WHP Ref. No.: P08S

A.     Cruise narrative

A.1    Highlights

A.1.a  WOCE designation:   P08S  

A.1.b  EXPOCODE:           49XK9605  

A.1.c  Chief Scientist:    Noriya Yoshioka,
                           Japan Marine Science and Technology Center
                           (JAMSTEC)
                           2-15, Natsushima-cho, Yokosuka, 237 Japan
                           Tel: +81-468-66-3811
                           Fax: +81-468-65-3202
       Co-Chief Scientist: Djoko Hartoyo
                           Badan Pengajian Dan Penerapan Teknologi (BPPT)
                           BPPT Main Building 18F, Jl. MH. Thamrin 8,
                           Jakarta, 10340 Indonesia
                           Tel: +62-21-3169706
                           Fax: +62-21-3169720
                           E-mail: joko@tisda.pka.bppt.go.id

A.1.d  Ship                R/V Kaiyo

A.1.e  Ports of call:      Yokosuka, Japan-Korol, Palau 
 
A.1.f  Cruise dates:       June 17,1996-July 2, 1996
  

A.2    Cruise Summary Information

A.2.a  Geographic boundaries

A.2.b  Stations occupied

The 27 CTD stations are located between 10-00N, 130-00E to 00-45N, 130-00E,
and distance between two stations are minimum of 15 miles near the Indonesian 
coast and maximum of  30 miles on the open ocean with smooth bottom topography.

Standard sampling layers are designed as 10, 20, 30, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150,
200, 250, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000 m and below that level, 
sampling layers are designed as 250 m interval to the just above the bottom. 
One casting operation of the Rosette sampler with 36 bottles can satisfy the 
standard sampling at the area shallower than water depth of 5250 m. At the 
station deeper than this critical water depth, samplings at the depth of 20, 
75 and 125 m were occasionally omitted.  At the assistant CTD station on 
02-45N, we made CTD observation at layers shallower than 1000 m.

Sampling elements are as follows: Salinity, Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients
(Nitrate, Nitrite, Phosphate and Silicate) were measured at all layers on all 
stations except the assistant station.  Alkalinity, pH and TCO2 were measured 
at all layers on some stations, and H-3, He-3 and C-14 were sampled at some 
layers on these stations with a little of exceptions.

A.2.c  Floats and drifters deployed

A.2.d  Moorings deployed or recovered

A.3    List of Principal Investigators


Table A.3-1: List of parameters to be measured and principal investigators
------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter/Instr.    Affiliation  Principal Investigator
------------------------------------------------------------
CTD/Rosette           JAMSTEC    Yuji Kashino (CTD Software)
                      JAMSTEC    Hiroyuki Yoritaka (Hardware)
ADCP                  JAMSTEC    Yuji Kashino
Salinity              JAMSTEC    Hiroyuki Yoritaka
NO3, NO2, PO4, SiO2   JAMSTEC    Chizuru Saito
DO                    NME        Misumi Aoki
C-14, H-3, He-3       JAMSTEC    Chizuru Saito
TCO2, pH, Alkalinity  CRIEPI     Kiminori Shitashima
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMSTEC: Japan Marine Science and Technology Center, Japan
NME:     Nippon Marine Enterprise, c/o, Ltd., Japan
CRIEPI:  Central Research Institute Electric Power Industry, Japan


A.4    Scientific Program and Methods

The principal objectives of the cruise were:

To submit a data set to the WHPO, and contribute the global measurement of 
the WOCE program.

To investigate southward intrusion of low salinity water (<34.5 pss-78),
which may be advected from the North Pacific ocean to a layer below the high 
salinity Tropical Pacific water.  CTD point at 02-45N, 130-00E was added for 
this sake.


A.5  Major Problems and Goals not Achieved

At Stn.12 (05-30N,130-00E) on June 26, we encountered a trouble with damage 
on a fiber of armored-wire of the CTD cable.   After this accident, irregular 
winding of the CTD cable over 5000 m long on the winch wheel was occurred. But 
there was no influence on the CTD signal, we could carried out all of the 
originally planned CTD observations on schedule.

A.6  Other Incidents of Note

A.7  List of Cruise Participants

Table A.7-2. Cruise Participants 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Name                 Affiliation  Parameter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noriya Yoshioka      JAMSTEC      CTD
Hiroyuki Yoritaka    JAMSTEC      Salinity / CTD Hardware
Yuji Kashino         JAMSTEC      CTD Software /ADCP
Hirofumi Yamamoto    JAMSTEC      CTD
Chizuru Saito        JAMSTEC      Nutrients / C-14 / H-3 / He-3
Naomi Harada         JAMSTEC      C-14 / H-3 / He-3
Misumi Aoki          NME          DO
Hiroshi Yamamoto     NME          CTD
Atsuo Ito            NME          Salinity 
Mitsuru Hayashi      NME          Salinity
Masayuki Fujisaki    NME          DO
Nobuharu Komai       NME          Nutrients
Takeshi Katayama     NME          CTD
Satoru Kanda         NME          CTD 
Takehiko Shiribiki   STM          DO
Yasuko Nogiwa        KEEC         Nutrients
Kiyotaka Nakao       KEEC         Nutrients
Kiminori Shitashima  CRIEPI       TCO2 / pH / Alkalinity
Daisuke Tsumune      CRIEPI       TCO2 / pH / Alkalinity
Steven B. Kraines    CRIEPI       TCO2 / pH / Alkalinity
Djoko Hartoyo        BPPT         CTD
R.Trimanadi          BPPT         CTD
Victoriano C.Buquir  c/o NAMRIA   CTD
                     (Philippine)
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMSTEC: Japan Marine Science and Technology Center, Japan
NME:     Nippon Marine Enterprises, c/o Ltd., Japan
STM:     Sanyo Techno Marine, Inc., Japan
KEEC:    Kansai Environmental Engineering Center, c/o Ltd., Japan
CRIEPI:  Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Japan
BPPT:    Badan Pengkajian dan Penerapan Teknologi, Indonesia     



B.  Underway Measurement

B.1 Navigation and bathymetry (Echosounding)
    by Y.Kashino (19 November 1996)

The water depth obtained by the multi-narrow beam echo-sounder (General
Instrument) and corrected depth are summarized in Table B.1-1. The corrected 
depth are derived from CTD depth plus altimeter value. This result shows 
tendency of decrease of its difference. After Stn.18, the depth measured from 
echosounding is larger than corrected depth. 

Except at few stations, the differences are less than +/- 1.0 %.


Table B.1-1. The differences between corrected water depth and uncorrected
             echosounding depth. The values of the corrected depths are derived 
             from CTD depth plus altimeter value.
             -----------------------------------------------
             Station  Corrected depth  echosounding   Diff.
             Number                    (uncorrected)
                          (meter)        (meter)     (meter)
             -----------------------------------------------
             01            5939            5913         26
             02            5751            5761        -10
             03            6005            5942         63
             04            5924            5865         59
             05            5963            5978        -15
             06            6002            5827        175
             07            5662            5612         50
             08            5537            5520         17
             09            5549            5520         29
             10            5549            5526         23
             11            5488            5476         12
             12            5466            5450         16
             13            5039            5038          1
             14            4856            4845         11
             15            4693            4709        -16
             16            3703            3615         88
             17            3885            3886         -1
             18            3005            3016        -11
             19            ----            3032       ----
             20            4000            4023        -23
             21            4308            4317         -9
             22            4394            4396         -2
             23            3862            3890        -28
             24            4121            4113          8
             25            ----            3299       ----
             26            3003            3022        -19
             27            1451            1514        -53
             -----------------------------------------------


B.2 Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) 
    by Y.Kashino (2 September 1996)

a.  System

The RD narrow band Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) by RD 
Instruments was used to observe current structure along the cruise track from 
Yokosuka to Palau including south of P8 line. This ADCP transmits 75KHz 
acoustic pluses from the transducer along 4 beams angled of 30 degree.

