  The software maintained an Autosal log of each
salinometer run which included salinometer settings and air and bath
temperatures.  The air temperature was displayed and monitored via digital
thermometer.  The program guided the operator through the standardization
procedure and making sample measurements.

Standardization procedures included flushing the cell at least 2 times with
a fresh vial of Standard Seawater (SSW), setting the flow rate to a low
value 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.






                            -19-

Samples were run using 2 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 about the
sample.

A system of fans were used to expedite equilibrating salinity samples.
Cases of samples were placed on a frame with a fan attached to help bring
them to room temperature.  They were removed and set on a shelf near the
Autosal for storage for further equilibration.  The next or current case to
be run sat to the left of the Autosal, next to the standard seawater.  The
amount of time each case spent at each location varied depending on sample
temperature and rate of analysis by the operator.

General maintenance was performed on the salinometer on regular or as
needed basis.  These steps include checking that bubbles were not forming
on the coils and a cleaning with soapy water, followed by rinses with DI
water then three to four flushing with old standard seawater.


Sampling and Data Processing

A total of 2539 salinity samples were measurements were made.  134 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 equilibration times were logged for all casts.  The
samples were measured with an external thermometer by placing the probe
against the salinity bottle for 2-3 minutes. When the temperature was close
to the bath temperature, 1-2 degrees the samples for the cast were
analyzed.  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 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. Discrete salinity data was 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 at 24 deg.C.  The ambient air
temperature varied from 21 to 24 deg.C during the cruise.


Standards

IAPSO Standard Seawater Batches P-153 was used to standardize all stations.


Analytical Problems

There were no major difficulties.  Individual problems which may have
affected a particular data value are tabulated in Appendix C.


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.





                            -20-

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 ODF PC software compiled in
LabVIEW.  Thiosulfate was dispensed by a Brickman Dosimat 665 buret driver
fitted with a 1.0 mL buret.  The ODF method 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).
Standard KIO3 solutions prepared ashore 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

2545 samples were analyzed on CLIVAR A20. Samples were collected for
dissolved oxygen analyses soon after the rosette was brought on board.  Six
different cases of 24 flasks each were rotated by station to minimize any
potential flask calibration issues.  Using a silicone drawing tube, nominal
125ml volume-calibrated iodine flasks were rinsed 3 times with minimal
agitation, then filled and allowed to overflow for at least 3 flask
volumes.  The sample drawing temperatures were measured with an electronic
resistance temperature detector (OmegaTM HH370 RTD) embedded in the drawing
tube.  These temperatures were used to calculate umol/kg concentrations,
and as a diagnostic check of bottle integrity.  Reagents (MnCl2 then
NaI/NaOH) were added to fix the oxygen before stoppering.  The flasks were
shaken to assure thorough dispersion of the precipitate, once immediately
after drawing, and then again after about 20 minutes. A water seal was
applied to the rim of each bottle in between shakes.

The samples were analyzed within 1-2 hours of collection, and the data
incorporated into the cruise database.

Thiosulfate normalities were calculated from each standardization and
corrected to 20 deg.C.  The thiosulfate normalities and blanks were
monitored for possible drifting or possible problems when new reagents were
used.  An average blank and thiosulfate normality were used to recalculate
oxygen concentrations.  The same batch of thiosulfate prepared before
departure was used for the duration of the cruise. In addition, no titrator
equipment changes were made, allowing for all standardization and blank
calculations throughout all stations to be averaged.  The difference
between the original and "smoothed" data averaged 0.15% over course of the
cruise.

Bottle oxygen data was reviewed ensuring proper station, cast, bottle
number, flask, and draw temperature were entered properly.  Comments made
during analysis were reviewed. All anomalous actions were investigated and
resolved.  If an incorrect end point was encountered, the analyst re-
examined raw data and the program recalculated a correct end point.

After the data was uploaded to the database, bottle oxygen was graphically
compared with CTD oxygen and adjoining stations.  Any points that appeared
erroneous were reviewed and comments were made regarding the final outcome
of the investigation.  These investigations and final data coding are
reported in Appendix C.

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.








                            -21-

Standards

Liquid potassium iodate standards were prepared and tested 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 of powder temperature of solution and
flask volume at 70 deg.C.  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.

Analytical Problems

Analytical problems experienced were minimal. Those issues experienced were
caused by unknown malfunctions in the LabVIEW titration software, and did
not result in lost samples or erroneous endpoints.

The first typically occurred on titrations following an endpoint that had
been aborted, resulting in the program going into a very-low dispensing
mode before the titration had neared the endpoint. To prevent the sample
from titrating for a length of time that might have affected the titration,
the volume of thiosulfate would be dispensed and the sample would be
aborted, then restarted. The previously dispensed volume was then added to
volume dispensed during the second titration. This solution always resulted
in an endpoint that closely matched the adjacent bottle points and the CTD
profile.

There were a couple of instances where the titrator rig went prematurely
into the low dispensing mode due to direct sunlight shining on the sample
bath and ultra-violet light sensor. The issue was noticed and sources of
direct natural light were then covered at times when sunlight might affect
the detection limits of the rig.

1.12.  Nutrient Analysis

Summary of Analysis

2542 samples from 83 CTD stations.

The cruise started with new pump tubes and they were changed once after
station 044.  Two sets of primary/secondary standards were made during the
course of the cruise.  The cadmium column efficiency was checked when
nitrate sensitivity dropped.  A column was replaced if the efficiency was
below 97%.


Equipment and Techniques

Nutrient analyses (phosphate, silicate, nitrate plus nitrite, and nitrite)
were performed on a Seal Analytical continuous-flow AutoAnalyzer 3 (AA3).
After each run, the charts were reviewed for any problems and final
concentrations (in uM or micromoles per liter) were calculated using SEAL
Analytical AACE 6.07 software.

The analytical methods used are described by Gordon et al. [Gord92], Hager
et al. [Hage68] and Atlas et al. [Atla71].  The details of modification of
analytical methods used for this cruise are also compatible with the
methods described in the nutrient section of the GO-SHIP repeat hydrography
manual  [Hyde10].


Nitrate/Nitrite Analysis

A modification of the Armstrong et al. [Arms67] procedure was used for the
analysis of nitrate and nitrite. For nitrate analysis, a seawater sample
was passed through a cadmium column where the nitrate was reduced to
nitrite.  This nitrite was then diazotized with sulfanilamide and coupled
with N-(1-naphthyl)-ethylenediamine to form a red dye.  The sample was then
passed through a 10mm flowcell and absorbance measured at 540nm. The
procedure was the same for the nitrite analysis but without the cadmium
column.







                            -22-

REAGENTS

Sulfanilamide

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

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

N-(1-Naphthyl)-ethylenediamine dihydrochloride (N-1-N)

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

Imidazole Buffer

Dissolve 13.6g imidazole in ~3.8 liters DIW.  Stir for at least 30 minutes
to completely dissolve. Add 60 ml of CuSO4 + NH4Cl mix (see below). Add 4
drops 40% Surfynol 465/485 surfactant. Let sit overnight before proceeding.
Using a calibrated pH meter, adjust to pH of 7.83-7.85 with 10% (1.2N) HCl
(about 20-30 ml of acid, depending on exact strength).  Bring final
solution to 4L with DIW.  Store at room temperature.

NH4Cl + CuSO4 mix

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


Phosphate Analysis

Ortho-Phosphate was analysed using a modification of the Bernhardt and
Wilhelms [Bern67] method. Acidified ammonium molybdate was added to a
seawater sample to produce phosphomolybdic acid, which was then reduced to
phosphomolybdous acid (a blue compound) following the addition of
dihydrazine sulfate.  The sample was passed through a 10mm flowcell and
absorbance measured at 820nm.

REAGENTS

Ammonium Molybdate

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

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

Dihydrazine Sulfate

Dissolve 6.4g dihydrazine sulfate in DIW, bring to 1 liter volume and
refrigerate.

Silicate Analysis

Silicate was analyzed using the technique of Armstrong et al. [Arms67].
Acidified ammonium molybdate was added to a seawater sample to produce
silicomolybdic acid which was then reduced to silicomolybdous acid (a blue
compound) following the addition of stannous chloride.  The sample was
passed through a 10mm flowcell and measured at 660nm.

REAGENTS

Tartaric Acid

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





                            -23-

Ammonium Molybdate

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

Stannous Chloride stock (as needed)

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

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

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


Sampling

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


Data collection and processing

Data collection and processing was done with the software (ACCE ver 6.07)
provided with the instrument from Seal Analytical.  After each run, the
charts were reviewed for any problems during the run, any blank was
subtracted, and final concentrations (uM) were calculated, based on a
linear curve fit.  Once the run was reviewed and concentrations calculated
a text file was created.  That text file was reviewed for possible problems
and then converted to another text file with only sample identifiers and
nutrient concentrations that was merged with other bottle data.  The values
are converted to micro-moles per kilogram when merged with the CTD trip
information and other bottle data.


Standards and Glassware calibration

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

All glass volumetric flasks and pipettes were gravimetrically calibrated
prior to the cruise.   The primary standards were dried and weighed out to
0.1 mg prior to the cruise.  The exact weight was noted for future
reference.  When primary standards were made, the flask volume at 20 deg.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.  Primary and secondary standards were
made up every 7-10 days.  The new standards were compared to the old before
use.

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

Standards used for the analysis were a combination of reference materials
for nutrients in seawater (RMNS) and a dilution of the secondary standard.
The RMNS preparation, verification, and suggested protocol for use of the
material are described by Aoyama et al. [Aoya06] [Aoya07] [Aoya08] and Sato
et al. [Sato10].

RMNS batches BS, BU, BT, and BD were used on this cruise.  The high working
standard was made up using the in house secondary standard and low nutrient
seawater (LNSW).  Surface water having low nutrient concentration was taken




                            -24-

and filtered using 0.45 micrometer pore size membrane filter. This water
was stored in 20 liter cubitainer within a cardboard box. The
concentrations of nutrient of this water were measured carefully in Jul
2008.  Standardizations were performed at the beginning of each group of
samples.  Two different batches of LNSW were used on the cruise.  The first
was used for stations 1-35 and a different batch of LNSW was used for
stations 36-83.


              Std.    N+N     PO4    SiO3    NO2
              ------------------------------------------------
               BS    0.10    0.065   1.69    0.03
               BU    4.13    0.387   21.21   0.07
               BT    19.10   1.35    42.83   0.48
               BD    30.59   2.244   67.27   0.05
              Std5   46.54   3.645   91.66   1.51   sta 1-35
              Std5   46.56   3.650   91.66   1.52   sta 36-82

   Table 1.12.0 CLIVAR A20 Concentration of RMNS and high standard (uM)

Quality Control

All data were reported in uM (micromoles/liter). NO3, PO4, and NO2 were
reported to two decimal places and SiO3 to one. Accuracy is based on the
quality of the standards; the levels were:


                         Parameter   Accuracy (uM)
                         --------------------------
                            NO3          0.05
                            PO4          0.02
                           SiO3           2-4
                            NO2          0.05

                 Table 1.12.1 CLIVAR A20 Nutrient Accuracy

Precision numbers for the instrument were the same for NO3 and PO4 and a
little better for SiO3 and NO2 (1 and 0.01 respectively).

The detection limits for the methods/instrumentation were:


                     Parameter   Detection Limits (uM)
                     ----------------------------------
                      NO3+NO2            0.02
                        PO4              0.02
                       SiO3               0.5
                        NO2              0.02

             Table 1.12.2 CLIVAR A20 Nutrient Detection Limits

As is standard ODF practice, a deep calibration check sample was run with
each set of samples and the data are tabulated below.


                      Parameter   Concentration (uM)
                      -------------------------------
                         NO3        18.22 +/- 0.07
                         PO4        1.22 +/- 0.01
                        SiO3        18.81 +/- 0.20

           Table 1.12.3 CLIVAR A20 Concentrations of deep sample

Analytical Problems

Nitrate sensitivity was low on some stations due to cadmium column
degradation.  Column reduction efficiencies were monitored and a number of
column changes were made over the course of the cruise.  The  degradation
of the columns was eventually tracked to the ph of the imidazole buffer
solution.  The ph had not been adjusted sufficiently.  Once the ph was
adjusted and monitored, nitrate sensitivity remained consistent.







                            -25-

References

Aoya06.
     Aoyama, M., "Intercomparison Exercise for Reference Material for
     Nutrients in Seawater in a Seawater Matrix," Technical Reports of the
     Meteorological Research Institute No.50, p. 91, Tsukuba, Japan.
     (2006a).

Aoya08.
     Aoyama, M., Barwell-Clark, J., Becker, S., Blum, M., Braga, E.S.,
     Coverly, S.C., Czobik, E., Dahllof, I., Dai, M.H., Donnell, G.O.,
     Engelke, C., Gong, G.C., Hong, Gi-Hoon, Hydes, D. J., Jin, M. M.,
     Kasai, H., Kerouel, R., Kiyomono, Y., Knockaert, M., Kress, N.,
     Krogslund, K. A., Kumagai, M., Leterme, S., Li, Yarong, Masuda, S.,
     Miyao, T., Moutin, T., Murata, A., Nagai, N., Nausch, G., Ngirchechol,
     M. K., Nybakk, A., Ogawa, H., Ooijen, J. van, Ota, H., Pan, J. M.,
     Payne, C., Pierre-Duplessix, O., Pujo-Pay, M., Raabe, T., Saito, K.,
     Sato, K., Schmidt, C., Schuett, M., Shammon, T. M., Sun, J., Tanhua,
     T., White, L., Woodward, E.M.S., Worsfold, P., Yeats, P., Yoshimura,
     T., A.Youenou, and Zhang, J. Z., "2006 Intercomparison Exercise for
     Reference Material for Nutrients in Seawater in a Seawater Matrix,"
     Technical Reports of the Meteorological Research Institute No. 58, p.
     104pp (2008).

Aoya07.
     Aoyama, M., Susan, B., Minhan, D., Hideshi, D., Louis, I. G., Kasai,
     H., Roger, K., Nurit, K., Doug, M., Murata, A., Nagai, N., Ogawa, H.,
     Ota, H., Saito, H., Saito, K., Shimizu, T., Takano, H., Tsuda, A.,
     Yokouchi, K., and Agnes, Y., "Recent Comparability of Oceanographic
     Nutrients Data: Results of a 2003 Intercomparison Exercise Using
     Reference Materials.," Analytical Sciences, 23: 115, pp. 1-1154
     (2007).

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

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

Bern67.
     Bernhardt, H. and Wilhelms, A., "The continuous determination of low
     level iron, soluble phosphate and total phosphate with the
     AutoAnalyzer," Technicon Symposia, I, pp. 385-389 (1967).

Brow78.
     Brown, N. L. and Morrison, G. K., "WHOI/Brown conductivity,
     temperature and depth microprofiler," Technical Report No. 78-23,
     Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (1978).

Carp65.
     Carpenter, J. H., "The Chesapeake Bay Institute technique for the
     Winkler dissolved oxygen method," Limnology and Oceanography, 10, pp.
     141-143 (1965).

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).






                            -26-

Hage68.
     Hager, S. W., Gordon, L. I., and Park, 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).

Hyde10.
     Hydes, D. J., Aoyama, M., Aminot, A., Bakker, K., Becker, S., Coverly,
     S., Daniel, A., Dickson, A. G., Grosso, O., Kerouel, R., Ooijen, J.
     van, Sato, K., Tanhua, T., Woodward, E. M. S., and Zhang, J. Z.,
     "Determination of Dissolved Nutrients (N, P, Si) in Seawater with High
     Precision and Inter-Comparability Using Gas-Segmented Continuous Flow
     Analysers" in GO-SHIP Repeat Hydrography Manual: A Collection of
     Expert Reports and Guidelines. IOCCP Report No. 14, ICPO Publication
     Series No 134 (2010a).

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.

Mill82.
     Millard, R. C., Jr., "CTD calibration and data processing techniques
     at WHOI using the practical salinity scale," Proc. Int. STD Conference
     and Workshop, p. 19, Mar. Tech. Soc., La Jolla, Ca. (1982).

Owen85.
     Owens, W. B. and Millard, R. C., Jr., "A new algorithm for CTD oxygen
     calibration," Journ. of Am. Meteorological Soc., 15, p. 621 (1985).

Sato10.
     Sato, K., Aoyama, M., and Becker, S., "RMNS as Calibration Standard
     Solution to Keep Comparability for Several Cruises in the World Ocean
     in 2000s.," Aoyama, M., Dickson, A.G., Hydes, D.J., Murata, A., Oh,
     J.R., Roose, P., Woodward, E.M.S., (Eds.) Comparability of nutrients
     in the world's ocean., pp. 43-56, Tsukuba, JAPAN: MOTHER TANK (2010b).

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



































                            -27-

                                Appendix A

     CLIVAR A20:  CTD Temperature and Conductivity Corrections Summary

        ITS-90 Temperature Coefficients               Conductivity Coefficients
 Sta/            corT = T + t0                 corC = cp2*corP2 + cp1*corP + c1*C + c0
 Cast                 t0                     cp2           cp1            c1          c0

001/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.010934
002/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.010950
003/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.010964
004/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.010977
005/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.010992
006/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011010
007/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011029
008/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011053
009/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011079
010/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011107

011/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011137
012/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011167
013/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011199
014/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011241
015/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011283
016/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011333
017/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011383
018/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011439
019/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011483
020/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011526

021/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011570
022/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011611
023/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011649
024/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011701
025/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011751
026/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011796
027/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011842
028/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011884
029/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011921
030/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011958

031/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011992
032/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012022
033/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012051
034/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012078
035/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012105
036/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012127
037/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012146
038/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012160
039/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012172
040/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012181

041/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012187
042/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012190
043/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012191
044/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012188
045/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012183
046/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012174
047/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012163
048/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012148
049/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012130
050/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012109

051/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012084
052/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012057
053/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.012029
054/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011997
055/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011959
056/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011922
057/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011881
058/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011835
059/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011793
060/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011743





                            -28-

        ITS-90 Temperature Coefficients               Conductivity Coefficients
 Sta/            corT = T + t0                 corC = cp2*corP2 + cp1*corP + c1*C + c0
 Cast                 t0                     cp2           cp1            c1          c0

061/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011690
062/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011635
063/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011593
064/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011545
065/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011499
066/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011436
067/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011369
068/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011300
069/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011247
070/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011200

071/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011147
072/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011094
073/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011048
074/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.011005
075/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.010960
076/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.010920
077/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.010881
078/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.010854
079/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.010828
080/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.010805

081/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.010789
082/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.010779
083/01              0.000668              1.42084e-10  -9.37089e-07  -2.51102e-04   0.010769

















































                            -29-

                                Appendix B

              Summary of CLIVAR A20 CTD Oxygen Time Constants
                        (time constants in seconds)

+------------------+----------------------------+-----------------+-------------+----------+-------------------+
|    Pressure      |        Temperature         |    Pressure     | O2 Gradient | Velocity |     Thermal       |
|Hysteresis (Tauh) | Long(TauTl) | Short(TauTs) | Gradient (Taup) |   (Tauog)   | (TaudP)  | Diffusion (TaudT) |
+------------------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-------------+----------+-------------------+
|      50.0        |    300.0    |     4.0      |      0.50       |    8.00     |  200.00  |       300.0       |
+------------------+-------------+--------------+-----------------+-------------+----------+-------------------+


        CLIVAR A20: Conversion Equation Coefficients for CTD Oxygen
                        (refer to Equation 1.7.4.0)

 Sta/    OcSlope    Offset   Phcoeff   Tlcoeff     Tscoeff     Plcoeff    dOc/dtcoeff  dP/dtcoeff   TdTcoeff
 Cast      (c1)      (c3)     (c2)       (c4)        (c5)        (c6)        (c7)         (c8)        (c9)

001/01   4.935e-04  -0.1696   5.1724  -9.481e-03   1.567e-02  -5.812e-02  -9.613e-04   -5.812e-02   5.940e-02
002/01   4.539e-04  -0.1752   3.9570  -1.181e-05   1.068e-02  -1.591e-01  -1.003e-04   -1.591e-01   4.886e-02
003/01   5.283e-04  -0.2997   2.6955   4.508e-03   3.649e-03  -6.730e-02  -7.410e-04   -6.730e-02   1.708e-02
004/01   9.011e-04  -0.3731  -2.7434  -1.424e-02  -1.792e-04   1.071e-01  -4.543e-04    1.071e-01   6.782e-03
005/01   4.633e-04  -0.1916  -0.5219   3.830e-03   5.575e-03  -5.343e-02  -8.053e-04   -5.343e-02  -4.247e-03
006/01   2.842e-04  -0.0167   3.9831   1.509e-02   5.730e-03  -6.946e-02  -3.027e-03   -6.946e-02   6.815e-03
007/01   4.385e-04  -0.1487  -0.7868   4.939e-03   5.131e-03  -5.372e-02  -1.265e-04   -5.372e-02  -3.610e-03
008/01   4.536e-04  -0.1384  -1.3149   6.990e-03   1.339e-03  -7.890e-02   1.244e-04   -7.890e-02   3.489e-03
009/01   3.631e-04  -0.1210  -0.4579   1.227e-02   4.517e-03  -4.476e-02  -1.975e-03   -4.476e-02  -1.411e-02
010/01   6.857e-04  -0.2504  -1.7640  -8.749e-03   2.670e-03   3.852e-02  -1.765e-03    3.852e-02   1.248e-02

