A.    Cruise Narrative:  P16S and P17S (Tunes 2)

A.1.  Highlights

WHP Cruise Summary Information

            WOCE line designation  P16S and P17S
Expedition designation (ExpoCode)  31WTTUNES_2
  Chief scientist and affiliation  James H. Swift/SIO*
                             Ship  R/V Thomas Washington
                     Cruise dates  1991.JUL.16 1991.AUG.25 
                    Ports of call  Papeete, Tahiti, French Polynesia 
               Number of stations  P16S  41  CTD/rosette stations, 
                                             (4 with Gerard casts)
                                   P17S  56  CTD/rosette stations, 
                                             (6 with Gerard casts)

                                               4 0.0' S
            Geographic boundaries  151 0.0' W           137 0.0' W
                                              38 0.0' S

     Floats and drifters deployed  12 ALACE floats deployed
                                   12 "Niiler" type surface drifters deployed
   Moorings deployed or recovered  0
_____________________________________________________________________________
*Scripps Institution of Oceanography        tel: (619) 534-3387
 University of California, San Diego        fax: (619) 534-7383
 9500 Gilman Dr.  Mail Code 0214          omnet: J.SWIFT
 La Jolla  CA  92093-0214    USA       internet: jswift@ucsd.edu

                                  CONTENTS

Cruise Summary Information                        Hydrographic Measurements
   Description of scientific program                 CTD general
                                                     CTD pressure
   Geographic boundaries of the survey               CTD temperature
   Cruise track (figure) PI WHPO                     CTD conductivity/salinity
   Description of stations                           CTD dissolved oxygen
   Description of parameters sampled                 Bottle
   Bottle depth distributions (figure)                  Salinity
   Floats and drifters deployed                         Oxygen
   Moorings deployed or recovered                       Nutrients
                                                        CFCs
   Principal Investigators for all measurements      Large Volume Samples
   Cruise Participants                                  Preliminary Report
                                                        Final Report
   Problems and goals not achieved                        Tmp/Prs Sal NUTs C14
   Other incidents of note Other parameters
Underway Data Information                         DQE Reports
Navigation                                           CTD
Bathymetry                                           S/O2/nutrients
Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)             CFCs Report 1; Final
Thermosalinograph & related measurements             14C AMS
XBT and/or XCTD
Meteorological observations
Atmospheric chemistry data
References         Acknowledgments                Data Processing Notes
   CTD                CTD
   BTL
   Large Volume 
   Large Volume
   14C AMS

A.2.	Floats

ALACE floats were deployed on behalf of Russ Davis (SIO) by the Resident 
Technician at stations 129, 137, 146, 154, 165, 173, 180, 183, 192, 199, 207, 
and 215.  No problems were encountered.  Information on ALACE floats may be 
obtained from the WOCE float DAC.

                      ID# latitude  longitude  date
                      --- --------  ---------  -------
                      42  08 30.1S  134 59.7W  7/23/91
                      50  12 27.4S  134 29.4W  7/26/91
                      81  16 52.1S  133 34.1W  7/29/91
                      67  20 47.5S  132 44.2W  7/31/91
                      77  26 08.7S  133 09.9W  8/3/91
                      75  30 03.0S  134 12.3W  8/6/91
                      87  37 30.7S  150 25.3W  8/12/91
                      78  35 59.9S  150 29.5W  8/13/91
                      79  31 30.4S  150 32.1W  8/17/91
                      57  27 59.7S  150 29.8W  8/19/91
                      30  24 00.1S  150 30.0W  8/21/91
                      56  20 01.6S  150 30.4W  8/24/91

"Niiler" type surface drifters were deployed on behalf of Laurence Sombardier 
(SIO) by the Resident Technician at stations 132, 143, 153, 158, 163, 173, 179, 
185, 192, 195, 205, and 215.  No problems were encountered.  Information on the 
surface drifters may be obtained from the WOCE drifter DAC.