The ADCP was controlled by the software "TRANSECT" developed by RD
Instruments on IBM PS/V model 2408. 

b.  Data processing      

Raw data was acquired every a minute at 51 layers from 30m to 830m every 
16m. We report averaged data every 10 km for all layers. Data processing was 
done as follows:

1) Convert binary data to ASCII processed data outputted every one minute
   using TRANSECT.
2) Remove noise from processed data. The noise is defined as follows:
   - Data during the period of ship velocity of < 5 knot with 10 minutes before 
     and after.
   - Data with vertical averaged velocity (from 30m depth to the depth where 
     Data is available) of > 1.0 m/s, which is probably derived from GPS error.
   - Data with percent good of < 50.
   - Data with its difference from 24 samples average of > 3 sigma.
3) Calculate average velocity every 10 km segment.

The format of averaged data is shown in Table B.2-1. Unit of velocity is 
(m/sec).

We did not correct the gyrocompass error because it was less than 0.2 degree 
when we check it in Palau. We did not also correct the error from beam angle 
setting error because we could not find systematic error when we checked the 
data obtained during  the cruise conducted in January, 1996. 

c.  Primary result

The meridional and zonal velocity section plot along P8 line and vector plot
at 50m and 350m level are shown in Fig. F.1-10, F.1-11, F.2-1 and F.2-7 using 
averaged data. We can see anticyclonic Halmahera eddy clearly. We can also see 
the low salinity water from the North Pacific advected by southward flow below 
the South Pacific Tropical Water comparing meridional velocity section and 
salinity section along P8 line.


Table B.2-1  Format of averaged data in 10km segments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line|Field|                          Description
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following five lines are header of this file.
 A  |  1  | Expocode and cruise date
 B  |  1  | Place where observation was started and ended
 C  |  1  | Length of the segment for averaging and the number of segments
 D  |  1  | Number, range, and thickness of layer
 E  |  1  | Separator
Following are written each 10 km segments. -9.0 is assigned for "bad data" or
"no data". The first five lines contain the information of segment
(e.g., number of segment, location of center of segments). Starting line 6,
information in columns based on the bin depth is written.
 1  |  1  | Serial number of segment.
    |  2  | Number of samples used for averaging location.
 2  |  1  | Mean time (UT)  -  Month
    |  2  |                 -  Day
    |  3  |                 -  Year
    |  4  |                 -  Hour
    |  5  |                 -  Minute
 3  |  1  | Location        -  Latitude
    |  2  |                 -  Longitude
 4  |  1  | Name of fields written below line 6
 5  |  1  | Unit of fields written below line 6
 6  |  1  | Depth (m)
    |  2  | Velocity magnitude (m/sec)
    |  3  | Velocity direction (degree)
    |  4  | East velocity component (m/sec) - east(+)/west(-)
    |  5  | North velocity component (m/sec) - north(+)/south(-)
    |  6  | Number of samples used for averaging value in this layer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


B.3  Thermosalinograph and underway dissolved oxygen, fluorometer, etc.

B.4  XBT and XCTD

B.5  Meteorological observations
     by S.Ishida (Captain of R/V KAIYO) and N.Yoshioka (September 1996)

Routine weather observation with 24 hours intervals are carried out on our 
cruise.  Aneroid barometer (Yanagi INSTRUMENT,TYPE 8A,S/N 6869) at the 13.7 m 
height from sea surface was used.  Wind vane and anemometer (Ogasawara keiki,
PR350) is at the height of 27.2 m and wind force is estimated by handy 
calcurater. Sea water pumped up from the depth of 4.8 m is measured its 
temperature, and air temperature was measured with a ventilated psychrometer
(Ohta keiki,S/N 221705).  These instruments were not calibrated except the 
barometer which was calibrated on July.4,1994.

 YYMMDD/HH  DEG MIN (N) DEG MIN (E)  DIR   FOR  WEA. BAR.   AR.T   SST  
  (UST)                                                                 
 960623/03   10.06  N   130.03   E   ENE    1    C  1008.6  25.5   29.0 
 960624/03   08.59  N   129.59   E   CLM    -   BC  1009.8  32.4   29.0      
 960625/03   07.30  N   130.00   E   SSW    2   BC  1009.3  29.8   29.0      
 960626/03   06.00  N   130.00   E    NW    2   BC  1012.8  31.8   29.0      
 960627/03   04.10  N   130.00   E   SSE    2   BC  1010.6  31.2   29.0      
 960628/03   02.45  N   130.00   E    SE    4    R  1013.8  26.0   29.0      
 960629/03   01.56  N   130.00   E   ESE    2   BC  1010.5  31.1   28.0      
 960630/03   01.00  N   130.00   E    NE    4    Q  1011.2  28.0   28.0      
 960701/03   03.42  N   131.17   E     E    1    C  1011.0  30.5   28.0      
   

B.6  Atmospheric chemistry


C.   Hydrographic Measurements - Descriptions, Techniques and Calibrations

C.1  Sampling/measurements equipments 
     by H. Yoritaka (September 1996)

Small-Volume Sampling: 36-place rosettes with 12-liter bottles.CTD System:  SBE-
911plus CTD System with altimeter and O2 sensor.Winch and Cable: Tsurumi Seiki 
TS-10PVCTD winches having 8000 meters cable of 10.6 mm diameter. The maximum 
rolling load is 3800 kg x 47 m/minute.ADCP:  shipboard RD narrow band ADCP at 75 
kHz.Salinometer: Guildline Autosal 8400B with HP 2804A quarts thermometer.Oxygen 
Analysis: Carpenter method. Automated potentiometric and photometric titration. 
Two lags of Metrohm 716 DMS Titrino.Nutrient Analysis: Bran Luebbe Traacs 800 4 
channels systems.TCO2: UIC Carbon choulometer System 140pH: RC PHM93 reference 
pH meterAlkalinity: RC VIT90 Video Titrator, ABU91 Autoburette and SAM90 Sample 
Station

C.2  CTD/Rosette hardware 
     by  H. Yoritaka, Y. Kashino, H. Yamamoto, M. Hayashi, K. katayama 
     and S. Kanda (September 1996)

1. Instruments

SBE9plus CTD for 10,500 meters with the 12-liters 36-positions intelligent 
GO rosette water sampler (GO1016) was used during the cruise. 
CTD system was constructed with following sensors ;

-------------------------------------------------
Sensor        Model          Primary    Secondary
-------------------------------------------------
Temperature   SBE3           S/N 1462   S/N 1465
Conductivity  SBE4           S/N 1045   S/N 1174
Oxygen        SBE13          S/N 0311
Pressure      Digiquarts     S/N 41223
Pump          SBE5           S/N 0846   S/N 0847
Altimeter     Bentos 2110-1  DATASONIC  PSA-900A
-------------------------------------------------

Temperature and Conductivity sensors were rinsed with fresh water and pure
water after each casts, and were rinsed with Triton-X detergent after each
two casts.

In each thermometer frames attached on the Niskin bottles for odd number 
(18 bottles), two SIS digital reversing thermometers and SIS digital reversing 
pressure meter was fitted. The wire was a single conductor 10.6 mm armored 
cable manufactured by Rochester Corporation, and the winch was built by 
Tsurumi Seiki Japan.