011/01   6.040e-04  -0.1632  -2.1268  -8.582e-03   6.023e-03   1.785e-02  -6.788e-04    1.785e-02   1.926e-02
012/01   6.900e-04  -0.3252   0.6216  -6.867e-05  -2.806e-03   7.057e-03   4.958e-04    7.057e-03   1.258e-03
013/01   5.533e-04  -0.0910  -0.8293  -1.084e-02   9.914e-03  -9.832e-03  -3.590e-03   -9.832e-03   2.173e-02
014/01   6.306e-04  -0.2507   0.6591   6.355e-03  -8.563e-03   1.120e-02  -2.482e-03    1.120e-02   1.460e-02
015/01   5.970e-04  -0.2294  -0.0297  -1.919e-03   2.047e-03  -1.738e-03  -2.620e-03   -1.738e-03   2.325e-03
016/01   5.946e-04  -0.2303  -0.1418  -2.172e-03   2.533e-03  -1.653e-02  -5.913e-03   -1.653e-02  -1.984e-04
017/01   5.882e-04  -0.2308  -0.0798  -4.218e-03   5.409e-03  -2.414e-03  -3.896e-03   -2.414e-03  -4.501e-03
018/01   5.816e-04  -0.2008  -0.1435   1.248e-03  -1.295e-03  -7.265e-03   1.483e-03   -7.265e-03   7.459e-03
019/01   5.979e-04  -0.2341  -0.0715  -2.809e-03   2.958e-03  -9.153e-03  -9.877e-03   -9.153e-03  -3.305e-04
020/01   6.033e-04  -0.2485  -0.0579  -5.152e-04   9.644e-04  -7.341e-03   1.400e-04   -7.341e-03  -9.332e-04

021/01   5.960e-04  -0.2306  -0.0699  -2.053e-03   2.675e-03  -4.824e-03  -5.245e-04   -4.824e-03   1.321e-03
022/01   5.874e-04  -0.2130  -0.1086  -2.498e-03   3.132e-03  -8.830e-03   1.620e-03   -8.830e-03   2.845e-03
023/01   6.031e-04  -0.2418  -0.0721  -2.871e-03   3.011e-03  -1.094e-02   1.332e-03   -1.094e-02  -2.110e-03
024/01   6.013e-04  -0.2354  -0.0628  -8.599e-03   9.083e-03  -8.616e-03  -9.184e-06   -8.616e-03  -3.826e-03
025/01   5.993e-04  -0.2377  -0.0181  -3.701e-03   4.386e-03   4.422e-03  -3.607e-04    4.422e-03  -1.296e-03
026/01   5.960e-04  -0.2067  -0.1163  -2.949e-03   2.707e-03  -1.897e-02   3.864e-03   -1.897e-02   6.637e-03
027/01   5.993e-04  -0.2306  -0.0994  -2.993e-03   3.125e-03  -1.734e-02  -7.103e-03   -1.734e-02  -7.628e-04
028/01   6.086e-04  -0.2510  -0.0500  -2.815e-03   3.092e-03  -1.006e-02  -2.306e-03   -1.006e-02  -4.835e-03
029/01   5.780e-04  -0.2050  -0.1113  -6.723e-03   7.690e-03  -2.378e-03   1.077e-03   -2.378e-03   4.470e-04
030/01   5.968e-04  -0.2159  -0.0966  -3.644e-03   3.988e-03  -1.162e-02   7.215e-04   -1.162e-02   6.057e-03

031/01   5.910e-04  -0.2162  -0.0653  -3.517e-03   4.051e-03   1.538e-03   9.464e-04    1.538e-03   4.640e-03
032/01   5.990e-04  -0.2394  -0.0938  -1.926e-03   2.713e-03  -1.345e-02  -3.786e-04   -1.345e-02  -3.911e-03
033/01   5.685e-04  -0.1777  -0.1049  -1.123e-02   1.194e-02   4.849e-03   3.449e-03    4.849e-03  -2.817e-04
034/01   5.828e-04  -0.1838  -0.1231  -1.030e-02   1.061e-02  -1.149e-02  -4.156e-04   -1.149e-02   4.754e-03
035/01   6.180e-04  -0.2514  -0.0116   3.182e-03  -3.353e-03  -3.179e-03   3.389e-03   -3.179e-03   4.610e-03
036/01   5.847e-04  -0.2222  -0.1579  -2.753e-03   4.073e-03  -1.610e-02  -1.063e-03   -1.610e-02  -2.610e-03
037/01   5.637e-04  -0.1984  -0.2587  -3.595e-03   5.822e-03  -2.150e-02  -1.198e-03   -2.150e-02  -1.874e-03
038/01   5.981e-04  -0.2340  -0.0452   3.358e-03  -3.077e-03   1.801e-03   3.642e-03    1.801e-03   3.227e-03
039/01   5.943e-04  -0.2130  -0.0360  -5.956e-03   6.027e-03  -2.559e-03   1.463e-03   -2.559e-03   9.214e-04
040/01   6.001e-04  -0.2434  -0.0397  -4.333e-03   5.185e-03   1.684e-03   8.446e-03    1.684e-03  -2.829e-03

041/01   6.070e-04  -0.2575  -0.0583  -8.980e-04   1.623e-03  -7.878e-03   2.976e-03   -7.878e-03  -2.939e-03
042/01   5.971e-04  -0.2211  -0.1044  -3.578e-03   3.853e-03  -1.140e-02   1.296e-03   -1.140e-02   1.586e-03
043/01   5.750e-04  -0.2220  -0.1711  -7.556e-03   1.006e-02  -1.440e-02   4.639e-04   -1.440e-02  -1.233e-02
044/01   5.753e-04  -0.2153  -0.1511  -4.280e-03   6.184e-03  -9.960e-03   2.355e-03   -9.960e-03  -6.306e-03
045/01   5.904e-04  -0.2113  -0.1050  -7.487e-03   8.268e-03  -9.981e-03   1.320e-03   -9.981e-03  -2.565e-03
046/01   6.025e-04  -0.2382  -0.0080  -2.314e-03   3.181e-03   4.658e-03   5.190e-03    4.658e-03   1.655e-03
047/01   5.647e-04  -0.1943  -0.1583  -1.086e-02   1.289e-02  -1.129e-02  -2.487e-04   -1.129e-02  -1.199e-02
048/01   5.724e-04  -0.1933  -0.1274  -7.987e-03   9.700e-03  -4.380e-03  -2.323e-03   -4.380e-03  -3.057e-03
049/01   5.735e-04  -0.2089  -0.1299  -3.212e-03   5.368e-03  -8.411e-03   2.913e-03   -8.411e-03  -6.063e-03
050/01   5.957e-04  -0.2228  -0.0976  -1.778e-03   2.352e-03  -1.202e-02   5.220e-03   -1.202e-02  -2.137e-03





                            -30-

 Sta/    OcSlope    Offset   Phcoeff   Tlcoeff     Tscoeff     Plcoeff    dOc/dtcoeff  dP/dtcoeff   TdTcoeff
 Cast      (c1)      (c3)     (c2)       (c4)        (c5)        (c6)        (c7)         (c8)        (c9)

051/01   5.403e-04  -0.1529  -0.2718  -1.085e-02   1.386e-02  -1.070e-02   6.670e-03   -1.070e-02  -7.928e-03
052/01   5.384e-04  -0.1642  -0.3035  -1.328e-02   1.724e-02  -1.919e-02  -4.722e-04   -1.919e-02  -1.499e-02
053/01   6.049e-04  -0.2433  -0.0664  -2.197e-03   3.033e-03  -7.965e-03   5.316e-03   -7.965e-03  -2.669e-03
054/01   4.302e-04  -0.1402  -0.1483  -1.081e-02   1.406e-02  -1.128e-02  -1.207e-03   -1.128e-02  -6.520e-03
055/01   5.617e-04  -0.1869  -0.2829  -7.966e-03   1.039e-02  -3.385e-02   2.376e-03   -3.385e-02  -8.820e-03
056/01   5.824e-04  -0.2200  -0.1379  -3.803e-03   5.491e-03  -1.460e-02   6.287e-03   -1.460e-02  -1.021e-02
057/01   6.320e-04  -0.2900   0.0070   5.548e-03  -5.652e-03  -3.251e-03  -2.499e-03   -3.251e-03   1.375e-03
058/01   5.745e-04  -0.2314  -0.1936  -1.738e-03   5.080e-03  -3.788e-03   3.511e-03   -3.788e-03  -6.553e-03
059/01   6.519e-04  -0.3189   0.0285   8.318e-03  -9.087e-03  -6.305e-03   3.817e-03   -6.305e-03   3.132e-03
060/01   5.991e-04  -0.2198  -0.0994  -1.935e-03   1.847e-03  -1.300e-02  -4.333e-04   -1.300e-02   1.023e-03

061/01   5.931e-04  -0.2433  -0.1160   7.700e-04   1.131e-03  -1.343e-02   2.934e-03   -1.343e-02  -5.623e-03
062/01   5.760e-04  -0.1841  -0.1508  -1.026e-02   1.089e-02  -1.160e-02  -1.381e-03   -1.160e-02  -2.815e-03
063/01   6.122e-04  -0.2684  -0.0508   5.204e-03  -2.515e-03  -7.700e-03  -1.681e-03   -7.700e-03   8.168e-04
064/01   5.134e-04  -0.1294  -0.4462  -2.715e-02   3.276e-02  -3.046e-02  -2.971e-04   -3.046e-02  -3.303e-02
065/01   6.336e-04  -0.2951   0.0243   1.205e-02  -1.259e-02   8.141e-03   1.093e-03    8.141e-03   5.925e-03
066/01   5.748e-04  -0.1994  -0.1575  -6.022e-03   7.373e-03  -4.783e-03   2.536e-03   -4.783e-03  -8.981e-03
067/01   6.067e-04  -0.2264  -0.0302  -5.511e-03   4.925e-03  -6.974e-04  -1.579e-03   -6.974e-04  -3.390e-04
068/01   6.486e-04  -0.3200   0.0913   1.505e-02  -1.489e-02   1.217e-02  -3.213e-03    1.217e-02   7.255e-03
069/01   5.866e-04  -0.2141  -0.0418  -9.791e-03   1.227e-02   9.464e-03   5.963e-03    9.464e-03  -3.599e-03
070/01   6.414e-04  -0.2646   0.0025   1.518e-03  -4.081e-03  -7.900e-03   4.075e-03   -7.900e-03   7.121e-03

071/01   6.127e-04  -0.2627  -0.1348   2.366e-03  -7.110e-04  -1.608e-02   2.437e-03   -1.608e-02  -2.474e-03
072/01   5.535e-04  -0.2488   2.4873  -3.401e-03   1.253e-02   3.111e-02   2.146e-03    3.111e-02  -1.664e-02
073/01   6.249e-04  -0.2949   1.8216   1.581e-03   8.623e-04   1.469e-02   1.635e-03    1.469e-02  -3.632e-04
074/01   5.834e-04  -0.2746   2.2811   3.211e-03   2.534e-03   2.661e-02  -4.298e-04    2.661e-02  -6.160e-03
075/01   4.986e-04  -0.2667   3.8579   1.012e-02   1.128e-02   5.550e-02   3.276e-03    5.550e-02  -1.340e-02
076/01   6.293e-04  -0.2813   0.1863   2.532e-03  -4.920e-04   3.004e-03   5.593e-03    3.004e-03   1.572e-03
077/01   7.398e-04  -0.2530  -0.4560  -1.780e-02  -7.416e-03  -3.730e-03   4.724e-03   -3.730e-03   1.856e-02
078/01   7.629e-04  -0.2730   0.1139  -1.900e-02  -6.780e-03   1.935e-02   7.319e-03    1.935e-02   1.841e-02
079/01   5.961e-04  -0.2285   0.2909   3.046e-03  -8.263e-04   2.552e-03   4.247e-03    2.552e-03  -5.945e-03
080/01   6.151e-04  -0.2559  -0.2517   2.514e-04   6.042e-04  -6.932e-04   4.380e-03   -6.932e-04  -6.376e-03

081/01   4.312e-04   0.1909  -3.8899  -5.310e-04  -5.226e-03   5.128e-02   1.805e-04    5.128e-02   1.413e-02
082/01   3.451e-04   0.2025   4.7111   6.023e-03   1.830e-02   6.185e-02   2.775e-03    6.185e-02   2.852e-02
083/01   3.677e-04  -0.2507   3.0392   6.596e-02   4.216e-02  -5.521e-02   1.257e-02   -5.521e-02  -6.434e-02







































                            -31-

                                Appendix C


                   CLIVAR A20:  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).



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|1/1    101   bottle    2  Spigot was found to be leaking by CFC sampler.  |
|                          This was a spit from the spigot. Oxygen as well |
|                          as salinity and nutrients are acceptable.       |
|1/1    101   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients.       |
|2/1    105   salt      2  Salinity high due to large amount of variation  |
|                          in CTD profile within surface waters. Salinity  |
|                          agrees with adjacent stations.                  |
|3/1    107   salt      2  Salinity low due to large amount of variation   |
|                          in CTD within surface waters. Salinity agrees   |
|                          with adjacent stations.                         |
|4/1    101   bottle    2  Spigot was found to be leaking by CFC sampler.  |
|                          Only CFCs and O2 drew samples. O-rings were     |
|                          replaced on spigot before next cast. Oxygen,    |
|                          salinity and nutrients are acceptable.          |
|4/1    104   o2        3  Oxygen very high. no comments on sample log or  |
|                          data file. Coding as questionable due to        |
|                          unknown error.                                  |
|4/1    105   salt      2  Salinity low due to variability in surface      |
|                          waters.                                         |
|5/1    107   bottle    2  Bottle reported empty for salts and nutrients.  |
|                          Both salinity and nutrient samples recorded on  |
|                          sample tags, which were found in sample cases   |
|                          afterward.                                      |
|7/1    102   o2        2   Sample was overtitrated and backtitrated.      |
|                          Oxygen is acceptable.                           |
|7/1    112   salt      2  Large fluctuations at bottle stop in the middle |
|                          of a very sharp/high gradient area. Bottle      |
|                          salinity is consistent with adjacent bottles    |
|                          and stations. CTD is acceptable on it's own,    |
|                          picking up deeper water.                        |
|8/1    107   bottle    2  Spigot was reported to be pushed in. No water   |
|                          coming out. Sampler was not pushing in the      |
|                          spigot properly, instructions were given and    |
|                          sampling proceeded.                             |
|8/1    110   bottle    9  A transcription error was made on the Sample    |
|                          Log sheet. The 200 intended depth was not       |
|                          sampled, the Sample Log indicated it was        |
|                          duplicated at bottle 11.                        |
|8/1    111   bottle    2  Console operator did not wait 30 seconds before |
|                          tripping. Duplicate, 12, was tripped to account |
|                          for this. Bottle tripped in a gradient before   |
|                          rosette was fully stopped, code CTD salinity    |
|                          questionable.                                   |
|8/1    111   ctds2     3                                                  |
|8/1    111   reft      3  Unstable SBE35RT reading in high gradient zone. |
|                          SBE35RT -0.25/-0.03 vs CTDT1/CTDT2. Code        |
|                          questionable.                                   |
|8/1    112   reft      3  Unstable SBE35RT reading in high gradient zone. |
|                          SBE35RT -0.19 vs CTDT2. Code questionable.      |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+




                            -32-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|8/1    119   bottle    9  Bottle not recorded as being tripped on Sample  |
|                          Log. Bottle was not noticed to have been        |
|                          tripped. No samples were collected.             |
|9/1    107   bottle    2  Spigot was left open. Samples drawn. O2 and     |
|                          Salinity fit closely to CTD profile.            |
|10/1   121   bottle    2  Spigot pin misaligned and/or bent.              |
|11/1   104   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations. Variation seen  |
|                          in CTD profile, difference is between the       |
|                          bottle 1 meter above the CTD. Salinity as well  |
|                          as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.         |
|11/1   119   o2        4  Sample evidently drawn from bottle 20 rather    |
|                          than 19. Value too high and extremely close to  |
|                          20. Other parameters do not correspond to       |
|                          difference seen in O2.                          |
|11/1   124   o2        3  Surface bottle o2 is high compared with CTD and |
|                          adjoining stations; using it throws off the     |
|                          entire CTDO fit.  Code questionable.            |
|11/1   124   salt      2  4 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Additional readings resulted in an acceptable   |
|                          salinity. Salinity as well as oxygen and        |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|12/1   113   no2       4                                                  |
|12/1   113   no3       4                                                  |
|12/1   113   po4       4  Nutrient sample was missed during sampling,     |
|                          took water from salinity bottle, which          |
|                          compromised the salinity and did not produce a  |
|                          good nutrient sample. Code nutrients bad.       |
|12/1   113   salt      4  Nutrient sample was missed during sampling,     |
|                          took water from salinity bottle, which          |
|                          compromised the salinity. Code salinity bad.    |
|12/1   113   sio3      4                                                  |
|13/1   111   o2        2  Oxygen is a high compared to CTDO, this is an   |
|                          oxygen gradient and is acceptable. Salinity and |
|                          nutrients verify that this bottle tripped       |
|                          properly.                                       |
|13/1   114   o2        2  O2 draw temperature not consistent with         |
|                          surrounding Niskins. Oxygen plots are           |
|                          consistent with adjacent bottles, as are other  |
|                          parameters. Suspect that thermometer went to    |
|                          hold mode. Oxygen is acceptable as well as      |
|                          salinity and nutrients.                         |
|13/1   115   o2        4  O2 analyst reported running 15 and 16 back to   |
|                          back accidentally. 15 value bad and 16 lost.    |
|13/1   116   o2        5  O2 analyst reported running 15 and 16 back to   |
|                          back accidentally. 15 value bad and 16 lost.    |
|13/1   118   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations. CTD salinity is |
|                          lower in this area. Salinity as well as oxygen  |
|                          and nutrients are acceptable.                   |
|13/1   123   o2        2  Oxygen mis-sampled, thought there was a         |
|                          problem, but did not re-draw. No oxygen sample  |
|                          drawn for this sample, code oxygen lost. Flask  |
|                          numbers are scratched out on Sample Log sheet,  |
|                          analysis indicates there was a sample drawn.    |
|13/1   130   reft      3  Stable reading though offset by ~0.2 C from     |
|                          CTDT                                            |
|13/1   130   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|13/1   131   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          salinity max and gradient, lots of variation in |
|                          the CTD. Salinity as well oxygen and nutrients  |
|                          are acceptable.                                 |
|14/1   101   bottle    2  Small amount of leaking from stop-cock. Oxygen  |
|                          as well as salinity and nutrients are           |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|14/1   107   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          suspect Southern Ocean effect. Salinity as well |
|                          as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+




                            -33-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|14/1   120   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations in gradient.     |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|14/1   132   no2       9  Not enough water in bottle. Nutrients and       |
|                          salinity not drawn, sampling error, spigot not  |
|                          pushed in properly.                             |
|14/1   132   no3       9  Not enough water in bottle. Nutrients and       |
|                          salinity not drawn, sampling error, spigot not  |
|                          pushed in properly.                             |
|14/1   132   po4       9  Not enough water in bottle. Nutrients and       |
|                          salinity not drawn, sampling error, spigot not  |
|                          pushed in properly.                             |
|14/1   132   salt      9  Not enough water in bottle. Nutrients and       |
|                          salinity not drawn, sampling error, spigot not  |
|                          pushed in properly.                             |
|14/1   132   sio3      9  Nutrients and salinity not drawn, sampling      |
|                          error, spigot not pushed in properly.           |
|15/1   107   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          could be the Southern Ocean effect seen in all  |
|                          other parameters. SiO3 indicates this is not a  |
|                          bottle problem although there are salinity      |
|                          differences in this bottle which are not on all |
|                          stations. Salinity as well as oxygen and        |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|15/1   123   o2        2  Oxygen appears high compared with adjoining     |
|                          stations. There is a feature in the up trace of |
|                          the CTD that is not seen in the down. Salinity  |
|                          is lower as well as nutrients. DIC, CFC and pH  |
|                          also show this feature.                         |
|15/1   132   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          salinity maximum, variation in CTD at trip,     |
|                          upwelling. Salinity as well as oxygen and       |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|16/1   108   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees with bottle salinity on adjoining        |
|                          stations.                                       |
|16/1   125   bottle    2  Spigot was pushed in during cast. Oxygen as     |
|                          well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable.  |
|16/1   131   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees with bottle gradient data on adjoining   |
|                          stations. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|16/1   136   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Suspect |
|                          cell was not flushed well enough for low        |
|                          salinity. Additional readings agree and         |
|                          salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|17/1   107   o2        2  Oxygen appears low compared with adjoining      |
|                          stations, nutrients are high, salinity does not |
|                          show a significant feature. CTD agrees with the |
|                          oxygen and salinity, data are acceptable.       |
|18/1   105   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|18/1   124   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations for gradient,    |
|                          could be 1 meter bottle vs. CTD difference.     |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|19/1   104   o2        2   Forgot to extract water off top before opening |
|                          lid. Oxygen is acceptable.                      |
|19/1   107   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations within           |
|                          measurement specifications. Possibly not rinsed |
|                          well enough during sampling. Salinity as well   |
|                          as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+