                     ID#   latitude  longitude  date
                    -----  --------  ---------  -------
                    15101  10 00.1S  135 00.1W  7/24/91
                    15119  15 22.3S  133 55.5W  7/28/91
                    15033  20 14.6S  132 51.3W  7/31/91
                    15112  22 42.5S  132 17.1W  8/1/91
                    15036  25 14.0S  132 55.6W  8/2/91
                    15118  30 02.8S  134 12.2W  8/6/91
                    15024  33 00.7S  135 01.1W  8/8/91
                    15129  35 00.0S  150 29.9W  8/14/91
                    15120  31 30.4S  150 32.0W  8/17/91
                    15032  30 00.9S  150 27.4W  8/18/91
                    15020  24 57.7S  150 29.2W  8/21/91
                    15044  20 01.5S  150 30.5W  8/24/91

There were no moorings deployed or recovered.

A.3.	List of Principal Investigators

Name/Institution               Measurement responsibility  Funding Source
----------------------         --------------------------  --------------
Dr. David Chipman/LDEO         CO2 (shipboard)             (Takahashi)
  Palisades NY 10964           (for data see Takahashi)  
  (914) 359-2900 x543
Dr. Russ Davis/UCSD/SIO        ALACE floats                NSF OCE-9017744
  9500 Gilman Drive
  PORD, 0230 
  La Jolla, CA 92093  
  (619) 534-4415
Dr. Rana Fine/RSMAS            CFCs                        NSF OCE-9104721
  4600 Rickenbacker Causeway  
  Miami FL 33149  
  (305) 361-4722
Dr. Louis I. Gordon/OSU        nutrients (tech support)    NSF OCE-9002474
  COAS                         (no data responsibility)  
  Oceanography Admin. Bldg 104  
  Corvallis OR 97331-5503  
  (503) 737-2161
Dr. Catherine Goyet/WHOI       alkalinity (shore)  DOE:    DE-FGO2-ER60980
  Woods Hole, MA 02543  
  (508) 457-2000 x2552
Dr. Peter W. Hacker/U. Hawaii  ADCP  NSF OCE-9015429
  JIMAR                        (for data see Firing)  
  1000 Pope Rd., MSB 312  
  Honolulu, HI 96822  
  (808) 956-8689
Dr. Willliam Jenkins/WHOI      helium (upper), tritium     P17: NOAA: NA16RC0413-01
  Chemistry Dept., Clark 4                                 P16: NSF:  OCE-8902480
  Woods Hole, MA  02543  
  (508) 457-2000 x2554
Dr. Charles D. Keeling/SIO     CO2 (shore)                 DOE:  DE-FG03-90ER60982
  UCSD 9500 Gilman Drive  
  GRD, 0220  
  La Jolla CA 92093-0220  
  (619) 534-4230
Dr. Robert Key/Princeton U     14C, 226Ra/228Ra, Ba*       NSF OCE-9002485 (with NOAA supplement)
  Geology Dept.                (* Ba samples were given 
  Princeton University            to J. Bishop, LDEO)
  Princeton NJ 08544  
  (609) 258-3595
Dr. Pearn P. Niiler/SIO        drifters                    NSF OCE-8918731
  UCSD 9500 Gilman Drive  
  PORD, 0230  
  La Jolla, CA 92093-0230  
  (619) 534-4100
Stuart M. Smith /SIO           SeaBeam (bathymetry)        NSF OCE-8911587
  UCSD 9500 Gilman Drive  
  GDC, 0223  
  La Jolla, CA 92093-0223  
  (619) 534-1898  
  ssmith@ucsd.edu
Dr. James H. Swift/SIO         CTD/O2/nutrients            (P16)  NSF OCE-9002483 
  UCSD 9500 Gilman Drive                                          NSF OCE-8918961
  ODF, 0214  
  La Jolla, CA 92093-0214  
  (619) 534-3387
Dr. Taro Takahashi/LDEO        CO2 (shipboard)             DOE:  DE FG02-90ER60983
  Geochemistry Dept.  
  Columbia University  
  Palisades, NY  10964  
  (914) 359-2900 x537
Dr. Lynne D. Talley
  (for data see Swift)/SIO     CTD/O2/nutrients (P17)      NSF OCE-8918961
  UCSD 9500 Gilman Drive         surface T/S (underway)
  PORD, 0230  
  La Jolla, CA 92093-0230  
  (619) 534-6610
Dr. Mizuki Tsuchiya
  (for data see Swift)/SIO     CTD/O2/nutrients (P17)      NSF OCE-8918961
  UCSD 9500 Gilman Drive  
  MRD, 0230  
  La Jolla, CA 92093-0230  
  (619) 534-3236
Dr. Ray F. Weiss/SIO           pCO2 (underway)             DOE:  DE-FG03-90ER60981
  UCSD 9500 Gilman Drive  
  GRD, 0220  
  La Jolla, CA 92093-0230  
  (619) 534-2598