2.  CTD Sensors Performance

The differences between primary and secondary sensors for temperature and 
conductivity are shown in Fig.C.2-1.  These values are performed with average 
of differences for 500 db - bottom in raw data at down cast. The differences 
are within 0.0005 deg.C in temperature.  In conductivity, differences are 
within 0.001 - 0.0015 S/m except for initial drift.

The change of the deck pressure is shown in Fig.C.2-2. While the deck 
pressure at pre-cast varies within -0.6 - -0.3, it varies within +0.2 - +0.5 at
post-cast except for the shallow casts (St.19: 1000db, St. 27: 1500db). The 
deck pressure had a hysteresis within 0.6 - 1.0 db at the deep casts.

3.  CTD Sensor Calibration

The calibrations of the temperature and conductivity sensors were conducted 
by Northwest Regional Calibration Center, USA on April 1996 (pre-cruise 
calibration) and on August 1996 (post-cruise calibration). The drift of 
temperature relative to the pre-cruise calibration during these 4 months was 
reported to be -1.01 mdeg.C for the primary temperature sensor. This tendency 
was consistent with previous calibrations. According to this result, the drift 
for the primary temperature sensor during the cruise was estimated to be -0.5 
mdeg.C.

The calibration of the pressure sensor was carried out by ourselves on June 
1996 (pre-cruise calibration) and on October 1996 (post-cruise calibration) 
with dead-weight tester manufactured by Bundenberg Co. Ltd.. Fig.C.2-3 shows 
difference in pressure between dead-weight tester and CTD calculated with 
initial coefficients at the factory. Difference between pre-cruise and post-
cruise calibration was less than 0.37 db. And hysteresis in each pressure was 
less than 0.14 db. So the linear coefficient 0.99900 derived from the post-
cruise calibration was adopted for correction. 

C.3  CTD data processing 
     by Y. Kashino (2 September 1996)

Introduction

The CTD data was acquired by SBE 911 plus system with frequency of 24 Hz. 
This data was processed using SEASOFT Ver 4.207 provided by Sea-Bird 
Electronics Inc. and some programs developed in JAMSTEC coded in FORTRAN
(Microsoft FORTRAN compiler was used). 

We report temperature and salinity value from primary sensors, pressure 
value from pressure sensor in WOCE-CTD-file, although we used twin temperature 
and conductivity sensors, pressure sensor, and DO sensor. We used the result 
from secondary sensors to check up one from primary sensors. We don't report 
the result from DO sensor because we haven't established calibration method of 
DO-sensor.

We don't also report the data when CTD was near surface (upper than 15 db) 
because the pump of CTD was not active then.

CTD-file are created using downcast CTD data. We used upcast CTD data for 
data check and calculation of CTD T/S/P value in WOCE-SEA-file.

Pre-cruise and post-cruise calibration for temperature and conductivity 
sensors were carried out at NRCC (Northwest Regional Calibration Center) in USA
on 23 April 1996 and 31 August 1996.  Pre-cruise and Post-cruise calibration 
for pressure sensor by dead weight tester was carried out at JAMSTEC on 6 June 
1996 and 4 October 1996. We check up and calibrated CTD data considering these 
result.

a. Seagoing computer

We used 3 computer systems for data processing as follows:

(1) System 1 (for data acquisition)
    CPU: DECpc 466D2LP (IBM compatible computer, MS-DOS Ver.5)
         with 8MB memory, 240MB hard disk and 3.5-inch floppy disk drive.
    Optical disk: 3.5-inch and 5-inch optical disk drives.
         We used 3.5-inch optical disk during data processing and 5-inch optical
         disk for backup of raw data from CTD deck unit.
    Other: This system is connected with deck unit.
(2) System 2 (for data processing)
    CPU: DECpc 466D2LP
         with 8MB memory, 240Mb hard disk, 3.5-inch floppy disk drive and   
         5-inch floppy disk drive.
    Optical disk: 3.5-inch optical disk drive.
    Plotter: Hewlett Packard 7475A Plotter (Paper size is A4)
    Hard disk: two 2GB hard disk drives.
(3) System 3 (for data editing)
    CPU: NEC PC9821 NA12 (Windows95)
         with 32MB memory, 1.2GB hard disk, CD-ROM drive and 
         3.5-inch floppy disk drive.
    Optical disk: 3.5-inch optical disk drive.
 
b. Data processing 

(1) General

In order to remove white noise in raw temperature, conductivity and pressure
data, we developed software that replaced noise data by running mean. We 
defined the noise as shown in table C.3-1. Few noises in pressure data over 
this criteria were detected because of the short period of oscillation (see 
later).

Shed wakes, which occurred in the case of CTD decent rate being slow or 
reversal because of the pitch of the ship, were removed using the program
developed in JAMSTEC. This program (FDSHDWK) finds shed wakes when CTD decent 
rate is less than 0.25 m/s and linearly interpolates pressure, temperature and 
conductivity values in the shed wake using its upper and lower values. If the 
number of the interpolated values is more than half of the number of 
observations in some 2db pressure bin, its quality flags of pressure, 
temperature and salinity should be 6 in CTD file.

After all on-board calibration, uniform pressure CTD profile data was 
created by same method as one of Millard and Yang (1993).
 
(2) Temperature

The results of laboratory calibrations for temperature sensors show that CTD
temperature sensor tend to drift constantly with time. The difference between 
twin temperature sensors was almost constant. The result from pre- and post-
cruise calibration carried out on 23 April and 31 August shows that the drift 
of the primary temperature sensor was -0.0010 (deg C). Considering these 
result, we could estimate that offset correction added to the value of primary 
temperature sensor was +0.0005 (deg C) during this cruise.  

Laboratory calibration carried out on IPTS-68 unit, we converted raw 
temperature value on IPTS-68 to ITS-90 unit using formula (3) of Millard and 
Yang (1992) after the offset correction.

(3) Conductivity (salinity)
    Conductivity value was corrected as follows:

Step 1. Sensor response correction.

According to Millard and Yang (1993), salinity spikes are caused by sensor 
response lag between temperature and conductivity. We checked this time lag 
between T and C sensors for SBE 911 plus system and determined it when total 
salinity spike area (S) defined as follows was minimum.
 
                                N
                          S = Sigma(PLi - PUi)Hi.
                               i=1

N is the number of spike, P is pressure, H is height of spike and suffix U 
and L mean upper and lower boundary of spike. Fig.C.3-1  is result at the test 
cast conducted before 8S-01. The results show that time lag should be 0.4 
steps, that is, 0.0167 seconds. We used ALIGNCTD of SEASOFT for this correction
throughout this cruise.

Even if sensor response correction is done, the salinity spikes still 
remain. When we find a salinity spike lager than 0.01 PSU in some 2db pressure 
bin,quality flag of salinity should be 3 in CTD file.
 
Step 2. Cell thermal mass correction.

Sea-Bird Electronics Inc. recommend that conductivity cell thermal mass 
effect should be removed. We used CELLTM of SEASOFT to remove this effect. 

This utility uses recursive filter described in Lueck (1990).

Step 3.  Cell factor correction.

We used Autosal to calibrate CTD conductivity sensor. We determined cell 
factor by linear regression between CTD conductivity when bottle was fired and 
conductivity of sampled water measured by Autosal for every casts. CTD 
conductivity was corrected using the equation as follows:
 
                          Ccalibrated = A x Craw + B.
              
                 A and B are slope and offset, respectively.
 
(4) Pressure

The result of pre-cruise calibration conducted on 4 June by dead weight 
tester is shown in Fig.C.3-2 . It indicates that the difference between CTD and
dead weight tester values was linearly increased. This difference is corrected 
by regression line with slope and offset of 0.99899 and 5.15870. The error from
the approximation using this regression is lower than 0.2 db. The slope and 
offset shifted to 0.99901 and 4.88735 at 2 October. The estimation of shift of 
pressure value using these result is 0.3 db between pre-cruise and post-cruise.
We do not correct this shift. 