                            -34-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|20/1   107   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD, O2   |
|                          low, nutrients high features in CTD trace. PI   |
|                          suspects Southern Ocean waters. Salinity as     |
|                          well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.    |
|20/1   110   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          slightly high within specs could be a bottle    |
|                          rinsing problem during draw. Salinity as well   |
|                          as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.         |
|20/1   117   o2        2   Sample was overtitrated and backtitrated,      |
|                          overshot endpoint.                              |
|20/1   118   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations in gradient.     |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|20/1   133   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations in gradient.     |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|20/1   136   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations in gradient.     |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|21/1   101   o2        2   Added previous thio amount to volume. O2       |
|                          communication error, program went to low O2     |
|                          mode and started dispensing very slowly.        |
|                          Analyst recorded the amount of thio dispensed   |
|                          before shutting down the computer and           |
|                          restarting. Oxygen is acceptable.               |
|21/1   104   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Erratic readings, possible contamination.       |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|21/1   109   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|21/1   112   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|21/1   118   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations for gradient.    |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|21/1   133   o2        4  O2 appears to have been drawn from 34, analyst  |
|                          stated that was a possibility, had realized     |
|                          sampling was off by one and tried to reconcile. |
|                          Code Oxygen bad.                                |
|21/1   136   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          strong gradient could be the difference between |
|                          the CTD and bottle placement, 1 meter. Salinity |
|                          as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. |
|22/1   118   bottle    2  Vent slightly open, half turn, CFC sampled, did |
|                          not feel it was a problem.                      |
|22/1   120   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading. Program |
|                          resolved salinity discrepancy.  Thimble came    |
|                          out with cap, possible contamination. Salinity  |
|                          is within measurement specifications. Salinity  |
|                          as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. |
|22/1   131   o2        2  O2 sampler did not realize the draw thermometer |
|                          went to hold mode, came back after all other    |
|                          sampling was finished, should not be a problem  |
|                          with O2 conversion to mass units.               |
|22/1   135   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agree with gradient bottles at adjoining        |
|                          stations. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|23/1   108   salt      4  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations.  Thimble came off with cap, |
|                          possible contamination. Code salinity bad.      |
|                          Oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+




                            -35-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|23/1   119   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations in gradient.     |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|24/1   101   o2        2  Ship vibration during oxygen sample; odd trace, |
|                          endpoint okay. Forgot wake-up sample. Oxygen as |
|                          well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable.  |
|24/1   107   o2        2  Oxygen check endpoint, averaged values. Oxygen  |
|                          is slightly high compared with CTDO, agrees     |
|                          with adjoining stations. Oxygen as well as      |
|                          salinity and nutrients are acceptable.          |
|24/1   118   o2        2  Oxygen check endpoint, used recalculated value. |
|                          Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|24/1   123   o2        2  Oxygen possibly saw bubbles, but they           |
|                          disappeared after shaking.  Oxygen check        |
|                          endpoint, used recalculated value. Oxygen as    |
|                          well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable.  |
|24/1   129   o2        2  Oxygen redrawn, bubbles in flask. Oxygen as     |
|                          well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable.  |
|24/1   133   o2        2  Oxygen very small bubble at top of flask under  |
|                          lid. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients   |
|                          are acceptable.                                 |
|24/1   134   o2        2  Oxygen very small bubble at top of flask under  |
|                          lid. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients   |
|                          are acceptable.                                 |
|24/1   134   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations gradient bottle  |
|                          salinity. Salinity as well as oxygen and        |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|24/1   135   o2        2  Oxygen very small bubble at top of flask under  |
|                          lid. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients   |
|                          are acceptable.                                 |
|24/1   136   o2        2  Oxygen very small bubble at top of flask under  |
|                          lid. Oxygen as well as salinity and nutrients   |
|                          are acceptable.                                 |
|25/1   107   po4       2  Nutrients appear low compared with adjoining    |
|                          stations, oxygen is higher than adjoining       |
|                          stations and agrees with CTDO, salinity does    |
|                          not show this feature, real feature data are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|25/1   134   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations in gradient.  4 attempts for |
|                          a good salinity reading. Code salinity bad,     |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|26/1   111   bottle    4  Oxygen, nutrient, salinity and CFC data         |
|                          indicate bottle closed at the same depth as     |
|                          bottle 10.  Code as mis-trip.                   |
|26/1   111   no2       4  Oxygen, nutrient, salinity and CFC data         |
|                          indicate mis-trip.  Code nutrients bad.         |
|26/1   111   no3       4  Oxygen, nutrient, salinity and CFC data         |
|                          indicate mis-trip.  Code nutrients bad.         |
|26/1   111   o2        4  Oxygen, nutrient, salinity and CFC data         |
|                          indicate mis-trip.  Code oxygen bad.            |
|26/1   111   po4       4  Oxygen, nutrient, salinity and CFC data         |
|                          indicate mis-trip.  Code nutrients bad.         |
|26/1   111   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinity was either mis-    |
|                          drawn from bottle 10 or salinometer operator    |
|                          did not change the sample after analysis of 11. |
|                          Mis-trip of bottle, code salinity bad.          |
|26/1   111   sio3      4  Oxygen, nutrient, salinity and CFC data         |
|                          indicate mis-trip.  Code nutrients bad.         |
|26/1   112   bottle    2  Dripping from spigot, vents slightly open.      |
|26/1   115   no2       4  Nutrients mis-drawn with bottle 17.             |
|26/1   115   no3       4  Nutrients mis-drawn with bottle 17.             |
|26/1   115   po4       4  Nutrients mis-drawn with bottle 17.             |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+






                            -36-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|26/1   115   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, also  |
|                          low with adjoining stations. Nutrients are      |
|                          high. Suspect that salinity and nutrients were  |
|                          done by the same sampler and they were drawn    |
|                          from bottle 17. Oxygen is acceptable, CFC, DIC, |
|                          pH and alkalinity are all acceptable. Code      |
|                          salinity and nutrients bad.                     |
|26/1   115   sio3      4  Nutrients mis-drawn with bottle 17.             |
|26/1   116   bottle    4  Oxygen, nutrient and dic data indicate bottle   |
|                          closed shallower than expected. pH, alkalinity  |
|                          as well as DIC sampled.  Code as mis-trip.      |
|26/1   116   no2       4  Nutrient, o2 and dic data indicate bottle mis-  |
|                          tripped.  Code nutrients bad.                   |
|26/1   116   no3       4  Nutrient, o2 and dic data indicate bottle mis-  |
|                          tripped.  Code nutrients bad.                   |
|26/1   116   o2        4  Bottle o2 extremely low, but draw temp looks    |
|                          ok: bottle mis-tripped.  Code oxygen bad.       |
|26/1   116   po4       4  Nutrient, o2 and dic data indicate bottle mis-  |
|                          tripped.  Code nutrients bad.                   |
|26/1   116   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Bottle mis-tripped, code    |
|                          salinity bad.                                   |
|26/1   116   sio3      4  Nutrient, o2 and dic data indicate bottle mis-  |
|                          tripped.  Code nutrients bad.                   |
|26/1   118   bottle    2  Valve open. Oxygen is lower than CTDO and       |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations. Salinity as     |
|                          well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.    |
|26/1   125   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          gradient agreement with adjoining stations.     |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|27/1   113   salt      4  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations. Code salinity questionable, |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|28/1   101   o2        2  Oxygen wake-up not run before samples. Oxygen   |
|                          appears acceptable.                             |
|28/1   104   bottle    2  Nozzle very tight, hard to push in. Oxygen as   |
|                          well as salinity and nutrients are acceptable.  |
|28/1   123   bottle    4  Bottle appears to have mis-tripped, lower in    |
|                          the water column. Oxygen high, nutrients low,   |
|                          CFC, Helium and Tritium sampled at this level.  |
|28/1   123   no2       4                                                  |
|28/1   123   no3       4                                                  |
|28/1   123   o2        4                                                  |
|28/1   123   po4       4                                                  |
|28/1   123   salt      4  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations.                             |
|28/1   123   sio3      4                                                  |
|28/1   130   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees with other gradient bottle salinity,     |
|                          variation in CTD trace at bottle trip. Salinity |
|                          as well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable. |
|28/1   131   bottle    4  Bottle mis-tripped. Oxygen is high compared     |
|                          with CTD in a gradient, nutrients are high on   |
|                          the station profile and compared with adjoining |
|                          stations.                                       |
|28/1   131   no2       4                                                  |
|28/1   131   no3       4                                                  |
|28/1   131   o2        4                                                  |
|28/1   131   po4       4                                                  |
|28/1   131   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Bottle mis-tripped, all     |
|                          parameters coded bad, bottle coded did not trip |
|                          as scheduled. CFC, Helium, oxygen isotopes,     |
|                          DIC, pH, alkalinity sampled.                    |
|28/1   131   sio3      4                                                  |
|29/1   117   no2       4                                                  |
|29/1   117   no3       4                                                  |
|29/1   117   po4       4                                                  |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+




                            -37-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|29/1   117   salt      4  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations. Appears to have been drawn  |
|                          from bottle 16 as well as nutrients. Oxygen is  |
|                          acceptable and a different sampler. Code        |
|                          salinity and nutrients bad.                     |
|29/1   117   sio3      4                                                  |
|30/1   102   o2        2   Very small bubble under lid of oxygen flask    |
|                          before opening.                                 |
|30/1   105   o2        2   Bubbles dispensed with acid for oxygen, but    |
|                          none visible in dispenser tip.                  |
|30/1   106   salt      3  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations. Could be a sampling error,  |
|                          not rinsing the bottle well enough. Code        |
|                          salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|30/1   109   o2        2   Bubbles dispensed with acid for oxygen, but    |
|                          none visible in dispenser tip.                  |
|30/1   116   o2        2   Oxygen end point checked and recalculated.     |
|30/1   118   o2        2   Low oxygen end point.                          |
|30/1   123   o2        2   Sample was overtitrated and backtitrated.      |
|30/1   133   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agreement with salinity maximum and large       |
|                          gradient of adjoining stations. Salinity as     |
|                          well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.    |
|31/1   101   o2        2  Oxygen wake-up sample not run. Oxygen as well   |
|                          as salinity and nutrients are acceptable.       |
|32/1   113   salt      4  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity thimble came off with cap, probable    |
|                          contamination in the negative direction.        |
|                          Salinity high compared with CTD and adjoining   |
|                          stations. Code salinity bad, oxygen and         |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|32/1   122   salt      4  Salinity bottle not filled to the shoulder,     |
|                          bottle ran out, training on sampling was done   |
|                          and used more water. Salinity low compared with |
|                          adjoining stations. Code salinity bad, oxygen   |
|                          and nutrients are acceptable.                   |
|33/1   103   salt      3  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations, just out of measurement     |
|                          specifications. No analytical problems noted.   |
|                          Code salinity questionable, oxygen and          |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|33/1   112   o2        2   May have contaminated oxygen sample with waste |
|                          water while trying to get drop off thio         |
|                          dispenser tip. Oxygen as well as salinity and   |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|36/1   130   salt      5  Salinity lost during analysis, operator error.  |
|37/1   101   o2        2  Oxygen titrator wake-up sample not run. Oxygen  |
|                          as well as nutrients are acceptable.            |
|37/1   104   bottle    2  pH sampler reported water level possibly low.   |
|                          Suspect bottle is okay and sampler was not      |
|                          getting the same flow rate as next bottle       |
|                          sampled. No issue with enough water for         |
|                          salinity. Salinity as well as oxygen and        |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|37/1   133   bottle    2  Bottle not tripped at 65m, console operators    |
|                          switched duties and did not realize it had not  |
|                          been tripped, only 35 bottles for this station. |
|38/1   101   o2        2  Excess MnCl2 added to oxygen sample. May not    |
|                          have been the case as the oxygen is acceptable. |
|                          Batteries on O2 draw temperature, thermometer   |
|                          replaced for bottle 13, will use previous       |
|                          station draw temperatures.                      |
|38/1   106   salt      2  4 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|38/1   119   salt      2  4 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+




                            -38-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|38/1   121   o2        2  Oxygen may have mis-drawn either 21 or 22,      |
|                          redrew 21. Sample was 0.008 higher than the     |
|                          original draw and acceptable.                   |
|38/1   125   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          agrees with trend of adjoining stations.        |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|38/1   129   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|39/1   111   bottle    4  Bottle appears to have mis-tripped higher in    |
|                          the water column. Oxygen and nutrients are low. |
|                          Code bottle did not trip as scheduled,          |
|                          salinity, oxygen and nutrients bad.             |
|39/1   111   no2       4                                                  |
|39/1   111   no3       4                                                  |
|39/1   111   o2        4                                                  |
|39/1   111   po4       4                                                  |
|39/1   111   salt      4  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations. Bottle mis-tripped, code    |
|                          bottle did not trip as scheduled and other      |
|                          parameters bad.                                 |
|39/1   111   sio3      4                                                  |
|39/1   114   no3       2  Nutrients appear low compared to adjoining      |
|                          stations, oxygen is higher and the feature      |
|                          appears real although it does not show in       |
|                          salinity.                                       |
|39/1   134   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          agrees gradient bottle salinity with adjoining  |
|                          stations.                                       |
|40/1   106   no3       2  Nutrients appear low compared to adjoining      |
|                          stations, oxygen is higher and the feature      |
|                          appears real although it does not show in       |
|                          salinity.                                       |
|40/1   114   o2        2  Oxygen sample redrawn, took second sample,      |
|                          large difference between the two, 0.130.        |
|40/1   136   o2        2  Oxygen temperature take from sea surface        |
|                          temperature reading.                            |
|41/1   111   salt      3  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations. Heavy sampling on the       |
|                          bottle could have affected the salinity. Code   |
|                          salinity questionable, oxygen and nutrients are |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|41/1   116   bottle    4  First sampler found that spigot was pushed in.  |
|                          This bottle had a problem that appears as a     |
|                          mis-trip. Code bottle did not trip as scheduled |
|                          and data bad. CFC, Helium, Tritium, oxygen      |
|                          isotopes, DOC sampled at this level.            |
|41/1   116   no2       4                                                  |
|41/1   116   no3       4                                                  |
|41/1   116   o2        4                                                  |
|41/1   116   po4       4                                                  |
|41/1   116   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Bottle mis-tripped, code    |
|                          bottle did not trip as scheduled and salinity   |
|                          bad.                                            |
|41/1   116   sio3      4                                                  |
|41/1   120   o2        2  Ar sampled before oxygen. Oxygen is acceptable. |
|41/1   122   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          agrees with gradient bottle on adjoining        |
|                          stations.                                       |
|41/1   124   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          agrees with gradient bottle on adjoining        |
|                          stations.                                       |
|42/1   107   o2        2  Oxygen redrawn, initial flask broke. Oxygen is  |
|                          acceptable as are salinity and nutrients.       |
|42/1   118   bottle    2  Top valve was found open by first sampler.      |
|                          Oxygen is acceptable as are salinity and        |
|                          nutrients.                                      |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+




                            -39-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|42/1   126   bottle    2  Top valve was found open by first sampler.      |
|                          Oxygen is acceptable as are salinity and        |
|                          nutrients.                                      |
|44/1   101   o2        2  Oxygen forgot reagents, realized after drawing. |
|                          Performed a redraw. Oxygen as well as salinity  |
|                          and nutrients are acceptable.                   |
|44/1   125   salt      2  Salinity is about 3/4 full, ran out of water.   |
|                          Salinity is slightly low, but with measurement  |
|                          specifications. Salinity as well as oxygen and  |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|44/1   132   o2        2  Sample was overtitrated and backtitrated,       |
|                          overshot first endpoint. Oxygen is acceptable.  |
|45/1   110   o2        2  Oxygen endpoint questionable checked and used   |
|                          recalculated value. Oxygen as well as salinity  |
|                          and nutrients are acceptable.                   |
|45/1   125   o2        2  Oxygen endpoint questionable checked and used   |
|                          recalculated value. Oxygen as well as salinity  |
|                          and nutrients are acceptable.                   |
|47/1   111   bottle    2  Ran out of water on 14C/DOC, no water for       |
|                          salinity. Heavy sampling scheme and poor        |
|                          rinsing methods led to running out of water.    |
|47/1   118   bottle    2  Ran out of water on 14C/DOC, no water for       |
|                          salinity. Heavy sampling scheme and poor        |
|                          rinsing methods led to running out of water.    |
|47/1   121   bottle    2  Ran out of water on 14C/DOC, no water for       |
|                          salinity. Heavy sampling scheme and poor        |
|                          rinsing methods led to running out of water.    |
|47/1   122   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          agrees with gradient bottle salinity on         |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinity as well as oxygen  |
|                          and nutrients are acceptable.                   |
|47/1   128   bottle    2  Ran out of water on 14C/DOC, no water for       |
|                          salinity. Heavy sampling scheme and duplicates  |
|                          led to running out of water.                    |
|47/1   131   o2        2   Flask differs from that in box file, 28 & 31   |
|                          were switched in box. Oxygen is acceptable.     |
|48/1   125   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          agrees with gradient bottles from adjoining     |
|                          stations. Appears to be the 1 meter difference  |
|                          between the CTD and the bottle as are bottles   |
|                          23 and 24. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are   |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|49/1   107   no2       4                                                  |
|49/1   107   no3       4                                                  |
|49/1   107   po4       4  Nutrients are high, no analytical problem       |
|                          noted. Nutrients could have been switched with  |
|                          6, that does not account for salinity.          |
|49/1   107   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, also  |
|                          low with adjoining stations. 3 attempts for a   |
|                          good salinity reading. Nutrients are high.      |
|                          Oxygen and CFC are acceptable. Code salinity    |
|                          and nutrients bad. Not certain what caused      |
|                          this, not a drawing problem, but salinity did   |
|                          have issues in obtaining a good reading.        |
|49/1   107   sio3      4                                                  |
|49/1   111   bottle    2  Spigot was open and dripping.                   |
|50/1   124   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees with other gradient bottle on adjoining  |
|                          stations. Salinity as well as oxygen and        |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|51/1   132   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinity was switched with  |
|                          33, reversed the two and agreement is           |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|51/1   133   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Salinity was switched with  |
|                          32, reversed the two and agreement is           |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+





                            -40-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|52/1   111   bottle    4  Bottle was leaking from bottom end cap, not     |
|                          enough water for salinity. Oxygen and nutrients |
|                          were the only samples drawn, code bottle        |
|                          leaking, samples bad.                           |
|52/1   111   no2       4                                                  |
|52/1   111   no3       4                                                  |
|52/1   111   o2        4  Oxygen is high, code bad.                       |
|52/1   111   po4       4                                                  |
|52/1   111   sio3      4                                                  |
|52/1   136   bottle    2  Bottle was tripped 7 seconds early, operator    |
|                          mis-calculation on the time. Bottle data is     |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|53/1   101   o2        2  Oxygen combined total of 2 slow + 1 normal      |
|                          speed titration. Oxygen is acceptable.          |
|53/1   104   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  Low sample fill in bottle. |
|                          Appears to match bottle 3 values. Possible      |
|                          niskin 3 was sampled twice. Code salinity bad.  |
|53/1   126   salt      2  4 attempts for a good salinity reading. First   |
|                          reading was manually entered and salinity       |
|                          appears reasonable. Thimble came out with cap,  |
|                          probable contamination. Salinity as well as     |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|53/1   130   o2        2  Oxygen redrawn. Oxygen as well as salinity and  |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|54/1   117   salt      3  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations. No analytical problem       |
|                          noted, no heavy sampling. Code salinity         |
|                          questionable, oxygen and nutrients are          |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|54/1   123   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          agrees with bottle data in gradient area.       |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|54/1   124   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          agrees with bottle data in gradient area.       |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|55/1   126   o2        2  Oxygen program went to low O2 mode, aborted to  |
|                          restart program. Added original amount of thio  |
|                          to the value after restart. Oxygen is           |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|56/1   106   bottle    2  Bottle leaked, vent slightly open. Oxygen,      |
|                          salinity and nutrients are acceptable.          |
|56/1   107   o2        2   Oxygen flasks switched 7 & 8, from last use.   |
|                          This and the previous station, 52, flask        |
|                          positions were reported properly. Oxygen is     |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|56/1   108   o2        2   Oxygen does appear high compared with CTDO,    |
|                          agrees with adjoining station. Oxygen is        |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|56/1   109   no2       9  No nutrients drawn, sampling error.             |
|56/1   109   no3       9  No nutrients drawn, sampling error.             |
|56/1   109   po4       9  No nutrients drawn, sampling error.             |
|56/1   109   salt      9  No salts drawn, sampling error.                 |
|56/1   109   sio3      9  No nutrients drawn, sampling error.             |
|56/1   111   o2        2   Oxygen does appear high compared with CTDO,    |
|                          agrees with adjoining station. Oxygen is        |
|                          acceptable. Salinity and nutrients verify this  |
|                          bottle tripped properly.                        |
|56/1   121   bottle    2  Bottle tripped 8 seconds early, mis-calculated  |
|                          the wait time. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients   |
|                          are acceptable.                                 |
|56/1   123   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          agrees with gradient bottle in adjoining        |
|                          stations. Salinity as well as oxygen and        |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+