Abbreviations:
COAS         College of Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences
GDC          Geological Data Center
GRD          Geo-Sciences Research Division
LDEO         Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
MRD          Marine Research Division
OSU          Oregon State University
PORD         Physical Oceanography Research Division
Princeton U  Princeton University
RSMAS        Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
U. Hawaii    University of Hawaii
UCSD/SIO     University of California, San Diego / Scripps Institution of 
Oceanography
WHOI         Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

A.4.	Scientific Program and Methods

A.4.a	Narrative

Cruise track

R/V Thomas Washington  expedition TUNES Leg 2, roundtrip from/to Papeete, 
Tahiti, French Polynesia, was carried out during 16 July 25 August 1991.  Chief 
Scientist was James Swift (SIO); Captain was A. Arsenault.  Scientific work for 
the first portion of Leg 2 was proposed by Lynne Talley and Mizuki Tsuchiya 
(SIO) and the second portion by James Swift.  The overall purpose of both was to 
contribute to a planned multi-cruise examination of the meridional circulation 
and water mass transitions in the Pacific Ocean for the WOCE Hydrographic 
Program, in this case emphasizing the central subtropical gyres of the North and 
South Pacific.  TUNES Leg 2 included a section of full depth CTD and water 
sample profiles at 30 nmile spacing and Gerard barrel profiles at nominal 300 
nmile spacing along a line from 6S to 33S along ca. 135W (WHP line P17), and 
from 3730'S to 17 30'S along 150 30'W (WHP line P16).  Over the ridge 
extending from the East Pacific Rise to the Tuamotu Islands the P17 track was 
shifted slightly to the east and back in order to cross the rise at a saddle.  
(See track in Figure 1.)

The Scripps Oceanographic Data Facility (ODF) carried out full-depth CTDO 
profiles with a maximum of 36 small-volume water samples per cast and deep and 
intermediate-depth Gerard barrel casts of up to 9 270-liter Gerard water 
samplers each.  ODF technicians led deck operations and the overall sea program, 
carried out CTDO profiling and processing, oxygen, nutrient, and salinity 
sampling, analyses, and processing from the water samples, and record keeping 
for CTD casts and water sampling.  Other groups carried out complementary 
programs for CFC's, helium/ tritium, CO2, and 14C.