The pre- and post-cruise calibration result also showed that hysteresis is 
0.1 db. This error is not also corrected.

Raw data from pressure sensor has short period (<0.2 seconds) oscillation. 
We used FILTER of SEASOFT and filtered this oscillation by low pass filter that
time constant was 0.15 seconds.

The variability of deck pressure was shown in Fig.C.3-3. The deck pressure 
is increased up 0.4 - 1.0 db after cast. CTD pressure value is subtracted by 
the average of the deck pressure before and after cast.

c. Data flow (See Fig.C.3-4)

(1)  SEASAVE (SEASOFT)
     Acquires, displays and saves raw data from deck unit to disk.
(2)  DATCNV (SEASOFT)
     Converts raw, binary data output by SEASAVE to ASCII format data written on 
     physical unit. When water is sampled, this program can output data to .ROS 
     file from that time after a few seconds. (On this cruise, this interval was 
     1 0 seconds.)
(3)  ROSSUM (SEASOFT)
     Edits .ROS file output by DATCNV and writes out a summary file to .BTL 
     file.
(4)  BT2FILE (Made in JAMSTEC)
     Changes the format of .BTL data to another format for convenience.
(5)  SPLDEP (Made in JAMSTEC)
     Splits ASCII format data by DATCNV into up- and downcast data, and 
     calculates deck pressure and corrected depth values. 
(6)  TCCOMP (Made in JAMSTEC)
     Compares values of primary and secondary sensors, and plots histograms to 
     check sensor's performance.
(7)  NOISE (Made in JAMSTEC)
     Finds noise data and replaces it by running mean. This program can remove 
     unnecessary surface data.
(8)  ALIGNCTD (SEASOFT)
     Corrects time lag between temperature sensor and conductivity sensor for 
     minimizing salinity spiking error.
(9)  FILTER (SEASOFT)
     Uses low pass filter to remove short period oscillation in pressure data.
(10) CELLTM (SEASOFT)
     Corrects conductivity cell thermal effect using a recursive filter.
(11) FDSHDWK (Made in JAMSTEC)
     Finds shed wake and interpolates data using the values of its upper and 
     lower boundary. 
(12) FSPIKE (Made in JAMSTEC)
     Finds salinity spike.
(13) CALBC (Made in JAMSTEC)
     Calibrates conductivity data by cell factor correction. This program also 
     corrects the temperature sensor drift and deck pressure of the CTD data 
     reported in WOCE-SEA file.
(14) AVGDAT (Made in JAMSTEC)
     Calculates 2db pressure averaged data. After averaging, this program 
     corrects the temperature sensor drift and deck pressure of the CTD data.
(15) MKCTD (Made in JAMSTEC)
     Creates WOCE-CTD file.
      
d.   Conclusion

We could acquire high quality CTD data satisfying WOCE requirement except 
for the bin where salinity spikes and shed wakes were. Estimated accuracy of 
CTD pressure, temperature and salinity is as follows:
 
(1) Pressure

Considerable error of CTD pressure value is 1) 0.2 db from regression, 
2) 0.3 db from the shift from pre-cruise to post-cruise, 3) 0.1 db from 
hysteresis, and 4) 0.4 db from deck pressure variability. Therefore, accuracy 
of CTD pressure value is 1 db during P8S cruise. 

(2) Temperature

Accuracy of temperature value should be 0.001 K because the drift of 
temperature sensor shown by pre- and post-cruise calibration is 0.0010 K, and 
twin sensor check shows that primary temperature sensor performed 
satisfactorily.

(3) Salinity

Comparison between CTD salinity and sampled water salinity is shown in Table
C.3-2. This result implies that the accuracy of CTD salinity is higher than 
0.001 PSU below 500 db.

References

1) Millard,R., and K.Yang: CTD calibration and processing methods used at Woods
      Hole Oceanographic, Institution, WHOI Tech. Rep. 93-44, 1993.
2) Lueck,R.,: Thermal Inertia of conductivity cell: Theory, J.Atoms.Oceanic
      Technol., 7, 741-755, 1990.


Table C.3-1. Definition of noise 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Pressure           Temperature       Conductivity
                          (db)               (deg C)             (S/m)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Range              0.5 < or 8000 >    0 <  or  32 >       2 <  or  8 >
2. Difference from         
   value in a previous     1.0 >                0.5 >             0.05 >
   step value
3. Difference from
   running mean
   (a)    0 -   400m       0.5 >                1.0 >             0.1 >
   (b)  400 -  1000m       0.5 >                0.2 >             0.02 >
   (c) 1000 -  2000m       0.5 >                0.1 >             0.01 >
   (d) 2000 - bottom       0.5 >                0.05 >            0.005 >
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table C.3-2. Average, root mean squire and maximum of absolute value of the
             difference between CTD salinity and Autosal salinity
             --------------------------------------------------------
                 depth       average    RMS    maximum  No. of sample
                 (db)         (PSU)    (PSU)    (PSU)
             --------------------------------------------------------
                     0 -  500    -0.00582  0.02771  0.1802        307
                   500 - 2000    -0.00020  0.00081  0.0046        247
                  2000 - bottom   0.00014  0.00057  0.0018        325
             --------------------------------------------------------


C.4 Sample water salinity measurements 
    by H. Yoritaka, A. Ito and M. Hayashi (September 1996)

1.  Salinity Sample Collection

The bottles in which the salinity samples are collected and stored are 
250ml Phoenix brown glass bottles with screw caps.  Each bottles were rinsed 
three times and filled with sample water.  Salinity samples were stored for 
about 24 hours in the same laboratory as the salinity measurement was made.

2.  Instruments and Method

The salinity analysis was carried out by a Guildline Autosal Salinometer 
model 8400B, which was modified by addition of an Ocean Science International 
peristaltic-type sample intake pump and Hewlett Packard quartz thermometer 
model 2804A with two 18111A quartz probes.  One probes measured an ambient 
temperature and another probe measured a bath temperature.  The resolution of 
the quartz thermometer was set to 0.001 deg C.  Data of both the salinometer 
and the thermometer was collected simultaneously by a personal computer. 
A double conductivity ratio was defined as a median of 31 readings of the 
salinometer.  Data collection was started after 5 seconds and it took about 
10 seconds to collect 31 readings by a personal computer.

The salinometer was operated in the airconditioned ship's laboratory at a 
bath temperature of 27 deg C.  An ambient temperature varied from approximately
25 to 26 deg C, while a variation of a bath temperature was almost within 
+/- 0.004 deg C.

3.  Standard Sea Water

Autosal model 8400B was standardized only before sequence of measurements by
use of IAPSO Standard Seawater batch P128 whose conductivity ratio was 0.99986.
After the standardization, 8400B was monitored by 1-4 SSW ampules before and 
after the measurements for samples of one station.   Total 61 ampules of SSW 
were measured for monitoring, whose standard deviation was 0.0005 psu.  There 
was slight drift for 8 days (from June 24 to July 1) in monitoring of SSW, so 
correction was carried out for sample measurements as follows;

 Station 01-15: Corrected Value = Measured Value -0.0000 psu (0 digit)
 Station 16-20: Corrected Value = Measured Value -0.0002 psu (1 digit)
 Station 21-27: Corrected Value = Measured Value -0.0004 psu (2 digits)

After correction, standard deviation for SSW was slightly improved as 
0.0004 psu.