                            -41-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|56/1   126   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|57/1   118   salt      5  Salt bottle fell out of analyzers hand. Bottle  |
|                          broken sample lost.                             |
|58/1   122   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          agrees with bottles of adjoining stations for   |
|                          gradient. Salinity as well as oxygen and        |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|59/1   111   bottle    4  Bottle mis-tripped appears to have closed at    |
|                          bottle 3 level. Code bottle did not trip as     |
|                          schedule, salinity, oxygen and nutrients bad.   |
|                          CFC and DOC sampled on this bottle.             |
|59/1   111   no2       4                                                  |
|59/1   111   no3       4                                                  |
|59/1   111   o2        4                                                  |
|59/1   111   po4       4                                                  |
|59/1   111   salt      4  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations.  Bottle mis-tripped appears |
|                          to have closed at bottle 3 level.               |
|59/1   111   sio3      4                                                  |
|59/1   123   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations bottles in       |
|                          gradient. Variation of CTD data at bottle trip. |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|59/1   126   salt      4  4 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Readings kept increasing, thimble came out with |
|                          cap, probable contamination. Code salinity bad, |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|59/1   127   no2       9  No nutrients drawn, sampling error.             |
|59/1   127   no3       9  No nutrients drawn, sampling error.             |
|59/1   127   po4       9  No nutrients drawn, sampling error.             |
|59/1   127   salt      9  No salts drawn, sampling error.                 |
|59/1   127   sio3      9  No nutrients drawn, sampling error.             |
|61/1   101   no2       2  NO2 high compared with adjoining stations,      |
|                          there is a steep transmissometer signal.        |
|                          Analyst: Rechecked peaks, this and Station 62   |
|                          show no analytical problem. NO2 as well as      |
|                          other nutrients, salinity and oxygen are        |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|61/1   101   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Analyst ran sample before   |
|                          the SSW causing a problem for correction to the |
|                          data over time. Corrected files and salinity is |
|                          acceptable as are oxygen and nutrients.         |
|61/1   113   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|61/1   124   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations in gradient      |
|                          area. Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients  |
|                          are acceptable.                                 |
|62/1   105   o2        4  Overshot endpoint, could not recover; oxygen    |
|                          value is high, code bad.                        |
|62/1   106   o2        3  O2 aborted first run: low o2 mode, very slow.   |
|                          Restarted program bad endpoint. Changed dirty   |
|                          bathwater, rebooted program. Then ran over-     |
|                          titration and back titration, final result      |
|                          slightly low. Code questionable.                |
|62/1   107   o2        4  O2 bubble in flask at endpoint, including over  |
|                          titration and back titration. oxygen value is   |
|                          high, code bad.                                 |
|62/1   127   bottle    2  Tripped bottle 5 seconds early. Salinity,       |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+








                            -42-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|63/1   111   bottle    4  Appears to have mis-tripped again. Other than   |
|                          SIO/STS/ODF measurements, CFC, DOC and SIP were |
|                          sampled. Code bottle did not trip as scheduled  |
|                          and samples bad, 4. Very similar values as      |
|                          bottle 15, could have tripped together.         |
|63/1   111   no2       4                                                  |
|63/1   111   no3       4                                                  |
|63/1   111   o2        4                                                  |
|63/1   111   po4       4                                                  |
|63/1   111   salt      4  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations. Mis-tripped, code salinity  |
|                          bad.                                            |
|63/1   111   sio3      4                                                  |
|63/1   133   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          gradient, agrees with adjoining stations.       |
|                          Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.  |
|64/1   119   o2        3  Oxygen high compared to CTDO and adjoining      |
|                          station profile. Code salinity questionable,    |
|                          salinity and nutrients are acceptable.          |
|65/1   102   bottle    2  Oxygen and nutrients appear high, salinity and  |
|                          oxygen high, salinity has good agreement with   |
|                          CTD, DIC and Alkalinity also show this feature. |
|                          Data is acceptable.                             |
|65/1   136   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD,      |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations, there is        |
|                          variation in the CTD at the trip. Salinity as   |
|                          well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.    |
|66/1   102   salt      4  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations. Bottle appears to have been |
|                          mis-drawn from bottle 3. Code salinity bad,     |
|                          oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.            |
|66/1   111   bottle    4  Oxygen/sio3 low; po4/no3 high; salinity high    |
|                          and CFC only other parameter sampled, mis-trip. |
|                          Code bottle did not trip as scheduled all       |
|                          samples bad.                                    |
|66/1   111   no2       4                                                  |
|66/1   111   no3       4                                                  |
|66/1   111   o2        4                                                  |
|66/1   111   po4       4                                                  |
|66/1   111   salt      4  Bottle data matched 22 Mis-trip. Bottle         |
|                          salinity is high compared with CTD and          |
|                          adjoining stations, mis-tripped.                |
|66/1   111   sio3      4                                                  |
|66/1   113   bottle    2  Vent was found open before sampling.            |
|66/1   135   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          gradient, agrees with adjoining stations.       |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|67/1   113   salt      4  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Thimble came off with cap. erratic readings,    |
|                          possible contamination. Salinity high compared  |
|                          with CTD, agrees fairly well with adjoining     |
|                          stations. Code salinity bad, oxygen and         |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|68/1   111   salt      2  3 attempts for a good salinity reading.         |
|                          Salinity agrees well with CTD, adjoining        |
|                          stations and duplicate trip with bottle 12.     |
|69/1   111   bottle    2  Bottle re-positioned on rosette frame prior to  |
|                          this cast, moved up in the bottle slot. This is |
|                          an attempt to get consistent correct tripping.  |
|                          Salinity, oxygen and nutrients were taken on    |
|                          this duplicate tripped bottle.                  |
|70/1   117   o2        2  Oxygen check endpoint, looks low. Recalculated  |
|                          endpoint. Oxygen as well as nutrients are       |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|70/1   121   o2        2  Oxygen appears high compared with adjoining     |
|                          stations, agrees with CTDO. Nutrients verify    |
|                          the feature is real. Oxygen and nutrients are   |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+




                            -43-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|71/1   105   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          agrees with adjoining stations. Suspect         |
|                          operator made an error during analysis.         |
|                          Salinity is within measurement specification.   |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|71/1   114   o2        2  Oxygen aborted run, forgot to put thio tip in   |
|                          sample, second abort, program froze just as     |
|                          plot started, try restart.  Program froze at    |
|                          first low-o2 0.0007ml, reboot. 3 titers added   |
|                          together. Oxygen is acceptable.                 |
|71/1   115   o2        2  Oxygen left on low o2, stop, then continue with |
|                          normal rate; add to previous titer for full     |
|                          value, sum of previous 2 titers (low o2,        |
|                          stopped, restarted). Oxygen is acceptable.      |
|74/1   111   bottle    4  Bottle appears to have mis-tripped. Oxygen draw |
|                          temperature, salinity is high and oxygen is     |
|                          low. No other properties sampled.               |
|74/1   111   no2       4  Nutrients are high, bottle mis-tripped.         |
|74/1   111   no3       4  Nutrients are high, bottle mis-tripped.         |
|74/1   111   o2        4  Oxygen does not agree with station profile and  |
|                          adjoining stations. Code bottle mis-tripped and |
|                          oxygen bad.                                     |
|74/1   111   po4       4  Nutrients are high, bottle mis-tripped.         |
|74/1   111   salt      4  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations.  Bottle mis-tripped. Oxygen |
|                          draw temperature is high and oxygen is low.     |
|                          Code salinity bad.                              |
|74/1   111   sio3      4  Nutrients are high, bottle mis-tripped.         |
|74/1   122   salt      4  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations. It appears there were many  |
|                          sampling or analysis errors on this station.    |
|                          Salinity appears to have been drawn from bottle |
|                          23. Code salinity bad. Oxygen and nutrients are |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|74/1   123   bottle    2  Vent open. Oxygen as well as salinity and       |
|                          nutrients are acceptable, as salinity is        |
|                          corrected.                                      |
|74/1   123   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD and    |
|                          adjoining stations. Appears the salinometer     |
|                          operator used the wrong suppression switch      |
|                          setting. Correct the file and salinity is       |
|                          acceptable. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are  |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|74/1   127   salt      4  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations. Appears to have been        |
|                          switched with 29 during analysis or sampling.   |
|                          Switched 27 and 29 resulting in 29 being        |
|                          acceptable, but the values from salinity bottle |
|                          29 do not fit the station profile at bottle 27  |
|                          level. Code salinity bad. Oxygen and nutrients  |
|                          are acceptable.                                 |
|74/1   129   salt      2  Bottle salinity is high compared with CTD and   |
|                          adjoining stations. Appears to have been        |
|                          switched with 27 during analysis or sampling.   |
|                          Switched 27 and 29 resulting in 29 being        |
|                          acceptable, but the values from salinity bottle |
|                          29 do not fit the station profile at bottle 27  |
|                          level. Salinity, oxygen and nutrients are       |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|76/1   110   salt      5  Salinity sample not analyzed, operator error.   |
|76/1   112   bottle    2  Bottle 11 displayed unknown reasons for not     |
|                          tripping properly. It was removed from service  |
|                          on this station, 76, and will not be employed   |
|                          for the remainder of the expedition.            |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+








                            -44-

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|StationSampleQuality                                                      |
|/Cast  No.   PropertyCode Comment                                         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|76/1   130   o2        2  Oxygen thio tip not in flask, abort/restart,    |
|                          program froze, rebooted computer, titrator      |
|                          dispensed in low oxygen mode, combined          |
|                          titration value. Oxygen as well as salinity and |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|76/1   131   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          gradient, acceptable with adjoining stations.   |
|                          Salinity as well as oxygen and nutrients are    |
|                          acceptable.                                     |
|77/1   104   salt      5  Salinity sample not analyzed, operator error.   |
|77/1   123   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD,       |
|                          gradient, agrees with trend of  adjoining       |
|                          stations. Salinity as well as oxygen and        |
|                          nutrients are acceptable.                       |
|79/1   117   bottle    2  Spigot was open. Oxygen as well as nutrients    |
|                          are acceptable.                                 |
|80/1   107   reft      3  SBE35RT unstable reading vs. CTDT1/CTDT2, code  |
|                          questionable.                                   |
|80/1   107   salt      2  Bottle salinity is low compared with CTD, lots  |
|                          of variation in CTD at trip,  gradient, agrees  |
|                          with trend of adjoining stations. Salinity as   |
|                          well as oxygen and nutrients are acceptable.    |
|80/1   109   reft      3  SBE35RT unstable reading vs. CTDT1/CTDT2, code  |
|                          questionable.                                   |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

















































                            -45-

                                Appendix D


          CLIVAR A20:  Pre-Cruise Sensor Laboratory Calibrations



+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                         CTD 796 Sensors - Table of Contents                           |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|CTD                           Manufacturer         Serial     Station  Appendix D Page |
|Sensor                        and Model No.        Number     Number    (Un-Numbered)  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|PRESS (Pressure)              Digiquartz 401K-105  0796       1-83            1        |
|T1 (Primary Temperature)      SBE3plus             03-4924    40-83           5        |
|C1 (Primary Conductivity)     SBE4C                04-3369    1-45            6        |
|C1 (Primary Conductivity)     SBE4C                04-3429    1-46            7        |
|O2 (Dissolved Oxygen)         SBE43                43-0614    1-81            8        |
|T2 (Secondary Temperature)    SBE3plus             03-4907    1-83            9        |
|C2 (Secondary Conductivity)   SBE4C                04-3399    1-83           10        |
|REFT (Reference Temperature)  SBE35                35-0035    1-83           11        |
|TRANS (Transmissometer)       WETLabs C-Star       CST-327DR  1-43           12        |
|TRANS (Transmissometer)       WETLabs C-Star       CST-493DR  44-83          13        |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+






                          PRESSURE CALIBRATION REPORT
                          STS/ODF CALIBRATION FACILITY

SENSOR SERIAL NUMBER: 0796
CALIBRATION DATE: 25-OCT-2011
Mfg: SEABIRD Model: 09P CTD Prs s/n:

C1= -4.967252E+4
C2=  8.659237E-1
C3=  9.895243E-3
D1=  3.845316E-2
D2=  0.000000E+0
T1=  2.989468E+1
T2= -1.252866E-4
T3=  3.487851E-6
T4=  1.015145E-8
T5=  0.000000E+0
AD590M= 1.28520E-2
AD590B= -8.71454E+0
Slope = 1.00000000E+0
Offset = 0.00000000E+0

Calibration Standard: Mfg: RUSKA Model: 2400 s/n: 34336
t0=t1+t2*td+t3*td*td+t4*td*td*td
w = 1-t0*t0*f*f
Pressure = (0.6894759*((c1+c2*td+c3*td*td)*w*(1-(d1+d2*td)*w)-14.7)


   SBE9               SBE9     Ruska-SBE9  Ruska-SBE9
   Freq     Ruska   New_Coefs  Prev_Coefs  New_Coefs   Tprs   Bath_Temp
---------  -------  ---------  ----------  ----------  -----  ---------
33456.613     0.18      0.40     -0.03      -0.22      27.21   27.394
33634.161   364.98    364.91      0.28       0.06      27.26   27.396
33800.830   709.16    709.11      0.28       0.04      27.28   27.398
33966.550  1053.33   1053.31      0.28       0.02      27.31   27.399
34131.382  1397.59   1397.59      0.27      -0.00      27.34   27.402
34458.276  2086.07   2086.10      0.28      -0.02      27.38   27.402
34781.631  2774.62   2774.65      0.28      -0.04      27.39   27.403
35101.523  3463.25   3463.21      0.34       0.03      27.41   27.402
34781.631  2774.62   2774.66      0.27      -0.04      27.44   27.403
34458.266  2086.07   2086.09      0.29      -0.01      27.45   27.403
34131.368  1397.59   1397.58      0.28       0.01      27.46   27.403
33966.535  1053.33   1053.31      0.28       0.02      27.49   27.404
33800.804   709.16    709.10      0.30       0.06      27.49   27.403
33634.124   364.98    364.89      0.31       0.09      27.52   27.404
33457.116     0.18      0.40      0.03      -0.22      16.38   15.944
33634.609   364.98    364.89      0.36       0.09      16.38   15.944
33801.228   709.16    709.08      0.37       0.08      16.38   15.944
33966.921  1053.33   1053.30      0.34       0.03      16.39   15.944
34131.706  1397.59   1397.57      0.33       0.02      16.39   15.944
34458.512  2086.07   2086.07      0.34       0.01      16.39   15.944
34781.784  2774.62   2774.62      0.33      -0.00      16.39   15.944
35101.618  3463.25   3463.23      0.33       0.01      16.39   15.944
35418.115  4151.95   4151.91      0.32       0.03      16.39   15.944
35101.639  3463.25   3463.28      0.29      -0.03      16.39   15.944
34781.805  2774.62   2774.67      0.28      -0.05      16.39   15.944
34458.534  2086.07   2086.11      0.29      -0.04      16.38   15.944
34131.719  1397.59   1397.60      0.31      -0.01      16.37   15.944
33966.937  1053.33   1053.33      0.30      -0.00      16.37   15.944
33801.249   709.16    709.12      0.33       0.04      16.37   15.944
33634.619   364.98    364.91      0.34       0.07      16.37   15.944
33456.684     0.18      0.41      0.01      -0.23       6.75    7.107
33634.143   364.98    364.90      0.34       0.07       6.78    7.107
33800.733   709.16    709.10      0.35       0.06       6.84    7.106
33966.374  1053.33   1053.28      0.36       0.05       6.86    7.106
34131.133  1397.59   1397.57      0.35       0.02       6.89    7.106
34457.884  2086.07   2086.09      0.33      -0.02       6.91    7.106
34781.092  2774.61   2774.65      0.32      -0.04       6.94    7.106
35100.886  3463.24   3463.32      0.28      -0.07       6.96    7.106
35417.299  4151.94   4151.96      0.32      -0.02       6.96    7.106
35730.475  4840.70   4840.68      0.33       0.02       6.99    7.106
36040.493  5529.51   5529.46      0.31       0.04       7.02    7.106
35730.468  4840.70   4840.65      0.35       0.04       7.02    7.106
35417.298  4151.94   4151.94      0.34       0.01       7.04    7.105
35100.886  3463.24   3463.30      0.30      -0.05       7.04    7.106
34781.105  2774.61   2774.65      0.33      -0.03       7.07    7.106
34457.910  2086.07   2086.11      0.32      -0.04       7.09    7.106
34131.159  1397.59   1397.58      0.34       0.01       7.12    7.106
33966.403  1053.33   1053.29      0.35       0.04       7.12    7.106
33800.763   709.16    709.10      0.35       0.06       7.14    7.106
33634.164   364.98    364.88      0.37       0.10       7.14    7.106
33455.693     0.18      0.37     -0.06      -0.19      -1.40   -1.286
33633.127   364.98    364.87      0.27       0.10      -1.38   -1.286
33799.694   709.16    709.08      0.28       0.08      -1.35   -1.287
33965.315  1053.33   1053.28      0.28       0.05      -1.32   -1.287
34130.038  1397.59   1397.55      0.29       0.03      -1.30   -1.287
34456.724  2086.07   2086.05      0.33       0.03      -1.25   -1.287
34779.895  2774.62   2774.64      0.31      -0.02      -1.21   -1.286
35099.609  3463.25   3463.25      0.34      -0.01      -1.20   -1.287
35415.997  4151.95   4151.96      0.34      -0.01      -1.20   -1.287
35729.123  4840.70   4840.68      0.36       0.02      -1.17   -1.287
36039.105  5529.51   5529.50      0.33       0.02      -1.14   -1.287
36346.008  6218.40   6218.39      0.29       0.02      -1.14   -1.287
36649.907  6907.34   6907.32      0.25       0.02      -1.12   -1.287
36346.028  6218.40   6218.43      0.25      -0.02      -1.12   -1.287
36039.121  5529.51   5529.53      0.30      -0.01      -1.12   -1.287
35729.144  4840.70   4840.69      0.35       0.01      -1.09   -1.287
35416.021  4151.95   4151.96      0.33      -0.02      -1.09   -1.287
35099.656  3463.25   3463.30      0.29      -0.06      -1.07   -1.286
34779.943  2774.62   2774.69      0.26      -0.07      -1.07   -1.286
34456.784  2086.07   2086.11      0.27      -0.04      -1.07   -1.286
34130.089  1397.59   1397.58      0.27       0.01      -1.07   -1.286
33965.364  1053.33   1053.29      0.28       0.04      -1.04   -1.287
33799.741   709.16    709.08      0.29       0.08      -1.04   -1.287
33633.177   364.98    364.87      0.28       0.11      -1.04   -1.287
33455.732     0.18      0.34     -0.02      -0.16      -1.04   -1.287






Temperature Calibration Report
STS/ODF Calibration Facility

SENSOR SERIAL NUMBER: 4924
CALIBRATION DATE: 10-Feb-2012
Mfg: SEABIRD Model: 03
Previous cal: 24-Oct-11
Calibration Tech: CAL


ITS-90_COEFFICIENTS IPTS-68_COEFFICIENTS
ITS-T90
g = 4.32850794E-3 a = 4.32869684E-3
h = 6.33103361E-4 b = 6.33309185E-4
i = 1.98816686E-5 c = 1.99127639E-5
j = 1.63362653E-6 d = 1.63497710E-6
f0 = 1000.0 Slope = 1.0 Offset = 0.0