Stations occupied

There were 97 CTD/rosette stations, in all but one case each close to the 
bottom.  Nine included large volume casts, usually including one deep and one 
intermediate depth cast with Gerard barrels, often with a brief one-barrel 
surface cast in addition.  Rosette water samples were collected from Niskin and 
ODF-constructed 10-liter sample bottles mounted on an ODF-constructed 36-bottle 
rosette sampler which used General Oceanics 24and 12-place pylons.  The rosette 
was equipped with - at various times - ODF CTD's #1, 2, and 10 (modified NBIS 
Mark III) for in-situ measurement of  conductivity, temperature, pressure, and 
dissolved oxygen.  A transmissometer belonging to Dr. Wilf Gardner, TAMU, was 
installed on the rosette and used at every station.  A short-range (ca. 100 
meter) altimeter was mounted on the rosette frame and its data fed into the CTD 
data stream.  A pinger on the rosette frame gave height above bottom (via a PDR 
in the CTD console area) throughout the water column, except for some of the 
large-volume stations, when the rosette was used without a pinger.  In every 
case the bottles were closed at selected depths during the up cast, after the 
winch had stopped at that depth.

CTD preliminary data processing was carried out at sea during and after the 
casts.  Subsets of CTD data comparable to the water samples were provided to the 
bottle data files immediately after each station in order to facilitate 
examination and quality control of the bottle data as the laboratory analyses 
were completed.  The subsequent "preliminary bottle data reports" were used as 
part of the at-sea scientific and quality control analyses.  At sea the data 
were examined as a suite for consistency and evidence of errors.  Shore 
processing included preparation and distribution of preliminary data tapes, re-
calibration of CTD sensors, a lengthy review of all ODF bottle data, CTDO 
processing, and completion of the documentation suite.

ODF equipment was prepared and loaded on the Washington  in San Diego.  ODF 
technicians on Leg 1 used the equipment and left it in excellent condition for 
Leg 2.

The Washington left Papeete, Tahiti, F.P., on schedule at 1600, 16 July, and 
headed toward the first station, at 6S 135W, in light seas.  A watch list was 
drawn up for two scientific watches, 0000-1200 and 1200-2400.  Most personnel 
were assigned to one watch or the other, with only a few positions "floating" 
due to the nature of the task involved (see watch list).  On the morning of 18 
July the vessel stopped for two hours for station tests and training.  The first 
WOCE station (124) began on 21 July and went well.  CTD #1 was used.  This was 
the primary instrument used on TUNES Leg 1.

Scientific Party Watch List
    Noon-midnight                    |     Midnight-noon
Name              Task               | Name              Task
----------------  ------------------ | ----------------  --------------------
Swift, Jim        console ops, data  | Peterson, Ray     console ops, data
Lewis, Diana      data assistant     | Orsi, Alex        ADCP, data assistant
Boaz, John        deck leader, R.T.  | Williams, Bob     deck leader, data
Delahoyde, Frank  CTD processing     | Streib, Rebecca   deck, salts
Schmitt, Jim      electronics, salts | Patrick, Ron      deck, oxygens
Masten, Doug      LVS, deck, oxygens | Bouchard, George  salts, computer tech
Guffy, Dennis     nutrients          | Williams, Nadya   nutrients
Maillet, Kevin    CFCs               | Mathieu, Guy      CFCs
Rubin, Stephany   CO2                | Goddard, John     CO2

"Floaters"
                   Name                Task
                   ------------------  -------------------
                   Rotter, Rich        LVS, C14 extraction
                   Birdwhistell, Scot  Helium/tritium
                   Tedesco, Kathy      Helium/tritium, CO2

WOCE stations continued according to the advance scientific plan, and the 
routines were quickly established: soon station times were down to about 3 hours 
for a 4500 meter cast.

The planned southern terminus of the P17 line was reached with out major 
incident on 8 August, and the vessel steamed for 83 hours to the southern end of 
the P16 line.  In this case, the southernmost attainable point (3730'S) was set 
by back-calculation from the planned end port arrival date/time.

The P16 line was beset by somewhat more serious instrument problems (in terms of 
potential effect on CTD data quality - see the ODF section on CTD data 
processing), but managed to complete every planned station and head into port on 
schedule.