4.  Duplicate and Replicate Samples

Duplicate samples were drawn from Niskin bottles #1 and #2 which were 
tripped at the bottom, and also drawn from different Niskin bottles which were 
tripped at 1000 db in case of shallower water depth than 5000 m. Replicate 
samples were drawn from Niskin bottles #2.  Standard deviation in the 
measurements of duplicate and replicate samples were as follows ;

        Duplicate               Bottom  0.0002 psu      26 pairs
                                1000 db 0.0002 psu      14 pairs
        Replicate               Bottom  0.0001 psu      25 pairs.


C.5  Dissolved Oxygen determination
     by M. Aoki , T. Shiribiki and M. Fujisaki (19, August, 1996)

Methods:

Oxygen samples were collected from Niskin bottles to calibrated dry glass 
bottles , and sample water were overflowed by three times of the bottle volume.
The subsampling bottle consists of the ordinary BOD flask (ca. 200 ml) and 
glass stopper with long nipple, modified from the nipple presented in Green and
Carritt (1966).

Dissolved oxygen in seawater samples were fixed immediately following the 
water temperature at the time of collection was measured for correction of the 
sample density.   Samples were analyzed about 2 hours later. The end point was 
determined by the  potentiometric method using whole bottle titration.  We used
2 sets of Metrohm titrators with automatic burettes and Pt electrode (titrator 
#1 and #2) for DO. measurements.  The average water temperature in the 
laboratory was 22.8 degC, while room temperature varied in several minutes 
between 20 to 27 degC. 

The standardization was done for each stations and whenever the batch of
reagents were changed.  An analytical method was fundamentally done according 
to the WHP Operations and Methods (Culberson,1991). The endpoint was evaluated 
by the second-derivative curve method with computerization.

Instrument:

Dispenser: Eppendorf Comforpette 4800 / 1000 ul
     OPTIFIX / 2 ml
     Metrohm Model 725 Multi Dosimat / 20 ml

Titrator:  Metrohm Model 716 DMS Titrino / 10ml of titration vessel 
     Pt Electrode / 6.0403.100 (NC)

Software:  Data acquisition  /  Metrohm, METRODATA  /  606013.000
     Endpoint evaluation  / written by N88BASIC  /  MS-DOS
     (NEC / P9821ne, PC9821na)

Thiosulfate Standardization:
     We used 3 batches of KIO3 standard solutions (JM960612, JM960613 and 
     CSK KCP8418: see note below Table C.5-1).   Standardization was carried 
     out at each station except for stns. 6, 11, 19 and 26. The results using 
     JM960612 KIO3 solution were that the average of 1.4016 ml (titrator #1) 
     and 1.4038 ml (titrator #2) and standard deviation of 0.0025 ml (#1) and 
     0.0016 ml (#2) (Fig. C.5-1).

Pure water blanks:
     The pure water blanks were determined in deionized water (by 
     Milli-RX12, Millipore). The results of the pure water blanks were that the
     average of -0.0092 ml (#1) and -0.0093 ml (#2), and standard deviation of
     0.0014 ml (#1) and 0.0015 ml (#2) (Fig. C.5-2).

Dissolved Oxygen in the reagents:
     DO. in the reagent was reported 0.0017 ml at 25.5 deg C (Murray 
     et. al., 1968). Last cruise, in 1995, we estimated the amount of dissolved
     oxygen in the reagents that was 0.0027 ml at 21 deg C.   In this cruise, 
     we used  0.0027 ml DOrea value for calculation.

Seawater blank:
     In this cruise, we analyzed 69 samples for determination of seawater 
     blanks. Most of samples were taken from the layer of 10m, oxygen minimum 
     and bottom at each station. The result shows wide range of blank value and
     they are not depended on the depth.

     Average of seawater blank was 0.08 umol/Kg and standard deviation 
     (2sigma) was 0.58 umol/Kg (cf. Fig. C.5-6b). Dissolved oxygen 
     concentrations for the SEA file were not corrected by water blank.

Reproducibility: 
     In this cruise,  1027 samples were taken for dissolved oxygen 
     measurements. Approximately 14% (148 pairs) of total samples were analyzed
     as "replicates" taken from same Niskin bottles.  And 39 pairs of duplicate
     samples were analyzed throughout this cruise. Those results are shown in
     Fig. C.5-3 and Fig. C.5-4.

     Replicates sample, 148 pairs, were obtained average of 0.004 umol/kg 
     and standard deviation (2 sigma) of 0.52 umol/Kg (0.25 % of DO. maximum,
     204.1 umol/Kg, in this cruise).   Duplicate sample, 39 pairs, were taken 
     from different Niskin bottles fired at the same depth (26 pairs from the 
     bottom layer, 12 pairs from 1000m and 1 pair from 900m layer). The average
     difference among them was 0.09 umol/Kg, and standard deviation (2 sigma) 
     was 0.42 umol/Kg (0.21% of DO. maximum in this cruise).

Comparison of each standard:
     Before the cruise, we compared each standard.  The results are shown in
     Table C.5-1.


Table C.5-1. Comparison of each standard.                                  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KIO3 Lot No.   Normality   average titer    std.   cv %   n   Ratio to CSK Std.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSK KCP8418    0.0100       1.396 (ml)     0.001  0.05    5         1.0000
JM960612       0.010014     1.397 (ml)     0.001  0.06    5         0.9997
JM960613       0.010014     1.398 (ml)     0.001  0.07    5         1.0005
CSK AMP8047    0.0100       1.396 (ml)     0.000  0.03    5         1.0000    
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: CSK KCP8418 and AMP8047 are the commercially standard solution
prepared by Wako pure chemical industries, Ltd. (Guaranteed by Chemical
Research Center)

Comparison of standards from other institution:

   In this cruise we compared 2 types of standard solution.   One is JM 
   which had prepared before this cruise and the other is HDJ (Hydrographic
   Department, Maritime Safety Agency, Japan) which had been stored since 
   1994.  Standard solution named JM960602 and JM960612 were prepared before
   this cruise but JM960602 had been weighed in Nov. 1993. The standard
   solution labeled HDJ02 was stored under the room temperature, but HDJ03 
   was in a refrigerator either HDJ04 was.   Standard HDJ04 was diluted from
   nominal concentration 0.1 N to 0.01 N before the cruise.   We measured 
   these standards on board using the same titration system and reagents.  
   The results are shown in Table C.5-2.


Table C.5-2. Comparison of standards between JAMSTEC and HDJ.                 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KIO3 Lot No.  Normality  average titer    std.    cv%    n    Ratio to JM960612
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 JM960602     0.010034     1.402         0.0026   0.19   6        1.0008
 HDJ02        0.0100       1.392         0.0009   0.07   5        0.9967
 HDJ03        0.0100       1.392         0.0008   0.05   5        0.9970
 HDJ04        0.00998      1.405         0.0005   0.04   5        1.0078
 JM960612     0.010014     1.398         0.0008   0.06   5        1.0000  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparison with historical data:

   This P8S cruise line and PR1S cruise line which carried out in 1994 
   were lined along longitude 130E.  There were 14 stations in the same 
   latitude on this line.   Dispensers, except for the Eppendorf, and 
   electrodes were changed between these 2 cruises. 

DO. concentration

   Table C.5-3 shows the differences of dissolved oxygen concentration
   between P8S and PR-1S every 1000m below 3000m.  The difference between 
   them are obtained to 0.2 - 0.5% of DO.


Table C.5-3. Comparison of DO. concentration between PR-1S and P8S.    
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Range           PR-1S,1994           P8S, 1996          Ratio of difference
    (m)         umol/kg     std.     umol/kg     std.      to DO. in 1994(%)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3000 - 4000     148.3      3.23      147.5     3.40            -0.5
 4000 - 5000     151.7      0.87      152.0     0.82             0.2
 5000 -          151.7      0.88      152.5     0.40             0.5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note; DO. concentrations are the average within a range. of Those data are
not corrected by seawater blank.