Calibration Standard: Mfg: ASL Model: F18 s/n: 245-5149
Temperature ITS-90 = 1/{g+h[ln(f0/f )]+i[ln2(f0/f)]+j[ln3(f0/f)]} - 273.15 (°C)
Temperature IPTS-68 = 1/{a+b[ln(f0/f )]+c[ln2(f0/f)]+d[ln3(f0/f)]} - 273.15 (°C)
T68 = 1.00024 * T90 (-2 to -35 Deg C)


  SBE3      SPRT     SBE3    SPRT-SBE3  SPRT-SBE3
  Freq     ITS-T90  ITS-T90  OLD_Coefs  NEW_Coefs
---------  -------  -------  ---------  ---------
2869.5251  -1.5071  -1.5071   0.00042   -0.00000
3035.9032   0.9936   0.9937   0.00045   -0.00007
3280.3812   4.4949   4.4947   0.00085    0.00023
3538.7458   7.9962   7.9964   0.00048   -0.00022
3811.3185  11.4982  11.4981   0.00088    0.00014
4097.7655  14.9910  14.9912   0.00052   -0.00024
4399.9336  18.4941  18.4940   0.00088    0.00012
4717.0819  21.9934  21.9932   0.00096    0.00020
5050.0467  25.4943  25.4945   0.00058   -0.00019
5398.7301  28.9934  28.9934   0.00079    0.00002
5763.9048  32.4945  32.4945   0.00080    0.00002






                           Sea-Bird Electronics, Inc.
               13431 NE 20th Street, Bellevue, WA 9 8005-2010 USA
   Phone: (+1) 425-643-9866 Fax (+1) 425-643-9954 Email: seabird@seabird.com


SENSOR SERIAL NUMBER: 3369         SBE4 CONDUCTIVITY CALIBRATION DATA
CALIBRATION DATE: 21-Feb-12        PSS 1978: C(35,15,0) = 4.2914 Seimens/meter

GHIJ COEFFICIENTS                  ABCDM COEFFICIENTS
g = -1.06925850e+001               a = 6.89638781e-007
h = 1.62141377e+000                b = 1.61372298e+000
i = -2.92127126e-003               c = -1.06769768e+001
j = 3.29098643e-004                d = -7.8566341 1 e-005
CPcor = -9.5700e-008 (nominal)     m = 6.3
CTcor = 3.2500e-006 (nominal)      CPcor = -9.5700e-008 (nominal)


BATH TEMP  BATH SAL   BATH COND   INST FREQ   INST COND    RESIDUAL
 (ITS-90)    (PSU)   (Siemens/m)    (kHz)    (Siemens/m)  (Siemens/m)
---------  --------  -----------  ---------  -----------  -----------
  0.0000     0.0000    0.00000     2.57223     0.00000      0.00000
 -0.9984    34.8995    2.81079     4.90152     2.81077     -0.00001
  1.0001    34.8994    2.98240     5.00872     2.98242      0.00002
 15.0001    34.8998    4.28078     5.75483     4.28076     -0.00002
 18.5001    34.8989    4.62815     5.93845     4.62817      0.00001
 29.0001    34.8977    5.71416     6.47859     5.71417      0.00001
 32.5001    34.8922    6.08774     6.65412     6.08773     -0.00001


Conductivity = (g + hf2 + if3 + jf4) /10(1 + δt + εp) Siemens/meter
Conductivity = (afm + bf2+ c + dt) / [10 (1 + εp) Siemens/meter
t = temperature[°C)]; p = pressure[decibars]; δ = CTcor; ε = CPcor;
Residual = (instrument conductivity - bath conductivity) using g, h, i, j coefficients






                           Sea-Bird Electronics, Inc.
               13431 NE 20th Street, Bellevue, WA 9 8005-2010 USA
   Phone: (+1) 425-643-9866 Fax (+1) 425-643-9954 Email: seabird@seabird.com


SENSOR SERIAL NUMBER: 3429         SBE4 CONDUCTIVITY CALIBRATION DATA
CALIBRATION DATE: 21-Feb-12        PSS 1978: C(35,15 ,0) = 4.2914 Seime n s/meter

GHIJ COEFFICIENTS                  ABCDM COEFFICIENTS
g = -9.87142635e+000               a = 8.96941212e-007
h = 1.51947165e+000                b = 1.51324658e+000
i = -2.38692213e-003               c = -9.85902121e+000
j = 2.74076567e-004                d = -8.15513231e-005
CPcor = -9.5700e-008 (nominal)     m = 6.1
CTcor = 3.2500e-006 (nominal)      CPcor = -9.5700 e-008 (nominal)


BATH TEMP  BATH SAL   BATH COND   INST FREQ   INST COND    RESIDUAL
 (ITS-90)    (PSU)   (Siemens/m)    (kHz)    (Siemens/m)  (Siemens/m)
---------  --------  -----------  ---------  -----------  -----------
  0.0000     0.0000    0.00000     2.55247     0.00000      0.00000
 -0.9984    34.8995    2.81079     5.00787     2.81078     -0.00001
  1.0001    34.8994    2.98240     5.11972     2.98242      0.00002
 15.0001    34.8998    4.28078     5.89700     4.28075     -0.00003
 18.5001    34.8989    4.62815     6.08803     4.62817      0.00001
 29.0001    34.8977    5.71416     6.64949     5.71418      0.00002
 32.5001    34.8922    6.08774     6.83180     6.08772     -0.00002


Conductivity = (g + hf2 + if3 + jf4) /10(1 + δt + εp) Siemens/meter
Conductivity = (afm + bf2+ c + dt) / [10 (1 + εp) Siemens/meter
t = temperature[°C)]; p = pressure[decibars]; δ = CTcor; ε = CPcor;
Residual = (instrument conductivity - bath conductivity) using g, h, i, j coefficients






                         Temperature Calibration Report
                          STS/ODF Calibration Facility


SENSOR SERIAL NUMBER: 4907
CALIBRATION DATE: 08-Feb-2012
Mfg: SEABIRD Model: 03
Previous cal: 24-Oct-11
Calibration Tech: CAL

ITS-90_COEFFICIENTS   IPTS-68_COEFFICIENTS
                      ITS-T90
-------------------   --------------------
g = 4.34511554E-3     a = 4.34530983E-3
h = 6.37076838E-4     b = 6.37285168E-4
i = 2.09177953E-5     c = 2.09494275E-5
j = 1.75265860E-6     d = 1.75407135E-6
f0 = 1000.0           Slope = 1.0           Offset = 0.0


Calibration Standard: Mfg: ASL Model: F18 s/n: 245-5149
Temperature ITS-90  = 1/{g+h[ln(f0/f )]+i[ln2(f0/f)]+j[ln3(f0/f)]} - 273.15 (°C)
Temperature IPTS-68 = 1/{a+b[ln(f0/f )]+c[ln2(f0/f)]+d[ln3(f0/f)]} - 273.15 (°C)
T68 = 1.00024 * T90 (-2 to -35 Deg C)


                 SBE3       SPRT     SBE3   SPRT-SBE3  SPRT-SBE3
                 Freq     ITS-T90  ITS-T90  OLD_Coefs  NEW_Coefs
               ---------  -------  -------  ---------  ---------
               2934.7645  -1.5052  -1.5054   0.00007    0.00019
               3104.4010   0.9939   0.9941  -0.00018   -0.00016
               3353.7376   4.4942   4.4945  -0.00021   -0.00027
               3617.2191   7.9958   7.9956   0.00022    0.00015
               3895.1951  11.4971  11.4970   0.00012    0.00008
               4187.3291  14.9903  14.9902   0.00007    0.00006
               4495.5142  18.4935  18.4934   0.00008    0.00009
               4818.9334  21.9927  21.9927  -0.00005   -0.00005
               5158.5360  25.4947  25.4949  -0.00010   -0.00016
               5514.0269  28.9933  28.9933   0.00017   -0.00002
               5886.2702  32.4937  32.4936   0.00050    0.00008






                           Sea-Bird Electronics, Inc.
               13431 NE 20th Street, Bellevue, WA 9 8005-2010 USA
   Phone: (+1) 425-643-9866 Fax (+1) 425-643-9954 Email: seabird@seabird.com


SENSOR SERIAL NUMBER: 3399         SBE4 CONDUCTIVITY CALIBRATION DATA
CALIBRATION DATE: 21-Feb-12        PSS 1978: C(35,15 ,0) = 4.2914 Seime n s/meter

GHIJ COEFFICIENTS                  ABCDM COEFFICIENTS
g = -1.01511715e+001               a =  1.06291609e-006
h =  1.53536729e+000               b =  1.52937173e+000
i = -2.28594877e-003               c = -1.01389439e+001
j =  2.63108407e-004               d = -7.94633515e-005
CPcor = -9.5700e-008 (nominal)     m =  6.0
CTcor =  3.2500e-006 (nominal)     CPcor = -9.5700e-008 (nominal)


BATH TEMP  BATH SAL   BATH COND   INST FREQ   INST COND    RESIDUAL
 (ITS-90)    (PSU)   (Siemens/m)    (kHz)    (Siemens/m)  (Siemens/m)
---------  --------  -----------  ---------  -----------  -----------
  0.0000    0.0000     0.00000     2.57477     0.00000      0.00000
 -0.9984   34.8995     2.81079     4.99973     2.81077     -0.00001
  1.0001   34.8994     2.98240     5.11060     2.98242      0.00002
 15.0001   34.8998     4.28078     5.88148     4.28075     -0.00003
 18.5001   34.8989     4.62815     6.07103     4.62817      0.00002
 29.0001   34.8977     5.71416     6.62833     5.71417      0.00001
 32.5001   34.8922     6.08774     6.80936     6.08773     -0.00001


Conductivity = (g + hf2 + if3 + jf4) /10(1 + δt + εp) Siemens/meter
Conductivity = (afm + bf2+ c + dt) / [10 (1 + εp) Siemens/meter
t = temperature[°C)]; p = pressure[decibars]; δ = CTcor; ε = CPcor;
Residual = (instrument conductivity - bath conductivity) using g, h, i, j coefficients






                           Sea-Bird Electronics, Inc.
               13431 NE 20th Street, Bellevue, WA 9 8005-2010 USA
   Phone: (+1) 425-643-9866 Fax (+1) 425-643-9954 Email: seabird@seabird.com


SENSOR SERIAL NUMBER: 0614         SBE 43 OXYGEN CALIBRATION DATA
CALIBRATION DATE: 18-Feb-12
COEFFICIENTS       A = -3.3775e-003    NOMINAL DYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS
Soc = 0.4835       B =  1.2081e-004    D1 =  1.92634e-4  H1 = -3.30000e-2
Voffset = -0.5013  C = -1.8327e-006    D2 = -4.64803e-2  H2 = 5.00000e+3
Tau20 = 2.48       E nominal = 0.036                     H3 = 1.45000e+3


BATH OX  BATH TEMP  BATH SAL   INSTRUMENT     INSTRUMENT   RESIDUAL
(ml/l)    ITS-90      PSU     OUTPUT(VOLTS)  OXYGEN(ml/l)   (ml/l)
-------  ---------  --------  -------------  ------------  --------
 1.22       2.00     0.05         0.764          1.22        0.00
 1.23       6.00     0.05         0.798          1.23        0.00
 1.23      12.00     0.05         0.849          1.23        0.01
 1.24      20.00     0.04         0.921          1.25        0.01
 1.25      26.00     0.04         0.979          1.26        0.01
 1.26      30.00     0.05         1.019          1.27        0.01
 4.10       6.00     0.05         1.488          4.09       -0.02
 4.10       2.00     0.05         1.380          4.08       -0.02
 4.12      12.00     0.05         1.659          4.11       -0.01
 4.14      20.00     0.04         1.893          4.13       -0.01
 4.15      30.00     0.05         2.196          4.15        0.00
 4.16      26.00     0.04         2.076          4.16       -0.00
 6.64      26.00     0.05         3.019          6.65        0.00
 6.67      30.00     0.05         3.222          6.66       -0.00
 6.69      20.00     0.04         2.756          6.70        0.00
 6.76      12.00     0.05         2.408          6.77        0.00
 6.85       6.00     0.05         2.159          6.87        0.01
 6.91       2.00     0.05         1.990          6.92        0.01


Oxygen (ml/l) = Soc *(V+Voffset)*(1.0 +A*T+B*T2+C*T3)*OxSol(T,S)*exp(E*P/K)
V = voltage output from SBE43, T = temperature [deg C], S = salinity [PSU] K = temperature [deg K]
OxSol(T,S) = oxygen saturation [ml/l], P = pressure [dbar], Residual = instrument oxygen - bath oxygen






                           Sea-Bird Electronics, Inc.
               13431 NE 20th Street, Bellevue, WA 9 8005-2010 USA
   Phone: (+1) 425-643-9866 Fax (+1) 425-643-9954 Email: seabird@seabird.com


SENSOR SERIAL NUMBER: 0186         SBE 43 OXYGEN CALIBRATION DATA
CALIBRATION DATE: 15-Feb-12


COEFFICIENTS       A = -2.5169e-003    NOMINAL DYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS
Soc = 0.3734       B =  2.0275e-004    D1 =  1.92634e-4  H1 = -3.30000e-2
Voffset = -0.5041  C = -2.9766e-006    D2 = -4.64803e-2  H2 =  5.00000e+3
Tau20 = 1.56       E nominal = 0.036                     H3 =  1.45000e+3


BATH OX  BATH TEMP  BATH SAL   INSTRUMENT     INSTRUMENT   RESIDUAL
(ml/l)    ITS-90      PSU     OUTPUT(VOLTS)  OXYGEN(ml/l)   (ml/l)
-------  ---------  --------  -------------  ------------  --------
 1.25      12.00     0.03         0.952          1.25        0.01
 1.25       6.00     0.03         0.893          1.25        0.00
 1.25       2.00     0.03         0.853          1.26        0.00
 1.26      20.00     0.03         1.034          1.27        0.01
 1.27      26.00     0.03         1.096          1.28        0.01
 1.28      30.00     0.04         1.139          1.29        0.01
 4.12      12.00     0.03         1.973          4.11       -0.01
 4.13      20.00     0.03         2.230          4.13       -0.00
 4.14      26.00     0.04         2.420          4.14        0.00
 4.14       6.00     0.03         1.783          4.12       -0.02
 4.15      30.00     0.04         2.552          4.15        0.00
 4.17       2.00     0.03         1.658          4.15       -0.02
 6.70      30.00     0.04         3.807          6.70       -0.01
 6.75      26.00     0.04         3.628          6.75        0.00
 6.76      20.00     0.03         3.330          6.76       -0.00
 6.82      12.00     0.03         2.943          6.82        0.00
 6.90       6.00     0.03         2.648          6.91        0.01
 6.99       2.00     0.04         2.451          7.00        0.01


Oxygen (ml/l) = Soc *(V+Voffset)*(1.0 +A*T+B*T2+C*T3)*OxSol(T,S)*exp(E*P/K)
V = voltage output from SBE43, T = temperature [deg C], S = salinity [PSU] K = temperature [deg K]
OxSol(T,S) = oxygen saturation [ml/l], P = pressure [dbar], Residual = instrument oxygen - bath oxygen






                         Temperature Calibration Report
                          STS/ODF Calibration Facility


SENSOR SERIAL NUMBER: 0035
CALIBRATION DATE: 16-Feb-2012
Mfg: SEABIRD Model: 35
Previous cal: 27-Oct-11
Calibration Tech: CAL
ITS-90_COEFFICIENTS
a0 =  3.491354356E-3
a1 = -8.999088258E-4
a2 =  1.472396592E-4
a3 = -8.336052929E-6
a4 =  1.820067296E-7
Slope = 1.000000 Offset = 0.000000
Calibration Standard: Mfg: ASL Model: F18 s/n: 245-5149
Calibration Standard: Mfg: ASL Model: F18 s/n: 245-5149
Temperature ITS-90 = 1/{a0+a1[ln(f)]+a2[ln2(f)]+a3[ln3(f)]+a4[ln4(f)} - 273.15 (°C)


                SBE35       SPRT    SBE35   SPRT-SBE35  SPRT-SBE35
                Freq      ITS-T90  ITS-T90  OLD_Coefs   NEW_Coefs
             -----------  -------  -------  ----------  ----------
             659024.3000  -1.5058  -1.5058   0.00011     0.00001
             590655.1500   0.9937   0.9938   0.00007    -0.00005
             507831.3000   4.4948   4.4947   0.00026     0.00007
             437794.8000   7.9964   7.9964   0.00023    -0.00002
             378443.5750  11.4979  11.4979   0.00026    -0.00001
             328132.9000  14.9908  14.9909   0.00018    -0.00006
             285158.1500  18.4934  18.4933   0.00026     0.00009
             248511.1500  21.9909  21.9910   0.00001    -0.00009
             217094.7750  25.4936  25.4935   0.00016     0.00012
             190156.6750  28.9927  28.9928  -0.00002    -0.00010
             166962.4250  32.4946  32.4946   0.00032     0.00003







PO Box 518                                                        (541) 929-5650
620 Applegate St.                    WET Labs                 FAX (541) 929-5277
Philomath, OR 97370   

                               C-Star Calibration


Date November 30, 2010           S/N# CST-327DR                 Pathlength 25 cm

                                 Analog meter
Vd                                 0.059 V
Vair                               4.752 V
Vref                               4.660 V

Temperature of calibration water                                     21.3°C
Ambient temperature during calibration                               21.5°C



Relationship of transmittance (Tr) to beam attenuation coefficient (c), and 
                                     -cx
   pathlerigth (x, in meters): Tr = e

To determine beam transmittance: Tr = (Vsig - Vdark) 1 (Vref - Vdark)

To determine beam attenuation coefficient: c = -1/x * In (Tr)


Vd    Meter output with the beam blocked. This is the offset.
Vair  Meter output in air with a clear beam path.
Vref  Meter output with clean water in the path.
Temperature of calibration water: temperature of clean water used to obtain Vref.
Ambient temperature: meter temperature in air during the calibration.
Vsig  Measured signal output of meter.

                                   Revision L                             6/9/09






Transmissometer Air Calibration M&B Calculator 
Wilf Gardner / Mary Jo Richardson Texas A&M

CST-327-DR    Air Cal Date  28-Mar-1 2

                  Factory Cal Sheet Info        AVG Deck/Lab Readings

Air Reading              4.752                         4.649
Water Reading            4.66                           N/A
Blocked Reading          0.059                         0.059

Air Temp.    12.875    12.884    12.997    13.088    13.134    13.168

M  20.044      Air Temp. Average  13.024
B  -1.183


CST-327-DR    Air Cal Date  14-Apr-12

                  Factory Cal Sheet Info        AVG Deck/Lab Readings

Air Reading              4.752                         4.611
Water Reading            4.66                           N/A
Blocked Reading          0.059                         0.06

Air Temp.    29.342    29.365    29.329    29.380    29.452    29.432

M  20.216      Air Temp. Average  29.383
B  -1.213

CST-327-DR      Air Cal Date  26-Apr-12
                  Factory Cal Sheet Info        AVG Deck/Lab Readings

Air Reading              4.752                         4.695
Water Reading            4.66                           N/A
Blocked Reading          0.059                         0.06

Air Temp.
M          19.850             Air Temp. Average           26.100
B -1.191              Air temp taken from wrong source.

REMOVED from service 1 May 2012 - erratic readings at depth.






PO Box 518                                                        (541) 929-5650
620 Applegate St.                    WET Labs                 FAX (541) 929-5277
Philomath, OR 97370                                              www.wetlabs.com

                               C-Star Calibration


Date December 2, 2008           S/N# CST-493DR                 Pathlength 25 cm

                                 Analog meter
Vd                                 0.060 V
Vair                               4.825 V
Vref                               4.734 V

Temperature of calibration water                                     21.9°C
Ambient temperature during calibration                               21.7°C



Relationship of transmittance (Tr) to beam attenuation coefficient (c), and 
                                     -cx
   pathlerigth (x, in meters): Tr = e

To determine beam transmittance: Tr = (Vsig - Vdark) 1 (Vref - Vdark)

To determine beam attenuation coefficient: c = -1/x * In (Tr)


Vd    Meter output with the beam blocked. This is the offset.
Vair  Meter output in air with a clear beam path.
Vref  Meter output with clean water in the path.
Temperature of calibration water: temperature of clean water used to obtain Vref.
Ambient temperature: meter temperature in air during the calibration.
Vsig  Measured signal output of meter.

                                  Revision I                             4/17/08






                 Transmissometer Air Calibration M&B Calculator
                             SIO/STS Transmissometer


CST-493-DR    Air Cal Date  1-May-12

                  Factory Cal Sheet Info        AVG Deck/Lab Readings

Air Reading              4.825                         4.688
Water Reading            4.734                           N/A
Blocked Reading          0.006                         0.057

Air Temp.    25.750   25.752   25.750   25.623   25.620   25.567

M  19.857      Air Temp. Average  25.677
B  -1.132


CST-493-DR    Air Cal Date  12-May-12

                  Factory Cal Sheet Info        AVG Deck/Lab Readings

Air Reading              4.825 4.701
Water Reading            4.734                          N/A
Blocked Reading          0.06                         0.056

Air Temp.    18.041   18.049   18.055   18.051   18.044   18.055

M  19.797      Air Temp. Average  18.049
B  -1.109





A20 (2012) LADCP cruise report (05/12/2012)



Chief Scientist: Michael McCartney
Ship: R/V Atlantis Cruise AT20
Dates: 04/18/2012 - 05/15/2012
Ports: Bridgetown, Barbados to Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA
ADCP/LADCP PI: Eric Firing, University of Hawaii
LADCP operator: Lora Van Uffelen
Alternate LADCP Data Collector: Stefan Gary

A University of Hawaii (UH) system was used to collect Lowered Acoustic Doppler 
Current Profiler (LADCP) data. Preliminary processing was completed during the 
cruise using Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) LADCP software.

LADCP System Setup

One 36-bottle CTD rosette was used during the whole cruise. On deck, the rosette 
was moved into and out of the sampling area atop a plywood platform mounted on 
two tracks. Initially installed on the starboard side of the ship, operations 
were switched to the port side of the ship after the first 36 casts to utilize a 
sheltered sampling hangar once the port-side winch was deemed adequate.  

One WH150-kHz LADCP (serial number 16283), was secured to the rosette, facing 
downward, along with an oil-filled 58V rechargeable lead-acid battery pack. The 
installation on deck consisted of a Lenovo T41 laptop computer for data 
acquisition and a Lenovo R52 laptop for data processing, as well as an American 
Reliance Inc. (AMREL) battery charger/power supply. The LADCP heads and battery 
pack were mounted inside the 36-bottle rosette frame and connected using a 
custom designed, potted star cable assembly. The head was placed looking 
downward underneath the bottles at approximately the same height as the CTD 
instruments. The battery pack and LADCP were mounted on opposite sides of the 
rosette frame center to avoid unequal balancing.

The power supply and data transfer was handled independently from any CTD 
connections. While on deck, the instrument communication was set up by means of 
a network of RS-232 and USB cables, using LDEO LADCP software for data 
processing (using version IX_6beta) in Matlab [Thur08]. Additional scripts, 
authored by Prof. Eric Firing and the group at the University of Hawaii, were 
written for Python and used for instrument control and data transmission. The 
command file used in communication with the LADCP is shown below:

CR1
WM15
TC2
TB 00:00:02.20
TE 00:00:01.00
TP 00:00.00
WN40
WS0800
WT1600
WF1600
WV330
EZ0011101
EX00100
CF11101
LZ30,230
CL0

The LADCP and CTD acquisition computer clocks both used NTP to stay in sync with 
the ship clock and to assure that the absolute time recorded by the CTD and 
LADCP be the same.

LADCP Operation and Data Processing

Upon arrival at each station, the LADCP heads were switched on for data 
acquisition using the LADCP software. Communication between the computer and the 
instrument was then terminated, the power cable was disconnected, and all 
connections were sealed with dummy plugs. After each cast, the data and the 
power supply cable was rinsed with fresh water and reconnected to the computer 
and battery charger; the data acquisition was terminated; the battery was 
charged; and the data was downloaded using the LADCP software. It took about 45 
minutes to download the data and approximately 60 minutes to fully recharge the 
battery.

Within 10 hours after each cast, the data were preliminarily processed, 
combining CTD, GPS, and shipboard ADCP data with the data from the LADCP, thus 
producing both shear and inverse solutions for the absolute velocities. The 
preliminary processing produced velocity profiles, rosette frame angular 
movements, and velocity ascii and Matlab files. Plots (velocity profiles from 
each cast and transects showing the values of U and V along the course of the 
cruise) were put on a website that was made available to all computers on the 
local network.  Ascii files consisting of columns of Pressure, U, and V data 
were also produced and made available via the website. 

Problems

Initial communication problems between the acquisition computer and the 
instrument were resolved during a test/training cast on deck prior to the first 
cast at station 001_01.  The problem was resolved by replacing the USB-to-serial 
cable with 2-port FTDI USB-to serial connector and using /dev/ttyUSB1 instead of 
/dev/ttyUSB0.  The change from "USB0" to "USB1" was also made in ladcp_wh150.py.  

Intermittently received timeout errors during data download.  All data was 
subsequently downloaded successfully.

Battery was not fully charged at outset of cruise, and did not fully charge for 
the first 9 stations, which were shallow and close together, but this never 
presented a problem in data acquisition. After this time, there was sufficient 
time for the battery to fully charge between stations.  Battery usage was 
routinely monitored using plot_PTCV.py. The battery was vented every few days to 
ensure that the gas bubble did not stretch the membrane on the battery. 

The LADCP was repositioned on the rosette, prior to Station 45 as it appeared to 
have gradually slid downward from its initial position. It was raised 
approximately 6cm, to ensure that the heads would not come in contact with the 
plywood platform that the rosette rested upon on deck.

Preliminary results

Data was successfully collected on all 83 stations sampled during the cruise.

The latitude-depth section measured at stations 1-83 of zonal (U) and meridional 
(V) velocity is shown in the attached file (U_V_depth_lat_section_LDEO.ps). A 
few prominent features are:

* The Gulf Stream, clearly evident around approximately 38-39degN (Stations 62-
  64), extending to full ocean depth, with a maximum eastward-flowing current of 
  almost 98 cm/s.

* An eddy in the upper ~1000m from approximately 33-35degN (Stations 56-58).

* Suggestion of a deep western boundary current off the shelf around ~8-9degN 
  (Stations 13-16).


References
* Thurnherr, A. M., *How To Process LADCP Data With the LDEO Software (last   
      updated for version IX.5)* July 9, 2008.




SHIPBOARD ACOUSTIC DOPPLER CURRENT PROFILER

CLIVAR/CO2 A20
R/V Atlantis Cruise AT20
2012/04/18-2012/05/15
Julia Hummon University of Hawaii

The R/V Atlantis has a permenantly-mounted 75kHz acoustic Doppler current 
profiler ("ADCP", Teledyne R.D.Instruments) for measuring ocean velocity.  
During the cruise prior to A22, an additional higher frequency ADCP (300kHz 
Workhorse) was installed, and remained on the ship for the A22/A20 CLIVAR 
cruises.

Specialized software developed at the University of Hawaii has been installed on 
this ship for the purpose of ADCP acquisition, processing, and figure generation 
during each cruise. The acquisition system ("UHDAS", University of Hawaii Data 
Acquisition System) is an Open Sources suite, written in C and Python.  UHDAS 
acquires data from the ADCPs, gyro heading (for reliability), Phins heading (for 
increased accuracy), and GPS positions from various sensors.  An additional 
Phins is also logged.

Single-ping data are converted from beam to earth coordinates using known 
transducer angles and gyro heading, and are corrected by the average phins-gyro 
difference over the duration of the averaging interval.

Groups of single-ping ocean velocity estimates must be edited averaged to 
decrease measurement noise.  These groups commonly comprise 5 minutes) or 2 
minutes for WH300). Bad pings must be removed prior to averaging.  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.

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 LADCP data processing uses recent shipboard velocities as one of the 
constraints.

Shipboard Doppler sonar work on this cruise

During the cruise, the Ocean Surveyor was run in "interleaved" pinging mode, 
where it can sample in broadband mode (higher resolution, reduced range) and in 
narrowband mode (coarser resolution, increased depth range) with alternating 
pings.  These are processed into two separate datasets.

Data quality

Typical ADCP data quality issues are 
•  - clock errors
•  - heading correction

- data loss or compromise:
•      - data loss due to bad weather, bubbles, etc
•      - data compromise due to deep scattering layers
•      - depth penetration

clock: 

The ADCP computer was synced to the network time server during the cruise.  This 
worked fine; times are in UTC; decimal days for processed ADCP data are zero-
based, i.e. 2012/01/01 12:00:00 is 0.500000

heading:

Gyro headings were corrected using the Phins.  Heading correction is critical to 
minimize cross-track errors induced by errors in heading.  A one degree heading 
heading error results in a 10cm/s cross-track error in shipboard ADCP data if 
the ship is travelling at 12kts.

data loss or compromise:

ADCP system and data were monitored remotely during the cruise.  Nothing was 
seen during the cruise that points to data loss or compromise.  Additional 
bottom editing will probably be necessary in the water near Puerto Rico, as odd 
artifacts appeared at depth in the remote monitoring plots.

Overview

All in all, the instrument, ancillary devices, and acquisition system performed 
well.

References:

UHDAS+CODAS Documentation
http://currents.soest.hawaii.edu/docs/adcp_doc/index.html




CHLOROFLUOROCARBON (CFC) AND SULFUR HEXAFLUORIDE (SF6) MEASUREMENTS

PI: William Smethie, LDEO (bsmethie@ldeo.edu)
Cruise Participants: Eugene Gorman, LDEO
Lucia Upchurch, The University of Texas at Austin

Samples for the analysis of dissolved CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113 and SF6 were 
collected from approximately 1200 of the Niskin water samples collected during 
the expedition. When taken, water samples for CFC analysis were the first 
samples drawn from the 10-liter bottles. Care was taken to coordinate the 
sampling of CFCs with other samples to minimize the time between the initial 
opening of each bottle and the completion of sample drawing. In most cases, 
dissolved oxygen, alkalinity and dissolved inorganic carbon samples were 
collected within several minutes of the initial opening of each bottle. To 
minimize contact with air, the CFC samples were collected from the Niskin bottle 
petcock using PVC tubing flushed of air bubbles and filled into a 500-ml glass 
bottle. The glass bottle was placed into a plastic overflow container and filled 
from the bottom. The overflow water filled the container to a depth greater than 
the height of the glass bottle. The stopper was held in the overflow container 
or briefly in the sample stream to be rinsed. When the overflow container was 
filled, it (and the glass bottle) were lowered to remove the PVC tubing and the 
glass bottle was stoppered under water. A plastic cap was snapped on to hold the 
stopper in place. Samples were analyzed within 12 hours of sample collection and 
the temperature of the water bath noted immediately prior to analysis. 

For atmospheric sampling, a 200 cm3 gas-tight, glass syringe was used to collect 
samples from the bow of the ship.  Samples were injected directly into a 
calibrated sample loop and then sent to the traps and then columns of the 
analytical instrumentation.  Average atmospheric concentrations determined 
during the cruise were 241 parts per trillion (ppt) for CFC-11, 536 ppt for CFC-
12, 77 ppt for CFC-113, and 7.5 ppt for SF6.

Concentrations of CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, and SF6 in air samples, seawater and 
gas standards were measured by shipboard electron capture gas chromatography 
(EC-GC). 

Samples were introduced into the GC-EC via a dual purge and trap system. CFCs 
were purged from ~20 mL water samples while SF6 was purged from a larger ~350 mL 
volume using UHP nitrogen.  Samples were purged using flows of approximately 60-
80 mL min-1 for CFCs and 80-90 mL min-1 for SF6.  Purge gas was passed through a 
magnesium perchlorate dryer prior to reaching traps constructed from ~3 inches 
of 1/16 inch stainless steel tubing containing either Carbograph 1AC (for CFCs) 
or Carboxen 1000 (for SF6).  Traps were held at approximately -80 C (CFCs) and -
60 C (SF6) using a liquid CO2 cooling (Scientific Instrument Services, Inc.) for 
the 5 minute duration of trapping. Following collection, the traps are isolated 
and flash-heated by direct resistance to ~120 C (for CFCs) and ~150 C (for SF6) 
to desorb collected chemicals for further separation and detection.

Separation of SF6 was accomplished using a both a packed precolumn (~3' long) 
and analytical column (~6' long) containing 80/100 mesh molecular sieve 5A and 
held at 100 C.  The precolumn was switched out and backflushed after  2 minutes 
to prevent N2O from entering the main column and prevent background chemicals 
from increasing the detector baseline.  CFCs were separated using a series of 
three packed columns:  a Poracil B precolumn (~ 4 feet), a Carbograph 1AC 
analytical column (~ 6 feet), and a short column (~5 cm) containing 80/100 mesh 
molecular sieve 5A.  Following release from the trap, the short column 
containing molecular sieves was switched out of the system and backflushed 
immediately following exit of CFC 12 (~1.8 min) to remove potential interference 
of nearby SF6 and N2O.  The precolumn was switched out after 2 min and 
backflushed following exit of CFC-113.  This prevented buildup of chemicals on 
the column that could increase the system background.  

The analytical system was calibrated frequently using standard gases of known 
CFC and SF6 compositions. Gas sample loops of known volume were thoroughly 
flushed with standard gas and injected into the system.  Loops equilibrated with 
atmosphere and 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, precolumns, main chromatographic columns and EC detector were 
similar to those used for analyzing water samples. Two different 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-free 
gas) were injected and analyzed in a similar manner. The typical analysis time 
for samples was ~11.0 min.

Concentrations of the CFCs in air, seawater samples and gas standards are 
reported relative to the SIO98 calibration scale (Cunnold, et. al., 2000). 
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 in femtomoles per kilogram seawater (fmol kg-1). 
CFC 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 (cylinder 35060 
for CFC-11: 591.03 ppt, CFC-12: 443.6 ppt, CFC 113:  249.6and SF6: 2.6 ppt) into 
the analytical instrument. Full-range calibration curves were run three times 
during the cruise. Single injections of a fixed volume of standard gas at one 
atmosphere were run much more frequently to monitor short-term changes in 
detector sensitivity. The SF6 peak was often on a small bump on the baseline, 
resulting in a large dependence of the peak area on the choice of endpoints for 
integration.  Estimated accuracy is +/-2%. Precision for CFC-12, CFC-11, CFC-113 
and SF6 was less than 1%.  Estimated limit of detection is 1 fmol kg-1 for CFC-
11, 3 fmol kg-1 for CFC-12 and 0.05 fmol kg-1 for SF6.

The efficiency of the purging process was evaluated periodically by re-stripping 
water samples and comparing the residual concentrations to initial values.  

Analytical Difficulties.  Analytical difficulties were minimal over the course 
of the cruise.  Once the stripping chamber was overfilled due to user error, 
causing the loss of several samples earlier on.  CFC-12 was often not trapped as 
the liquid CO2 supply from a given tank ran out and the cooling traps did not 
reach the required temperature to hold this chemical effectively.  Midway to the 
end, the CFC stripping chamber would occasionally become clogged and not fill or 
drain properly causing the loss of a few CFC samples.  A rinse with fresh water 
would restore the valve to proper working order.


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




CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CCl4 and SF6

PI: Rana Fine, University of Miami, RSMAS
Analysts: David Cooper and Rebecca Rolph

Sample Collection

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

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


Equipment and technique


CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CCl4 and SF6 were measured on 39 stations (station 2 
and odd stations 1 through 75) for a total of 1212 samples. Even stations and 
odd stations 81 and 83 were sampled and analyzed by the LDEO CFC group. Analyses 
were performed on a gas chromatograph (GC) equipped with an electron capture 
detector (ECD). Samples were introduced into the GC-EDC via a purge and dual 
trap system. 202 ml water samples were purged with nitrogen and the compounds of 
interest were trapped on a main Porapack N/Carboxen 1000 trap held at ~ -15°C 
with a Vortec Tube cooler. After the sample had been purged and trapped for 6 
minutes at 250ml/min flow, the gas stream was stripped of any water vapor via a 
magnesium perchlorate trap prior to transfer to the main trap. The main trap was 
isolated and heated by direct resistance to 150°C. The desorbed contents of the 
main trap were back-flushed and transferred, with helium gas, over a short 
period of time, to a small volume focus trap in order to improve chromatographic 
peak shape. The focus trap was Porapak N and is held at ~ -15°C with a Vortec 
Tube cooler. The focus trap was flash heated by direct resistance to 180°C to 
release the compounds of interest onto the analytical pre-columns.  The first 
precolumn was a 5 cm length of 1/16" tubing packed with 80/100 mesh molecular 
sieve 5A. This column was used to hold back N2O and keep it from entering the 
main column. The second pre-column was the first 5 meters of a 60 m Gaspro 
capillary column with the main column consisting of the remaining 55 meters. The 
analytical pre-columns were held in-line with the main analytical column for the 
first 35 seconds of the chromatographic run. After 35 seconds, all of the 
compounds of interest were on the main column and the pre-column was switched 
out of line and back-flushed with a relatively high flow of nitrogen gas. This 
prevented later eluting compounds from building up on the analytical column, 
eventually eluting and causing the detector baseline signal to increase. 

The samples were stored at room temperature and analyzed within 12 hours of 
collection, with the exception of stations 73 and 75.  These were analyzed 
approximately 24 hours after collection. Every 10 to 18 measurements were 
followed by a purge blank and a standard. The surface sample was held after 
measurement and was sent through the process in order to "restrip" it to 
determine the efficiency of the purging process. 


Calibration 

A gas phase standard, 35060, was used for calibration. The concentrations of the 
compounds in this standard are reported on the SIO 2005 absolute calibration 
scale. 5 calibration curves were run over the course of the cruise. Estimated 
accuracy is +/- 2%. Precision for CFC-12, CFC-11, and SF6 was less than 2%. 
Estimated limit of detection is 1 fmol/kg for CFC-11 and CCl4, 3 fmol/kg for 
CFC-12 and CFC-113, and 0.4 fmol/kg for SF6


Results/Data 

The preliminary data submitted to the onboard database are labeled "good" for 
F12 & F11 throughout the cruise and "good" for F113 & CCl4 on stations 1-61. SF6 
data throughout the cruise and for F113 & CCl4 on stations 63-71 are labeled 
"questionable" due to poor precision.  No SF6, F113 or CCl4 data were submitted 
after cast 71 due to analytical problems.  Final data analysis, quality control 
and inter-system calibration will be performed by the project PIs at a later 
time.




HELIUM AND TRITIUM

PI: William Jenkins
Cruise Participant: Zoe Sandwith

Helium and Tritium samples were collected roughly once per day at 17 stations 
during A20.

Helium Sampling

24 helium samples were drawn at 14 of the stations and 8-16 niskins were sampled 
at 3 of the shallower stations.  Although not all 36 niskins were sampled, 
depths were chosen to obtain an accurate cross-section of the entire water 
column. A duplicate was taken at every other station.  Helium samples were taken 
in custom-made stainless steel cylinders and sealed with rotating plug valves at 
either end. The sample cylinders were leak-checked prior to the cruise. 

Samples were drawn using tygon tubing connected to the niskin bottle at one end 
and the cylinder at the other.  Cylinders are thumped with a bat while being 
flushed with water from the niskin to remove bubbles from the sample. After 
flushing roughly 1 liter of water through them, the plug valves are closed.  Due 
to the nature of the o-ring seals on the sample vessels, they must be extracted 
within 24 hours. 

Eight samples at a time were extracted using our 'At Sea Extraction' line in the 
Bio-Analytical Lab.  The stainless steel sample cylinders are attached to a 
vacuum manifold and pumped down to less than 2e-7 torr using a diffusion pump 
for a minimum of 1 hour to check for leaks.  The sections are then isolated from 
the vacuum manifold and introduced to reservoir cans which are heated to >80C 
for roughly 10 minutes.  Glass bulbs are attached to the sections and immersed 
in ice water during the extraction process.  After 10 minutes of extraction, 
each bulb is flame sealed and packed for shipment back to WHOI.  The extraction 
cans and sections are cleaned with distilled water and isopropanol, and then 
dried between each extraction.  Prior to the cruise, all vacuum components were 
cleaned, serviced and checked for leaks.  The glass bulbs are baked to 640C for 
6 hours and cooled slowly in an oven receiving a steady flow of nitrogen.  

368 helium samples were taken, which includes 8 duplicate samples. 3 were lost 
due to glass cracking during the flame-sealing, and 2 were lost due to a leak 
developing a weld of a sample chamber after the sample was taken. Therefore, 363 
helium samples are being sent to WHOI for analysis on a mass spectrometer.  

No major problems were encountered during the cruise for the helium at-sea 
extractions. The temperature in the lab was slightly higher than is preferred 
for the operation of the -130°C cold trap, and the water cooled diffusion pump, 
resulting in some strain on the equipment, but this did not appear to affect the 
extraction process. The temperature improved with our transit northwards, and by 
the last week of sampling, the room temperature was down into a more desirable 
range.

Tritium Sampling

Tritium samples were drawn from the same stations and bottles as those sampled 
for helium, with the exception of the helium duplicates.  A duplicate tritium 
was taken on stations where no helium duplicate was being taken.  Tritium 
samples were taken using tygon tubing to fill 1 liter glass jugs.  The jugs were 
baked in an oven, backfilled with argon, and the caps were taped shut prior to 
the cruise. While filling, the jugs are place on the deck and filled to about 2 
inches from the top of the bottle, being careful not to spill the argon.  Caps 
were replaced and taped shut with electrical tape before being packed for 
shipment back to WHOI.  