For example, Fig. C.5-5a and C.5-5b show the differences of profile at the 
same latitude.  DO. concentrations above 1000m may show the replace of the 
water mass. 

Seawater blank

   We measured seawater blanks from some layers at each station both in 
   1994 and 1996 cruises. The results are shown in Table C.5-4. In both 
   cruise, the values of seawater blank varied independently of their 
   sampling depth. The methods of analyses were almost the same as for 
   seawater samples but no fixation.


Table C.5-4.  Comparison of seawater blank calculated to DO. concentration.
              --------------------------------------------
               Line name   seawater blank umol/kg  std.  n
              --------------------------------------------
              PR-1S, 1994         1.09            0.64  55
              P8, 1996            0.08            0.29  69
              --------------------------------------------


References:

Culberson, C.H. (1991) Dissolved Oxygen, in WHP Operations and Methods,
    Woods Hole., pp1-15.
Culberson, C.H., G.Knapp, R.T.Williams and F. Zemlyak (1991) A comparison
    of methods for the determination of dissolved oxygen in seawater 
    (WHPO 91-2), Woods Hole.
Dickson, A.G. (1994) Determination of dissolved oxygen in sea water by Winkler 
    titration , in WHP Operations and Methods, Woods Hole., pp1-14.
Green, E.J. and D.E.Carritt (1966) An Improved Iodine Determination Flask for 
    Whole - bottle Titrations, Analyst, 91, 207-208.
Murray, N., J.P. Riley and T.R.S. Wilson (1968) The solubility of oxygen in
    Winkler reagents used for the determination of dissolved oxygen, 
    Deep-Sea Res., 15, 237-238.


C.6 Nutrients measurements 
    by Y. Nogiwa, K. Nakao, N. Komai and C. Saito (July, 1996)

a.  Equipment and techniques

The nutrients analyses were performed on BRAN+LUEBBE continuous flow 
analytical system Model TRAACS 800 (4 channels). The manifolds for the analysis
are shown in Fig. C.6-1, -2, -3 and -4 for the nitrate+nitrite, nitrite, 
silicate and phosphate, respectively. TRAACS 800 was located in the container 
laboratory on deck the R/V Kaiyo.

The methods used were as follows:

1st channel

Nitrate+Nitrite: Nitrate in seawater is reduced to nitrite when a sample is 
run through a cadmium tube (1 mm diameter, 10 cm length) inside of which is 
coated with metallic copper. The nitrite produced is determined by diazitizing 
with sulfanilamide and coupling with N-1-naphthyl-ethylenediamine (NED) to form
a colored azo dye which is measured spectrophotometrically at 550 nm using 3 cm
length cell. Nitrite initially present in the sample is corrected. Since the 
reduction rate was varied from 92 to 97 %.The reduction rate was measured for 
each analysis and the concentration of nitrate was corrected by reduction rate.

2nd channel

Nitrite: The nitrite is determined by diazitizing with sulfanilamide and 
coupling with N-1-naphthyl- ethylenediamine (NED) to form a colored azo dye 
which is measured spectrophotometrically at 550 nm using 5 cm length cell.

3rd channel

Silicate: The standard AAII molybdate-ascorbic acid method with the addition
of a 46 deg C heating bath to reduce the reproducibility problems encountered 
when analyzing samples at different temperatures. The silicomolybdate produced 
is measured spectrophotometrically at 630 nm using 3 cm length cell.

4th channel

Phosphate: The method of Murphy and Riley (1962) was used, but separate 
additions of ascorbic acid and mixed molybdate-sulfuric acid-tartrate and
addition of a 46 deg C heating bath. The phosphomolybdate produced is measured 
spectrophotometrically at 880 nm using 5 cm length cell.

The analytical results were corrected for base drift, carry over effect and
gain drift.  The concentrations of nitrate+nitrite,nitrite, silicate and 
phosphate were calculated by 2nd order polynomial curve fitting.  The 
temperature of all sample seawater at the analyses was measured and recorded. 
The temperature of the sample seawater during this cruise ranged from 16 deg C 
to 26 deg C depending on duration of analysis and ambient temperature.

b.  Sampling Procedures

Sampling for nutrients followed that for oxygen. Samples were drawn into
polyethylene 100 ml narrow mouth,screw-capped  bottles. These were rinsed two 
to three times before filling. Most of the samples were analyzed within 4 hours
after collection.  Glass 7 ml sample cups were used .Glass cups were washed in 
the hot detergents, they were rinsed by deionized water, and kept in deionized 
water before packing. These were rinsed two times before filling with analyze.

c.  Calibration

The calibration of all the volumetric flasks used on the cruise were checked
before packing.  Calibration of the 3 Eppendorf micropippettes used during the 
cruise were checked before packing.  The  temperature during the calibration  
ranged from 21 to 23 deg C.

d.  Nutrient standard

We prepared nutrient standards by following an suggested protocol for
continuous flow automated analysis of seawater nutrients by  Gordon et.al 
(1992). Nutrient primary standards of nitrate, nitrite and phosphate were
prepared from salts dried in oven/microwave oven and cooled over silica gel in 
a desiccator before weighing. The dry powder for the primary standard was 
packed in the nitrogen gas atmosphere. The precision of the weighing was 
ca. 0.1 %.

Silica standard (one gram of SiO2 in plastic ampule, comm No. 4790)
prepared by J.T. Baker  Chemical Co. was used to prepare the standard solution 
of silicate analysis during this cruise.

The concentration of A standard are 2500 mM for phosphate, 37500 mM for
nitrate and 3800 mM for nitrite, and 33286.6 mM for silicate.  The
concentration of B standard are 50 mM for phosphate, 750 mM for nitrate and 
38 mM for nitrite,and 2662.9 mM for silicate.  A and B uniform set of six mixed
working standards were prepared in low nutrients sea water (LNSW). 
Concentrations (umol/l) were: nitrate 45.0, 37.5, 30.0, 15.0, 7.5 and 0 ;
nitrite 1.2, 1.0, 0.8, 0.4, 0.2, and 0; silicate 162, 135 ,108, 54, 2.7 and 0 ;
phosphate 3.0 ,2.5, 2.0, 1.0, 0.5 and 0 thereafter. 

e.  The traceability of the standard 

Two sets of A standards were prepared at the beginning of the cruise. One of
two was used for 15 of working standard during the cruise. The other was 
stocked as reference A standard to be checked the working standard. The results
of this check are shown in Table C6-1.

f.  The comparison between working standard solution and CSK standard
solution at full scale.

The comparison between working standard solution and CSK standard solution 
at full scale were made three times before the cruise and once after cruise
onborad.

g.  Low nutrient sea water

More than 200 liter of surface seawater was collected  in JUNE1995 near
Palau Is. as  low nutrient seawater (LNSW). Collected seawater was stored in 
the 20 liter container and filtered with 0.45 mm pore size membrane filter 
(Millipore HA) and subjected to prepare the working standard solution. The 
concentration of nutrients in each batch of LNSW were determined carefully.

h.  Experiment for preparation  of Control sample

Control samples were prepared to confirm traceability in the nutrients
measurements during the cruise and examined the availability of it.

Method of control samples were:

Sea water (31N, 133E, 2500 m) was sterilized heating at 120 deg C for 30
minuets twice after it had been filtered with 0.45mm (Millipore HA) and 0.22mm
(MILLIPACK 40) pore size membrane filter. Then the sea water was drawn into 
sterilized 100ml polypropylene bottles under aseptic condition over filtering 
with 0.22mm pore size membrane filter again. We confirmed that the control 
samples condition were free from bacteria and fungi.  The 37 control samples 
were measured. One each analysis,one more bottle control samples were analyzed 
five times a bottle. The measurement results are in table C.6-4

i.  Precision check at each station

On each analysis, one of the deep water sample and one of the shallow water
sample  were analyzed five times to get the precision, respectively.   The
precision at full scale at each station were shown in Table C.6-5.

j.  Replicate and Duplicate Samples

There were 27 pairs of replicate and duplicate samples drawn.  We drawn 2
samples from the Niskin bottles tripped at the bottom for  a replicate and
1 sample from another Niskin bottle tripped at the bottom for a duplicate. 

The standard deviation of 27 pairs of replicate and duplicate samples were
0.0005 PSU. 


Table C.6-1. The concentration ratio of working standard solutions
             referenced to stocked A standard solution.
             --------------------------------------------------
                Date      Nitrate  Nitrite  Silicate  Phosphate
             --------------------------------------------------
             19 June '96   1.008    1.008     1.006     0.995
              1 July '96   0.997    1.017     1.006     1.009
             --------------------------------------------------


Table C.6-2. The comparison between working standard solution and CSK
             standard solution at full scale.
             -------------------------------------------------------
                Date        Nitrate    Nitrite    Silicate   Phospha
             -------------------------------------------------------
             19 June '96     1.004      0.981      1.025       1.071
             21 June '96     1.007      1.004      1.018       1.039
             22 June '96     0.994      0.918      1.030       1.027
              1 July '96     1.002      0.920      1.018       0.995
             -------------------------------------------------------
The puerility of the nitrite standard solution prepared in this cruise is
determined to be 96.6% .


Table C.6-3  The nutrients concentration of LNSW.      (uM/l)
             -------------------------------------------------------------
             Batch No.  Station No.  Nitrate  Nitrite  Silicate  Phosphate
             -------------------------------------------------------------
                  3          1-4        0.000    0.000    1.125      0.004
                  6          5-9        0.000    0.000    1.151      0.000
                  4         12,13,      0.000    0.006    1.285      0.018
                            18-22          
                  7         10,11       0.000    0.003    1.133      0.000
                            14-17          
                  8         23-27       0.000    0.008    1.142      0.028
             -------------------------------------------------------------


Table C.6-4  Results of control samples measurement.
             ---------------------------------------------------
                           Nitrate  Nitrite  Silicate  Phosphate
             ---------------------------------------------------
                Mean (uM/Kg)   26.91     0.54    140.63     2.05
                STD             0.15     0.01      0.75     0.04
                CV(%)           0.55     1.31      0.53     1.81
                 n               185      185       180      180
             ---------------------------------------------------


Table C.6-5  Precision at full scale at each analysis.
             -----------------------------------------------------------
             Station No.  Nitrate CV(%)  Silicate CV(%)  Phosphate CV(%)
             -----------------------------------------------------------
                 1            0.28           0.17            0.60
                 2            0.41           0.10            0.21
                 3            0.19           0.26            0.26
                 4            0.18           0.12            0.32
                 5            0.19           0.27            0.70
                 6            0.24           0.18            0.29
                 7            0.07           0.30            0.53
                 8            0.18           0.18            0.51
                 9            0.20           0.22            0.45
                10            0.11           0.17            0.46
                11            0.13           0.23            0.35
                12            0.42           0.21            1.22
                13            0.08           0.10            0.26
                14            0.12           0.50            0.21
                15            0.20           0.11            0.40
                16            0.32           0.15            0.21
                17            0.26           0.16            0.28
                18            0.22           0.17            0.71
                19              -              -               -
                20            0.28           0.27            0.24
                21            0.16           0.36            0.96
                22            0.18           0.18            0.92
                23            0.18           0.19            0.63
                24            0.15           0.25            0.38
                25            0.21           0.09            0.61
                26            0.28           0.34            0.27
                27            0.21           0.10            0.49
             -----------------------------------------------------------


References

Gordon, L.I., Jennings, Jr. J.C., Ross, A.A. and Krest, J.M., 1992, 
    An suggested protocol for Continuous Flow Automated Analysis of 
    seawater nutrients (Phosphate, Nitrate, Nitrite and Silicic Acid) in 
    the WOCE Hydrographic Program and the Joint Global Ocean Fluxes 
    Study.   OSU Coll. of Oc. Descr. Chem. Oc. Grp. Tech. Rpt. 92-1.  
Murphy, J., and Riley, J. P., 1962, A modofied single solution method for
    determination of phosphate in natural water. Analytica Chimica Acta, 
    27, 31-36.


C.7 Distribution of oceanic CO2, pH and TA 
    by K. Shitashima, D. Tsumune and S. Kraines (September 1996)

1.  DESCRIPTION OF METHODS

Sea water samples were collected in 100ml polyethylene bottles with inner 
caps from Niskin-type water samplers, The sample bottles were capped after an 
overflow of about 100ml sea water. All samples were stored at room temperature 
after sampling and analyzed within a few hours. Samples were transferred into 
a closed and jacketed glass measurement cell with a volume of ~30ml. The cell 
temperature was maintained at a constant temperature of 25C+/-0.1C. The 
electric potential and temperature of the sample were measured for 10 minutes 
with a Ag/AgCl combined electrode (Radiometer Analytical A/S, GK2401C) and a 
temperature sensor (Radiometer Analytical A/S, T901) connected to a high 
precision pH meter (Radiometer Analytical A/S, model PHM93). Tris and 
2-Aminopyridine Buffers (Dickson and Goyet, 1994) were employed to calibrate 
pH electrodes. Calibrations were made at the beginning, middle and end of set 
of measurements for every station.

Total Alkalinity

Total Alkalinity samples were collected in 250ml polyethylene bottles with 
inner caps from Niskin-type water samplers, and capped after an overflow of 
about 150ml of the sea water. All samples were stored at room temperature after
sampling and analyzed within a few hours. Samples were transferred into a glass
titration cell using a 50ml transfer pipette and titrated at 25C+/-0.1C with 
0.1 M HCl containing 0.6M NaCl within 10 min. The electric potential and 
temperature of the sample were followed with a Ag/AgCl combined electrode 
(Radiometer Analytical A/S, GK2401C) and a temperature sensor (Radiometer 
Analytical A/S, T901) connected to a TitraLabTM (Radiometer Analytical A/S) 
system. The titration was controlled automatically and the titration curve was 
analyzed with the inflection point titration method by the system. The 
precision of the method was determined to be  0.0043mmol/kg (n=17) from 
replicate analysis of the Certified Reference Solutions (CRMs (batch 32) 
supplied by Dr. Andrew Dickson of Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO)). 
Standardization of the titrant (0.1 M HCl) was accomplished with Na2CO3 
(99.99% pure; Asahi Grass) standards.
        
Total dissolved inorganic carbon (T-CO2)

The T-CO2 concentration in seawater samples were determined by using the 
coulometric titration system (UIC Inc., Carbon Coulometer model 5011) described
by Jhonson et al. (1985) with the modified CO2 extraction system described by 
Shitashima et al. (1996). A schematic diagram of our system is shown in 
Fig.C.7-1. Samples for T-CO2 analysis were drawn from the Niskin samplers into 
125ml glass vial bottles after an overflow of about 100ml of the sea water. The
samples were immediately poisoned with 50ul of 50% saturated HgCl2 in order to 
restrict biological alteration prior to sealing the bottles. All samples were 
stored in a refrigerator before measurement, and were analyzed within 12 hours 
of collection. 