369 tritium samples were taken, which includes 9 duplicates.  Tritium samples 
will be degassed in the lab at WHOI and stored for a minimum of 6 months before 
mass spectrometer analysis.  

No issues were encountered while taking tritium samples.




DISSOLVED INORGANIC CARBON (DIC)

PI: Richard Feely, NOAA/PMEL
Rik Wanninkhof, NOAA/AOML
Cruise Participants: Cynthia Peacock, NOAA/PMEL/UW/JISAO
Bob Castle, NOAA/AOML

The DIC analytical equipment (DICE) was designed based upon the original SOMMA 
systems (Johnson, 1985, '87, '92, '93). These new systems have improved on the 
original design by use of more modern National Instruments electronics and other 
available technology. These 2 DICE systems (PMEL-1 and PMEL-2) were set up in a 
seagoing container modified for use as a shipboard laboratory on the aft working 
deck of the R/V Atlantis. In the coulometric analysis of DIC, all carbonate 
species are converted to CO2 (gas) by addition of excess hydrogen to the 
seawater sample. The evolved CO2 gas is carried into the titration cell of the 
coulometer, where it reacts quantitatively with a proprietary reagent based on 
ethanolamine to generate hydrogen ions. These are subsequently titrated with 
coulometrically generated OH-. CO2 is thus measured by integrating the total 
charge required to achieve this. (Dickson, et al 2007). 

Each coulometer was calibrated by injecting aliquots of pure CO2 (99.995%) by 
means of an 8-port valve outfitted with two calibrated sample loops of different 
sizes (~1ml and ~2ml) (Wilke et al., 1993). The instruments were each separately 
calibrated at the beginning of each ctd station with a minimum of two sets of 
the gas loop injections. Over 140 loop calibrations were run on each system 
during this cruise.

Secondary standards were run throughout the cruise (at least one per station) on 
each analytical system. These standards are Certified Reference Materials 
(CRMs), consisting of poisoned, filtered, and UV irradiated seawater supplied by 
Dr. A. Dickson of Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO). Their accuracy is 
determined manometrically on land in San Diego. DIC data reported to the 
database have been corrected to the batch 117 CRM value. The reported CRM value 
for this batch is 2009.99 μmol/kg. The average measured values (in μmol/kg 
during this cruise) were 2009.33 for PMEL-1 and 2010.95 for PMEL-2.

The DIC water samples were drawn from Niskin-type bottles into cleaned, pre-
combusted 300mL borosilicate glass bottles using silicon tubing. Bottles were 
rinsed twice and filled from the bottom, overflowing by at least one-half 
volume. Care was taken not to entrain any bubbles. The tube was pinched off and 
withdrawn, creating a 5mL headspace, and 0.125mL of 50% saturated HgCl2 solution 
was added as a preservative. The sample bottles were sealed with glass stoppers 
lightly covered with Apiezon-L grease, and were stored in a 20°C water bath for 
a minimum of 20 minutes to bring them to temperature prior to analysis.

About 1,790 samples were analyzed for discrete DIC. Greater than 10% of these 
samples were taken as replicates as a check of our precision. These replicate 
samples were typically taken from the surface, oxygen minimum, and bottom 
bottles. The replicate samples were interspersed throughout the station analysis 
for quality assurance and integrity of the coulometer cell solutions and no 
systematic differences between the replicates were observed. The absolute 
average difference from the mean of these replicates is 0.7 μmol/kg.

The DIC data reported at sea is to be considered preliminary until further 
shoreside analysis is undertaken.


References

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

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

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

Johnson, K.M., P.J. Williams, L. Brandstrom, and J. McN. Sieburth (1987): 
    "Coulometric total carbon analysis for marine studies: Automation and 
    calibration." Mar. Chem., 21, 117-133.
    
Johnson, K.M. (1992): Operator's manual: "Single operator multiparameter 
    metabolic analyzer (SOMMA) for total carbon dioxide (CT) with coulometric 
    detection." Brookhaven National Laboratory, Brookhaven, N.Y., 70 pp.

Johnson, K.M., K.D. Wills, D.B. Butler, W.K. Johnson, and C.S. Wong (1993): 
    "Coulometric total carbon dioxide analysis for marine studies: Maximizing 
    the performance of an automated continuous gas extraction system and 
    coulometric detector." Mar. Chem., 44, 167-189.

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

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




A20 ALKALINITY

(Laura Fantozzi and Emily Bockmon, laboratory of Andrew G. Dickson, Marine 
Physical Laboratory, Scripps Institution of Oceanography)

Samples were taken at every station, depending on cast depth the number of 
niskins sampled varied.  Bottles were chosen to match DIC's sample choices. 
Samples were collected in 250 ml Pyrex bottles.  A headspace of approximately 5 
milliliters was removed and 0.06 milliliters of saturated mercuric chloride 
solution was added to each sample.  The samples were capped with a glass stopper 
with a Teflon sleeve.  All samples were equilibrated to 20 degrees Celsius using 
a Thermo Scientific RTE7 water bath. 

Samples of volume 92.873 ± 0.017 ml were prepared using a volumetric pipette and 
a system of relay valves and air pumps, controlled by a laptop using LabVIEW 
2011.  The temperature of the samples at time of dispensing was taken 
automatically by a computer using a DirecTemp surface probe, to convert this 
volume to mass for analysis.   

Samples were analyzed using an open beaker titration procedure using two 
thermostated 250ml beakers; one sample being titrated while the second was being 
prepared and equilibrating to the system temperature close to 20 degrees C. 
After an initial aliquot of approximately 2.2 mls of standardized hydrochloric 
acid (~0.1Molar HCl in ~0.6M NaCl solution), the sample was stirred for 5 
minutes to remove liberated carbon dioxide gas. The stir time has been minimized 
by bubbling air into the sample at a rate of 200 scc/m. After equilibration, 19 
aliquots of 0.04 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., 2007).  This procedure was 
performed automatically by a computer running LabVIEW 2011. 

Viewing vertical section of Alkalinity over the first 40 Stations, we became 
concerned about high and low features that appear to alternate on the scale of a 
station or two between Station 020 and 040. The changes are generally betwen 2-
10 µmol kg-1.  These "waves" in the data are especially visible in the upper 
1000 meters, where there is the alkalinity minimum. We were concerned that it 
might be evidence of a difference in analyzer, temperature or time of day, 
although the reference materials show no differencs. After examining profiles 
from Salinity, DIC, and several nutrients, we determined that these waves were 
in fact true features, and not an artifact of the alkalinity titration. They 
have no correspondence with the person who sampled or analyzed. 

Additionally a feature was noticed in Station 053, different from the 
surrounding features. Alkalinity values appear high between 1000-2000 meters, 
bottles 113-117. This deviation seems to be mimicked in Salinity but further 
investigation into these high values could be worthwhile.  

Stations 077 and 078 had especially high CRM values, an average of 6.05 mmol kg-
1 higher than the certified value.  The high values occurred right after an acid 
bottle change.  It is likely that the concentration of this bottle of acid was 
not correct which caused the high CRM values.  This bottle of acid was switched 
out for a new one and the CRM values decreased back to what had been normal for 
the cruise. An adjustment for this problem will be made in the subsequent data 
analysis.  

For most casts two duplicates were taken and analyzed. Throughout the cruise, a 
total of 139 duplicates were analyzed and gave a pooled standard deviation of 
1.08 mmol kg-1. 

Dickson laboratory Certified Reference Materials (CRM) Batch 117 was used to 
determine the accuracy of the analysis. The certified value for Batch 117 is 
2239.18 ± 0.64 mmol kg-1. The reference material was analyzed 155 times 
throughout the stations. 

The data should be considered preliminary since the correction for the 
difference between the CRMs stated and measured values has yet to be finalized 
and applied.  Additionally, the correction for the mercuric chloride addition 
has yet to be applied.


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"




DISCRETE pH ANALYSES

PI: Dr. Andrew Dickson
Ship technicians: J. Adam Radich and Kristin Jackson

Sampling

Samples were collected in 250 mL borosilicate glass bottles and sealed using 
grey butyl rubber stoppers held in place by aluminum crimp caps.  Each bottle 
was rinsed a minimum of 2 times, then filled and allowed to overflow by 
approximately half to one full volume.  A 1% headspace was then removed from the 
bottles using an Eppendorf pipette and poisoned with 60 µL of mercuric chloride 
(HgCl2) prior to sealing with the aluminum caps.  Each bottle was additionally 
pre-heated for approximately 16 minutes in a thermostat bath set to 25°C prior 
to analysis. Samples were collected from the same Niskin bottles as total 
alkalinity or dissolved inorganic carbon in order to completely characterize the 
carbon system, and duplicate bottles were also taken (3-4) on random Niskins for 
each station throughout the course of the cruise. All data should be considered 
preliminary.

Analysis

pH (µmol/kg H2O) on the total scale was measured using an Agilent 8453 
spectrophotometer according to the methods outlined by Clayton and Byrne (1993). 
A Thermo NESLAB RTE-7 recirculating water bath was used to maintain 
spectrophotometric cell temperature at 25.0°C during the analyses. A custom 10cm 
flow through jacketed cell was filled autonomously with samples using a Kloehn 
V6 syringe pump. The sulfonephthalein indicator m-cresol purple (mCp) was used 
to measure the absorbance of light measured at two different wavelengths (434 
nm, 578 nm) corresponding to the maximum absorbance peaks for the acidic and 
basic forms of the indicator dye. A baseline absorbance was also measured and 
subtracted from these wavelengths.  The baseline absorbance was determined by 
averaging the absorbances from 730-735nm. The samples were run using the 
tungsten lamp only. The blank and absorbance spectrum were measured 6 times in 
rapid succession and then averaged. The ratios of absorbances at the different 
wavelengths were input and used to calculate pH on the total scales, 
incorporating temperature and salinity into the equations. The salinity data 
used was obtained from the conductivity sensor on the CTD. The salinity data was 
later corroborated by shipboard measurements. Temperature of the samples was 
measured immediately after spectrophotometric measurements using a YSI 4600 
thermometer.

Reagents

The mCp indicator dye was made to a concentration of 2.0mM in 100ml batches as 
needed. A total of 2 batches were used during the cruise. The pHs of the two 
batches were adjusted to approximately 7.9 and 7.8 using dilute solutions of HCl 
and NaOH and a pH meter calibrated using NBS buffers. The indicator was provided 
by Dr. Robert Byrne of the University of South Florida, and was purified using 
the HPLC technique described by Liu et al., 2011.


Standardization/Results

The precision of the data can be accessed from measurements of duplicate 
analyses, certified reference material (CRM) Batch 117 (provided by Dr. Andrew 
Dickson, UCSD), and TRIS buffer Batch 10 (provided by Dr. Andrew Dickson, UCSD). 

CRMs were measured at least once a shift, and bottles of TRIS buffer were 
measured periodically throughout the cruise.  The precision obtained from 182 
duplicate analyses was found to be ±0.0005. 

Data Processing

The addition of an indicator dye pertrubs the pH of the sample and the degree to 
which pH is affected is a function of the differences between the pH of the 
seawater and the pH of the indicator. Therefore, a correction is applied to all 
samples measured for a given batch of dye. To determine this correction samples 
of varying pH and water composition were randomly run with a single injection of 
dye and then again with a double injection of dye on a single bottle.  Making 
two measurements from a single bottle was found to be valid after a small study 
during the cruise on 22 bottles with varying pH showed a precision for 
consecutive measurements of ±0.0004. 

To determine this correction the change in the measured absorbance ratio R where 
R = (A578-Abase) / (A434-Abase) is divided by the change in the isosbestic 
absorbance (Aiso at 488nm) observed from two injections of dye to one (R''-R') / 
(Aiso''-Aiso') is plotted against the measured R value for the single injection 
of dye is then plotted and fitted with a linear regression.  From this fit the 
slope and y-intercept (b and a respectively) are determined by:

     ΔR/ΔAiso = bR' + a                                            (1)

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

     R =R' - Aiso' (bR' + a)                                       (2)

Preliminary data has not been corrected for the perturbation.

Problems

Very few problems occurred during the course of the cruise.  The biggest problem 
that did occur was tiny bubbles forming inside the cell due to cold samples de-
gassing as they were heated up rapidly.  To combat this cuvette cleaner was used 
randomly over the first handful of days.  This was later abandoned and the cells 
were instead flushed with air and then filled with DI water and allowed to soak 
in-between stations.  This proved the most effective and prior to running a 
given station junk surface seawater was flushed through the cell and system and 
any bubbles that were formed were tapped out by hand.  Stations were 
additionally analyzed starting with the surface samples and finishing with the 
deep cold bottom samples to reduce the build up of bubbles.  However, in 
battling with bubbles from cold samples, both of the custom glass pH jacketed 
cells were broken beyond use, which led to no measurements being able to made on 
samples after station 64.


References

Clayton, T. D. and Byrne, R. H., "Spectrophotometric seawater pH measurements: 
    Total hydrogen ion concentration scale calibration of m-cresol purple and 
    at-sea results," Deep-Sea Res., 40, pp. 2315-2329, 1993.

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




DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON AND TOTAL DISSOLVED NITROGEN

PI: Dennis Hansell, RSMAS, University of Miami
Participant: Silvia Gremes-Cordero, RSMAS, University of Miami

The goal of the group is to obtain Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) and Total 
Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN) along the Atlantic A20 line, in order to better 
understand the cycle of carbon in the ocean, both in time and spatial scales.

DOC samples were obtained approximately every other station from station 11. 
Depending on the station 20-36 Niskin bottles were sampled (1181 samples). 
Toward the end of the cruise Niskin #11 was removed due to malfunctioning, 
making 35 the samples available.

At the top 250m of the water column, inline filtering was performed, using GF/F 
glass fiber filters that were previously cleaned with 10% HCl solution and 
rinsed with the Mili-Q water available on board. Filtering is conducted to avoid 
the inclusion of particles (present in the upper 250 m of the water column) in 
the samples. High density polyethylene 60 ml bottles were rinsed 3 times before 
the sampling, and posteriorly frozen at -20 C° in the walk-in freezer. Frozen 
samples will be shipping back to University of Miami at the end of the cruises.
TDN samples will be analyzed for the upper 200 m from the same samples.




fCO2 (underway)
 
Robert Castle, AOML
PI: Rik Wanninkhof, AOML

An automated underway fCO2 measurement system was installed in the Hydro Lab of 
the R/V Atlantis for the A20 cruise.  The system is a model 8050 built by 
General Oceanics (GO).  The final data will be available on AOML's web page 
(http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/ocd/gcc).

Early instrument designs are discussed in Wanninkhof and Thoning (1993)) and in 
Feely et al. (1998).  The current design as well as the data processing 
procedure is detailed in Pierrot et al. (2009).

Seawater continuously flows through a closed, water-jacketed equilibration 
chamber at approximately 1 liter/minute.  A spiral nozzle creates a conical 
spray that enhances the gas exchange with the enclosed gaseous headspace.  
During "water" analyses this overlying headspace is pushed through an infrared 
analyzer (Licor model 6262) and returned to the equilibrator.  During air 
analyses, outside air is pulled from an inlet on the forward mast and pushed 
through the analyzer.  The pressure and temperature inside the equilibrator are 
constantly being measured.  With knowledge of the sea-surface temperature and 
salinity, along with all the parameters measured by the system, one can 
calculate the fugacity of CO2 in the seawater and the atmosphere above it.

To ensure the accuracy of analyzer output, four standard gases are analyzed 
approximately every 3.25 hours.  These standards (serial numbers JB03284 [287.45 
ppm], JA02646 [463.00 ppm], JB02140 [356.84 ppm], and JB03268 [384.14 ppm]) were 
purchased from Scott-Marrin and calibrated using gases from NOAA/ESRL in 
Boulder, CO and primary reference standards from the laboratory of Dr. Charles 
Keeling, which are directly traceable to the WMO scale.  In addition, 
approximately every 26 hours, the zero and span of the Licor are set using 
ultrapure (CO2-free) air for the zero and the 463 ppm standard for the span.  
After the standards five air analyses and 66 water analyses are done.  With 
continuous operation, the system provides approximately 460 water analyses per 
day.  The system operated continuously during the cruise but there were 2 
periods of insufficient water flow.  The first occurred on April 30 at 23:35 GMT 
and lasted until May 1 at 01:35.  The second occurred on May 8 from 13:10 to 
15:40 GMT.  Water analyses in these periods were bad but air analyses were not 
affected.  Preliminary examinations of the data show good analyses but final 
fugacity values will require some time due to the volume of the data.


References:

Wanninkhof, R., and K. Thoning (1993), "Measurement of fugacity of CO2 in 
    surface water using continuous and discrete sampling methods." Mar. Chem., 
    44, 189-205.

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

Pierrot, D., C. Neil, K. Sullivan, R. Castle, R. Wanninkhof, H. Lueger, 
    T.Johannson, A. Olsen, R.A. Feely, and C.E. Cosca (2009), "Recommendations 
    for autonomous underway pCO2 measuring systems and data reduction 
    routines." Deep -Sea Res II, 56, 512-522.




CARBON ISOTOPES (C-13/C-14) 

PIs: Ann McNichol, WHOI; Robert Key, Princeton
Participant: Silvia Gremes-Cordero, RSMAS, University of Miami

13C/14C water samples were drawn routinely from the Rosette casts, every 6-7 
stations approximately. In total, 12 stations were sampled (164 samples) and 
duplicates were obtained in three different stations (43,65,71). In some of the 
sampled stations, 16 Niskin were sampled in the upper 1000m, and in the rest 24-
26 bottles were sampled in the lower and upper 1000m, when Alkalinity values 
were obtained. 

Samples were collected in 500 ml glass stoppered bottles. First, the stopper was 
removed from the dry flask and placed aside. Using silicone tubing, the flasks 
were rinsed well with the water from the Niskin bottle. While keeping the tubing 
near the bottom of the flask, the flask was filled and allowed to overflow about 
half its volume. Once the sample was taken, a small amount (~30 cc) of water was 
removed to create a headspace and ~1.2 µl of 50% saturated mercuric chloride 
solution was added. 

After all samples were collected from a station, the neck of each flask was 
carefully dried using Kimwipes. The stopper, previously lubricated with Apiezon 
grease, was inserted into the bottle. The stopper was examined to insure that 
the grease formed a smooth and continuous film between the flask and bottle. A 
rubber band was wrapped over the bottle to secure the stopper. 

The samples will be analyzed at the National Ocean Sciences AMS lab in Woods 
Hole, MA using published techniques.


Reference:

McNichol, A., Quay. P. D., Gagnon, A. R., Burton, J. R., "Collection and 
    Measurement of Carbon Isotopes in Seawater DIC", WHP Operations and Methods-
    March 2009.




RADIOCARBON (Δ14C) MEASUREMENTS OF MARINE DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON 

PI: Ellen R. M. Druffel, University of California Irvine
Participant: Silvia Gremes-Cordero, RSMAS, University of Miami 

Project Goal: DOC Δ14C profiles in the North Atlantic will establish a better 
understanding of the timescale of DOC cycling.  Black carbon Δ14C measurements 
will quantify the concentration of BC in the surface and deep Atlantic Ocean. 

Preparations:  

Three DOC Δ14C profiles were collected at different depths along the cruise 
transit line for a total of 33 samples.  Samples depths coincided with 
Alkalinity, DIC 14C (Ann McNichol) and [DOC] samples taken from the same 
niskins.  At depths above 400m, water was filtered using a custom made stainless 
steel filter holder.  

Dissolved Organic Carbon samples were collected using 1-L amber boston round 
bottom bottles with Teflon lined caps.  The glass bottles were previously 
cleaned with soap and water, soaked in 10% HCl, rinsed with DI water, then baked 
at 550°C for two hours.  The caps were washed in soap and water, flushed with 
10% HCl, rinsed with DI, then air-dried.  The stainless steel filter holder was 
cleaned with soap and water, flushed with 10% HCl, rinsed with DIC, the air-
dried.  Filters were baked at 550°C for two hours, and placed in a pyrex petri 
dish covered in baked out aluminum foil to keep clean.  

No samples were processed aboard the Atlantis.  All samples were frozen at -20°C 
in freezers, which were then sent back to the Druffel Lab. 

DOC  Δ14C method:

In the Druffel Lab at UC Irvine, bulk DOC will be oxidized using a 1220-W ultra 
violet Hg-arc light source modified for a 900 ml volume and lower blank 
technique (Beaupre et al., 2007).  Following the production of CO2, aliquots are 
taken for Δ13C and Δ14C analysis. 

Radiocarbon measurements for DOC and BC samples are reported as 14C in per mil 
(Stuiver and Polach, 1977) and are corrected for extraneous carbon introduced 
during sample processing.  Stable carbon isotope measurements will be performed 
on splits of the CO2 at the UCI Keck Carbon Cycle AMS Laboratory.  Carbon 
dioxide will be quantified manometrically, reduced to graphite using iron powder 
as a catalyst with H2 as a reductant.  
 

References:

Beaupre, S.R., Druffel, E.R.M. and Griffin, S., 2007.  A low blank photochemical 
    extraction system for concentration and isotopic analyses of marine 
    dissolved organic carbon.  Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 5:174-184. 

Brodowski, A., Rodionov, A., Haumaier, L., Gaser, B. and Amelung, W., 2005.  
    Revised blackcarbon assessment using benzene polycarboxylic acids. Organic 
    Geochemistry.1299-1300 pp.

De Jesus, Roman (2008), Natural abundance radiocarbon studies of dissolved 
    organic carbon (DOC) in the marine environment.  Doctoral Thesis, U.C. San 
    Diego, pp. 83

Ziolkowski, L., 2009. Radiocarbon of Black Carbon in Marine Dissolved Organic 
    Carbon.Doctoral Thesis, U.C. Irvine, Irvine, 117 pp.

Ziolkowski, L., Druffel, E. 2010. Quantification of Extraneous Carbon during 
    Compound Specific Radiocarbon Analysis of Black Carbon. Anal. Chem, 81, 
    10158-10161




SUMMARY OF TRANSMISSOMETER SAMPLING PROCEDURE

PI: W.D. Gardner, Texas A&M Department of Oceanography
Mary Jo Richardson, Texas A&M Department of Oceanography
Cruise Participants: Robert Palomares, Courtney Schatzman, 
                     Kristin Sanborn SIO/STS

TRANSMISSOMETER:
Instrument: WetLabs C-Star Transmissometer 327DR
AIR CALIBRATION:
·    Calibrated the transmissometer in the lab at beginning and end of the 
     cruise with a pigtail cable attachment to CTD.
·    Wash and dried the windows with Kimwipes and distilled water.
·    Compare the output voltage with the Factory Calibration data.
·    Recorded the final values for unblocked and blocked voltages on the
     TRANSMISSOMETER CALIBRATION/CAST LOG. In most cases recorded the
     approximate air temperature as well.
OPERATION:
·    With the transmissometer connected to the CTD, cleaned and dried optical
     windows. Block the light path in the center of the instrument with your 
     fingers or a paper towel and measure the output voltage. Took reading of 
     the output (voltage or counts) through the CTD and record the value on the 
     "TRANSMISSOMETER CALIBRATION/CAST LOG". If the new value is substantially 
     different, wash the windows with slightly soapy water or alcohol and rinsed 
     with fresh water, then wipe dry. Checked output voltage again for stable 
     readings then ceased drying the transmissometer windows; typically 
     employing one or two, wipes with Kimwipes, of each window. This was done 
     before cast, at the beginning and end of the cruise as well as every 20 
     casts. Temperature disequilibrium and condensation on windows will cause 
     erratic readings.
·    Washed the windows before every cast. Rinsed both windows with a distilled 
     water bottle that contains 2-3 drops of liquid soap. This was the last 
     thing before the CTD went in the water.
·    Rinse instrument with fresh water at end of cruise.


       Date      Blocked Value  Unblocked   Air T  Remarks
                      Vd        Value Vair  (°C)
       --------  -------------  ----------  -----  -------------------
       11/30/11     0.059         4.752      21.5
                                  4.660      21.3  Factory Calibration
       2/23/11      0.056         4.707
       3/12/11      0.056         4.673       5.8
       3/22/11      0.056         4.675       6.0
       4/04/11      0.056         4.652       5.8
       4/14/11      0.057         4.666       7.2
       4/19/11      0.059         4.665       8.3
       4/20/11      0.059         4.690      20
       




SEA SURFACE SKIN TEMPERATURE GROUP

PI: Peter Minnett, University of Miami, RSMAS
Participant: Silvia Gremes-Cordero, University of Miami, RSMAS

The purpose of the RSMAS remote sensing activities on the Atlantis is to make 
measurements that can be used to assess the accuracies of the Sea-Surface 
Temperature (SST) measured by imaging infrared radiometers on satellites. These 
include the new VIIRS (Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite) on the Suomi-
NPP (National Polar-orbiting partnership) satellite that was launched at the end 
of October 2011. The measurements taken from the Atlantis will also be used to 
evaluate the accuracies of the SSTs derived from the Advanced Very High 
Resolution Radiometers (AVHRRs) on the NOAA and EUMETSAT polar-orbiting 
meteorological satellites, the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometers 
(MODIS) on the NASA satellites Terra and Aqua, and the SEVIRI (Spinning Enhanced 
Visible Infra-Red Imager) on the Meteosat Second Generation geostationary 
satellite of EUMETSAT.

The Skin SST, measured radiometrically, cloud coverage and water vapor content 
in the air column were obtained continuously with the instrumentation described 
below. These additional measurements are taken to help characterize the 
atmospheric conditions that influence the accuracy of the SST measurement from 
space.

The data were regularly downloaded into an external hard drive every 2-3 days. 
Sporadic noise noticeable in the spectra was related to solvable technical 
problems. There were no gaps in data recording in this particular period (leg 
A20).

M-AERI

Our main piece of equipment is the M-AERI (Marine-Atmosphere Emitted Radiance 
Interferometer - see Minnett et al., 2001). It consists in 2 main components: an 
external unit that is mounted on the O2 deck of the ship, and an electronics 
rack that is installed inside the vessel (in the Main Lab, in our case), the two 
being linked by an umbilical bundle of about 5 cm diameter and 60 m in length. 
The external unit comprises the Fourier Transform infrared (FTIR) interferometer 
assembly, is a bulky piece of equipment which sits on a table that mounts on the 
railing where it can view the surface of the sea ahead of the bow wave, at an 
angle of about 55° to the vertical (Figure 1). Maintenance of the equipment 
requires a daily cleaning of the mirror with Q-water, acetone and alcohol.


Figure 1. The M-AERI mounted on the R/V Atlantis


The system operates at an output rate of 1 complex spectrum (interferogram) per 
second. It runs continuously under computer control, except for a brief period 
beginning at 0:00 UTC, when the computer reboots and starts the new files.

Microwave Radiometer

We set up a Microwave Radiometer where it has a clear view from zenith to the 
horizon. It measures atmospheric water content. The instrument mounts 
conveniently on the stand shown in the photo (Figure 2). Power for this 
instrument is provided via cables into the Lab.

   
Figure 2. Microwave radiometer on R/V Atlantis


The sky camera

The sky camera system is mounted in an unobstructed area for the best possible 
view of the dome of the sky, such as on the bridge top (Figure 3). Power is 
supplied from to the Lab where the images are acquired by a laptop computer 120 
V A/C, 50 watts. 

			
Figure 3. The sky camera mounted on the R/V Atlantis




O2/AR AND TRIPLE OXYGEN ISOTOPES

PI: Rachel Stanley
Cruise Participant: Zoe Sandwith

Sampling for O2/Ar and Triple Oxygen Isotopes occurred roughly once per day at 
25 stations throughout the cruise. Both analyses are performed from the same 
~300 mL sample. Of these stations, 3 were 'deep profiles' where 22 depths were 
sampled, 2 were 'mid-depth profiles' where 15 depths were sampled, and 3 were 
'shallow profiles', where 9 depths were sampled. These profiles were spaced 
among the basin, with a deep profile occurring near each end of the basin, and 
one in the middle. The mid-depth profiles were spaced between the deep, and the 
shallow depth profiles scattered between these. For the other 17 stations, only 
the surface niskin was sampled. On the last two stations, the surface sample was 
duplicated. A total of 141 samples were taken includes 2 duplicates. 1 sample 
was lost due to a breach of the vacuum of the flask during sampling, however 
there was not enough water in the budget for that niskin for resampling.

Samples were taken via silicon tubing into custom made flasks. These had been 
cleaned, poisoned with 100 µL dried saturated mercuric chloride solution, then 
evacuated to 10-7 torr prior to the cruise. The flasks were filled halfway 
(roughly 300 mL), allowing for a degassing headspace.

Samples will be sent to WHOI for processing and analysis on a mass spectrometer.




STABLE ISOTOPE PROBING

PI: Lee Kerkhof
Cruise Participant: Lauren Seyler

Sampling for stable isotope probing (SIP) occurred roughly once per day at 16 
stations throughout the cruise. Of these, SIP microcosms were set up at 13 
stations, while at the other 3 stations samples were taken to be used in DNA/RNA 
analysis. At each station, water was taken from at least three distinct zones in 
the water column, based on data from the CTD: the middle of the mixed layer, the 
oxygen minimum zone (or as near to it as possible), and the middle of the 
bathypelagic zone. At 7 stations, samples were also drawn from the bottom-most 
bottle for DNA/RNA analysis. Bottles were chosen based on the sampling plans of 
the members of the science crew; since a minimum of 4.5 L of water was required 
for SIP and DNA/RNA analysis, bottles were chosen that were being sampled from 
the least.

To set up SIP microcosms, 1 L samples of water from each depth were amended with 
one or more of the following stable isotope-labeled substrates: 13C sodium 
acetate, 13C urea, 13C sodium bicarbonate, 13C algal lipid extract, or 15N algal 
protein extract. 12C sodium acetate, 12C urea, 12C sodium bicarbonate, and 
ethanol were also used as controls. These microcosms were then incubated in a 
plastic trash can on deck that was covered and given a constant inflow of 
surface sea water to maintain a stable temperature. Incubations were allowed to 
run for either 24 or 48 hours, after which biomass was collected on a 0.2-µm 
filter using vacuum filtration. For those stations that were only used for 
DNA/RNA analysis, duplicate 0.5-L samples were taken from all four depths and 
biomass was immediately collected using vacuum filtration. These filters were 
then stored at -70 degrees. After arrival at Woods Hole, these samples will be 
stored in liquid nitrogen and taken to Rutgers University for further processing 
and analysis.




STUDENTS AT SEA

The NSF physical oceanography grant for the US Global Ocean Carbon and Repeat 
Hydrography Program supports participation of physical oceanography and CFC 
students on program cruises.  Below are statements from the student participants 
on A20 (Atlantis).

Sarah Brody 
(Duke University)
	
Participating in the CLIVAR A20 cruise on the RV Atlantis gave me a unique 
opportunity to learn how hydrographic data is collected, processed, and 
analyzed.  As one of the students on the CTD watch, I got the chance to assist 
with many different aspects of the data-gathering process, including operating 
the CTD console, preparing the rosette for deployment, taking nutrient and salt 
samples, keeping track of the different samples being taken, recovering and 
deploying the CTD/rosette package, and driving the winch that brings the package 
to depth.  Doing these different jobs gave me insight into all parts of the CTD 
data-collection process. I am very glad that the students on the CTD watch were 
given the chance to be so involved in the different steps of handling the CTD, 
and am thankful to everyone who patiently trained us to do these jobs. 
 Additionally, through sampling and keeping track of the different samplers, I 
learned about the breadth of data being collected on this cruise, and what the 
different measurements will be used to determine.  Most of all, I gained an 
appreciation for the difficulty inherent in collecting hydrographic data.

While I now understand how difficult in can be to collect high-quality 
hydrographic data, I also learned how much a detailed hydrographic section like 
the CLIVAR A20 cruise can reveal about physical and chemical processes at play 
in the area we covered.  During the cruise, I learned how to use Ocean Data View 
to download and examine the data we collected.  From looking at the data using 
ODV and from talks with the chief scientists, I gained some understanding of 
Atlantic basin ocean circulation.   For example, I learned about the water 
masses that make up the bottom waters of the North Atlantic, and the way in 
which those water masses change from Antarctic bottom water to Denmark sill 
overflow water as we moved north, with mixing of those water masses evident in 
the profiles we examined.  I also spent some time examining the unusually low-
salinity surface water we encountered at the beginning of the section.  The low 
salinity water originates from Amazon river discharge and forms a lens over the 
ocean water; however, the lens we saw was anomalous in both its extent and 
intensity.  I plan to continue to look at this low-salinity water, together with 
LADCP current-profiler data, in the last few days of the cruise.  The physical 
oceanography I learned about on this cruise, together with the mechanics of 
hydrographic sampling I became familiar with, made the CLIVAR A20 cruise a 
valuable experience for me.  


Katherine McCaffrey 
(University of Colorado at Boulder, Cooperative Institute for Research in 
Environmental Sciences)

My experience at sea has been very rewarding. As a graduate student studying 
physical oceanography and ocean turbulence in the land-locked state of Colorado, 
I was eager to experience the other side of the field: observation. I work with 
data, models and a lot of theory so it was spectacular to see the theory in 
action in the ocean. It helped me to appreciate the amount of detail needed to 
collect data worthy of analyzing, and the difficulties presented by the moving, 
changing ocean. Spending a month on a boat with 25 other scientists was a 
mixture of fun (singing while sampling), stress (rushing from sampling to 
getting the next cast in the water), boredom (watching the CTD go down for 
hours), and excitement as we worked together to discover what is happening in 
the ocean below us.

On the CTD watch, I was in charge of prepping the niskin bottles, deploying and 
recovering the rosette from the deck with the ship's deck crew, running the CTD 
console, and driving the winch. It was fascinating to me that each time we 
brought the rosette out of the water, it contained information from more than 
five thousand meters below the ocean surface - information that only we know so 
far. Though the console and winch-driving proved challenging in their monotony, 
it was interesting to watch the temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen and 
transmissometer data come in. Many fruitful discussions were stemmed from an 
interesting and perhaps unexpected signature on the plots, like the drop in 
temperature and salinity at the ocean bottom in the southern portion of the 
section, revealing the Deep Western Boundary Current. Learning to use Ocean Data 
View also helped to visualize and analyze what is happening along the section we 
observed, and the skills gave me the ability to plot things that are 
particularly interesting to me, like spiciness and temperature on pressure 
versus potential density levels. I am eager to return home to Colorado to use 
the ADCP, temperature, and salinity data collected on A20 to further my research 
in ocean turbulence as well.

Thanks for a great time out here!

--Katie


Stefan Gary 
(Duke University)

The past month of participation in the CLIVAR A20 cruise has been a very intense 
and productive time in my development as an oceanographer.  This was my first 
experience of a long-distance hydrographic section.  Although I had been on CTD 
watch for a few scattered stations on a previous cruise, this cruise was very 
different because we took many more samples at many more stations, coordinated 
with many research groups (each one specializing in a different measurement), 
and always needed to keep an eye on the clock in order to complete the section 
in the allotted time.  In the process, I drew samples for salts, nutrients, 
total dissolved organic carbon, and total alkalinity, I learned, in detail, how 
samples are processed and quality controlled to become data, I operated an 
LADCP, CTD console, and two different types of winches, and I participated in 
the deployment and recovery of the CTD and rosette package.  I also helped with 
the rescue of a storm petrel.


Beatriz Ramos

Before this cruise, I used a large amount of historical hydrographic data.  At 
the time, I was not aware of precisely how many people and how much effort is 
required to realize basin-scale hydrographic sections.  The most important 
result of this cruise for me has been the opportunity to meet and work beside 
oceanographic data collection experts.  Personally and professionally, this 
month of constant, uninterrupted teamwork has meant a great deal to me.  As we 
steam back to port, I find myself more rooted in the oceanographic community as 
well as with a renewed excitement for and commitment to my career in physical 
oceanography.

On 16th of April I flew from Spain to Barbados, in a couple of days I would be 
on board in the R/V Atlantis ship during the next month. It would be my first 
cruise and my position would be CTD watch.  On 21st of April we had the first 
station. My shift was from midnight to noon so my first night was a challenge.  
During the first shifts I learned to run the CTD software, to be the sample cop 
and to collect nutrients and salts samples. We were three in the group so 
teamwork was very important to develop an efficient job.  On the second week I 
was trained to drive the CTD, it was a high responsibility, maximum attention 
was required. Also I wanted to learn as much as I could, so between casts I was 
reading some papers about North Atlantic currents. It was a perfect opportunity 
because I was surrounded by very good scientists.  It has been a very positive 
experience and I really hope this cruise is the first of many. 


Rebecca Rolph
CFC Analyst
Student Report.

I have learned more being at sea than I could have ever done in any classroom 
setting. Going to class several times a week cannot give you the same level of 
personal communication and connection that I have experienced on this cruise. 
Living with a range of scientists whose backgrounds all involve different 
specializations allowed for the opportunity to have great discussions that would 
have not been possible otherwise. It also gave me a real appreciation for what 
oceanographic data is available because I have now experienced first-hand the 
great amount of hard work and effort involved to collect such data.

CFC systems vary because they are custom-made and modified over the years.  
However, learning about the system I was working with will undoubtedly help me 
with future systems-I gained experience following flow diagrams, and basic 
necessary components should be similar in other systems.  I also learned about 
common problems that can occur in CFC systems, and how best to systematically 
work through to find where they are.  However, I can see that one of the best 
ways to understand a system is to actually build it, but this would take a long 
term of full-time dedication.  If I were to work on one of these systems again, 
perhaps drawing my own flow-diagram would be a good thing to do right at the 
beginning. 

My personal experience on this ship has definitely solidified my desire to 
continue work in oceanography.  I understand it is difficult, especially in the 
start, when the learning curve is very steep. But in the end, when discussing 
the results of the different systems on the ship, and how the many different 
aspects of oceanography all are connected, really keeps me enthusiastic to 
continue with research. 




CCHDO DATA PROCESSING NOTES

Date        Person      Data Type    Action                Summary 
----------  ----------  -----------  --------------------  ----------------------------------
2012-05-29  K Sanborn   BTL          Submitted hy1 file    to go online 

2012-05-29  K Sanborn   CrsRpt       Submitted PDF format  to go online 

2012-05-29  K Sanborn   BTL          Submitted sea file    to go online 

2012-05-29  K Sanborn   SUM          Submitted             to go online 

2012-05-29  A Quintero  CTD          Submitted             to go online 

2012-05-30  C Berys     CTD/BTL/SUM  Website Updated       Available under 'Files as received' 
            File a20_hy1.csv containing Exchange bottle data, submitted by Kristin
            Sanborn on 2012-05-29, available under 'Files as received', unprocessed by 
            CCHDO.

            File a20.sea containing Exchange bottle file, submitted by Kristin Sanborn 
            on 2012-05-29, available under 'Files as received', unprocessed by CCHDO.

            File a20.sum containing WOCE SUM file, submitted by Kristin Sanborn on
            2012-05-29, available under 'Files as received', unprocessed by CCHDO.

            File a20-ct1.zip containing Exchange CTD file, submitted by Alex Quintero on 
            2012-05-29, available under 'Files as received', unprocessed by CCHDO.

            File a20-ctd.zip containing WOCE CTD file, submitted by Alex Quintero on 
            2012-05-29, available under 'Files as received', unprocessed by CCHDO.

            File a20-nc.zip containing NetCDF CTD file, submitted by Alex Quintero on 
            2012-05-29, available under 'Files as received', unprocessed by CCHDO.

            File A20_CruiseReport.pdf containing Cruise Report, submitted by Kristin 
            Sanborn on 2012-05-29, available under 'Files as received', unprocessed by 
            CCHDO. 

2012-06-27  C Berys     CTD/BTL      Website Updated       Available under 'Files as received' 
            File a20.sea containing WOCE bottle data, submitted by Mary Johnson on
            2012-06-26, available under 'Files as received', unprocessed by CCHDO.

            File a20.sum containing WOCE SUM data, submitted by Mary Johnson on
            2012-06-26, available under 'Files as received', unprocessed by CCHDO.

            File a20-ct1.zip containing Exchange CTD data, submitted by Mary Johnson on 
            2012-06-26, available under 'Files as received', unprocessed by CCHDO.

            File a20-ctd.zip containing WOCE CTD data, submitted by Mary Johnson on 
            2012-06-26, available under 'Files as received', unprocessed by CCHDO.

            File a20-nc.zip containing NetCDF CTD data, submitted by Mary Johnson on 
            2012-06-27, available under 'Files as received', unprocessed by CCHDO.

            File A20_CruiseReport.pdf containing cruise documentation, submitted by Mary 
            Johnson on 2012-06-26, available under 'Files as received', unprocessed by 
            CCHDO. 

2012-07-26  J Kappa     CrsRpt         Submitted           to go online
            I've placed 2 new versions of the cruise report:

            a20_33AT20120419do.pdf
            a20_33AT20120419do.txt

            into the co2clivar/atlantic/a20/a20_33AT20120419/ directory.

            Both docs include summary pages and CCHDO data processing notes.
            The pdf version also includes a linked Table of Contents and links to 
            figures, tables and appendices.

            Both will be available on the cchdo website following the next update script run.