Seawater was introduced manually into the thermostated (25C+/-0.1C) 
measuring pipette with a volume of ~30ml by a pressurized headspace CO2-free 
air that had been passed through the KOH scrubber. The measured volume was then
transferred to the extraction vessel. The seawater sample in the extraction 
vessel was acidified with 1.5 ml of 3.8% phosphoric acid and the CO2 was 
extracted from the sample for 10 minutes by bubbling with the CO2-free air. 
After passing through the Ag2SO4 scrubber and polywool to remove sea salts and 
water vapor, the evolved CO2 gas was continuously induced to the coulometric 
titration cell by the stream of the CO2-free air. All reagents were renewed 
every day.  

The T-CO2 concentration in seawater was calculated using a calibration carve
constructed by measuring five to six different concentration of dissolved 
Na2CO3 (99.99% pure; Asahi Grass) used as a standard solution (Dickson and 
Goyet, 1994). The precision of the T-CO2 measurements was tested by analyzing 
CRMs (batch 32) at the start of the measurement of samples every day. Fig.C.7-2
shows a comparison between the results of our shipboard measurements of these 
CRMs during the cruise and certified values provided by Dr. Andrew Dickson. Our
shipboard measurements yielded a mean value of 1995.6+/-2.8 umol/kg (n=40), 
which compares with 1997.6+/-1.4 umol/kg (n=9) certified by SIO. We also 
prepared and analyzed sub-standards that were bottled into 125ml glass vial 
bottles from a 20l bottle of filtered and poisoned offshore surface water in 
order to check the condition of the system and the stability of measurements 
every day. The resulting standard deviation form replicate analysis of 19 
sub-standards was +/-1.8 umol/kg.
 
2.  PRELIMINARY RESULTS

Fig.C.7-3 shows the vertical distributions of pH, Total-Alkalinity and T-CO2
concentration at 1 degree intervals between 10N and 1N along 130E. The 
fluctuation of the vertical distributions of Total-Alkalinity at some of the 
stations was caused by electrical problems with the onboard measurement. The 
T-CO2 maximum layer at each station gradually deepened towards the north. This 
trend suggests that this layer represents the northward flowing of the 
Philippine Sea bottom water.


3.  REFERENCES

Dickson, A. G. and C. Goyet. 1994. Handbook of methods for the analysis of the 
    various parameters of the carbon dioxide system in sea water. Ver. 2
    ORNL/CDIAC-74. A. G. Dickson and C. Goyet (eds.). Carbon Dioxide
    Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
    Tenn.
Jhonson, K. M., A. E. King, and J. M. Sieburth. 1985. Coulometric TCO2 analysis
    for marine studies: An introduction. Mar. Chem. 16, 61-82pp
Shitashima, K., K. B. Steven, D. Tsumune, I. Asamuma, and T. Ono. 1996. The
    measurement of total carbonate in seawater.: In abstract of the 1996 
    spring meeting of the Oceanographic Society of Japan. 269pp 
    (in Japanese)


C.8 Tracers 
    by C. Saito and N. Harada (6 September 1996)

C-14

All samples were drawn from 12 liter Niskin bottles followed that for oxygen
or TCO2. Samples were drawn into glass vials of ca. 200 ml. These were rinsed 
before filling and overflowed by two to three times of the vial volume. Then 
50 mg of saturated HgCl2 solution was added and subsequently rubber cap and 
aluminum cap were clamped to vials.

Duplicate samples were drawn from the same rosette bottle at all sampling 
depths. Sampling stations were 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 22 and 26. The 
sampling depths of radiocarbon samples shallower than 1000 meters were 30, 50, 
100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 800, 1000. Below 1000 meters the sampling interval was
500 meters.

Helium

Samples were transferred the first from Niskin bottle to the copper tube 
using a gravity feed technique through lengths of plastic tubing. We followed 
helium sampling procedure by WOCE manual (Jenkins et al., 1991). The seal was 
made by crimped to form a pressure welded seal. Helium sampling stations were 
same as radiocarbon sampling site but those layers were very few.

Tritium

Sampling bottles for tritium were baked for a few hours at about 180 C. The 
inside of this bottle was sealed with argon gas. Sea water sample was 
introduced into the bottle with a plastic tubing. The bottle was filled within 
a few centimeters of the top and head space was retained. The cap of ground 
joint glass bottle was immediately replaced and taped. Tritium sampling 
stations and depths were same as radiocarbon sampling. 


References

Jenkins, W. J., D. E. Lott, M. W. Davis, S. P. Birdwhistell and 
    M. O. Matthewson 1991. Measuring helium isotopes and tritium in seawater
    samples.   WHP Office Report WHPO 91-1, Woods Hole, Mass., USA.


C.9 Weather and sea condition 
    by S.Ishida (Captain of R/V KAIYO) and N.Yoshioka (September 1996)

Weather condition was very good through our cruise, as it was covered by the
North Pacific high pressure,  Any typhoon nor developing low pressure were not 
appeared around eastern part of the tropical Pacific area on the duration of 
our cruise.  Accordingly, any strong swell nor waves did not disturb our CTD 
and Rosetta casting operations.


C.10 Problems 
     by Y.Kashino (2 December, 1996)

As described in A.5, the damage on a fiber of armored-wire of CTD cable 
occurred during this cruise. Because of this accident, we must slow CTD decent 
rate at irregular winding after st.12.  This effected not only the time 
schedule but also the quality of CTD data because of increase of shed wakes.  
The rate of bad data detected changed from 8.8% to 11.1 % before and after 
this accident. 


D.  Acknowledgements 
    by N.Yoshioka (September 1996)

We would like to great acknowledge for contribution of many scientist and
technicians, who joined to this cruise from their institution or company. We 
also would like to greatly thanks for helpful supports by the captain Ishida 
and the crew on R/V KAIYO.  Technics for water sampling, chemical analysis and 
CTD data processing were totally taken over from previous KAIYO cruises 
(WOCE-PR1S and PR24 in 1994, PR23 and PR24N in 1995).  We would like to great 
thanks to Mr.Michio Aoyama and Mr.Takeshi Kawano who developed these techniques
and constructed the accuracy control system on R/V KAIYO.

The WOCE cruise and publication of this data report were all supported by 
Tropical Ocean Climate Study (TOCS) conducted by the JAMSTEC, which has been 
funded by the Science and Technology Agency (STA), JAPAN.


E.  References

see each section


F.  Appendices

F.1 Section plot along P8S.

    Figure F.1-1.  Temperature (CTD) 
    Figure F.1-2.  Salinity (CTD)
    Figure F.1-3.  Dissolved oxygen (sampled water)
    Figure F.1-4.  Silicate (sampled water)
    Figure F.1-5.  Nitrate (sampled water)
    Figure F.1-6.  Phosphate (sampled water)
    Figure F.1-7.  Total Carbon (sampled water)
    Figure F.1-8.  Alkalinity (sampled water)
    Figure F.1-9.  pH (sampled water)
    Figure F.1-10. Zonal velocity in m/sec (ADCP). 
                   Solid contour denote eastward flow.
    Figure F.1-11. Meridional velocity in m/sec (ADCP).
                   Solid contour denote northward flow.

F.2 Velocity vectors measured by ADCP. 

    Figure F.2-1.  On the depth of 50m
    Figure F.2-2.  On the depth of 100m
    Figure F.2-3.  On the depth of 150m
    Figure F.2-4.  On the depth of 200m
    Figure F.2-5.  On the depth of 250m
    Figure F.2-6.  On the depth of 300m
    Figure F.2-7.  On the depth of 350m
    Figure F.2-8.  On the depth of 400m
    Figure F.2-9.  On the depth of 450m
    Figure F.2-10. On the depth of 500m