The weather was mostly quite good during this period.  Overnight on 25 July rain 
squalls and steady light rain drove inner rosette sampling indoors for the only 
time during Leg 2.  The wind began coming up during 30 July, but caused few 
problems other than slowing of vessel.  The weather began to be more wintery: 
cooler, cloudy, grey, some rain squalls, winds to over 25 knots by 1 August.  
But we soon came under the benign influence of a strong subtropical high 
pressure zone, so the local weather improved and rarely again became a negative 
factor in Leg 2.  On our return to the tropics in late August, winds rose 
somewhat, but did not interfere with operations.  Long period swell influenced 
over-the-side operations at times, especially on the southern ends of the legs.  
Still, the weather was remarkably favorable considering that operations were 
being carried out during the middle of the austral winter.

At the completion of this expedition leg in Papeete, most ODF data acquisition 
and analysis services were taken over for Leg 3 by WHOI and OSU groups, so most 
ODF equipment - except for the rosettes, Gerard barrels, nutrient autoanalyzer, 
and radiocarbon extraction equipment - was unloaded in Papeete and returned to 
San Diego.

Rosette casts:

In conditions of low ship roll it was possible to prepare the rosette before 
coming onto station. 30 minutes before the station the scientific deck watch (2-
3 persons) and winch operator met at the rosette area.  The technicians cocked 
and checked the inner rosette, which between stations was held suspended at 
sampling height by the opposing tension of the CTD cable and four fitted ropes 
attached to vertical posts on the rosette frame and anchored to eyebolts on the 
rosette cart rails.  When it was time to mate the rosette rings, the deck crew 
was joined by others at hand to make a 5 person party on deck.  With one person 
on each post of the inner rosette and a fifth standing by at the rosette cart 
controls, the winch operator then lowered the inner rosette to the deck or - if 
there was very little roll - to knee height.  The bottom ring (which stabilizes 
the inner rosette in air) and the four ropes were removed.  With one person 
still on each leg, the winch operator raised the inner rosette above the height 
of the outer rosette, and the cart operator utilized an air tugger to bring the 
cart out underneath the suspended inner ring.  The inner ring was then carefully 
lowered into the outer, safety pins inserted and guard rails assembled, the 
electrical and safety cables were connected, and the deck crew cocked and 
inspected the outer rosette.  [The mating procedure was carried out on station 
if ship roll underway prohibited safe control.]  The scientist on duty in the 
laboratory meanwhile verified pre-station entries in the console operations log, 
prepared tapes and computer peripherals, and, when the rosette was fully 
assembled and the ship was coming on station, powered up the CTD and verified 
its on deck performance from the deck unit (or its surrogate on the data 
acquisition computer).

When the mate on watch had secured the vessel on station and activated the after 
steering station, he gave permission for rosette launch.  The deck leader 
removed sensor covers, activated the pinger, and verified permission to launch 
from the CTD computer operator (who, at that point, completed the final 
keystroke of the computer initialization sequence, turned on the VCR recorder, 
and noted cast start data on the console operations log).  Three persons from 
the scientific party were required to actually launch the rosette.  In good 
weather, two operated tag lines and the third operated the hydraulic controls 
for the boom.  In conditions of heavier roll, the third person also handled a 
(third) tag line.  [There was no room for more than three people to handle 
lines.]  On signal from the deck leader, the winch operator raised the rosette 
above the rail, the boom operator swung the boom outward to cast position, and, 
at a propitious moment, the deck leader signaled the winch operator to lower 
away.  The winch operator lowered the rosette through the sea surface and 
continued lowering at about 15-20 meters/minute until the rosette was at 15 
meters.  He engaged the heave compensator system (ca. 2 minutes), and then asked 
the computer operator for permission to lower away.

In general, once the cruise had progressed to the point where the winch 
operators knew well the safe operating conditions and limitations of this winch-
compensator-cable-rosette system, they were free to select any safe lowering 
speed up to a maximum of 60 meters/minute.  Typically, this meant starting at 20 
meters/minute until about 100 meters of wire were out, and slowly increasing to 
60 meters per minute by about 250-300 meters out.  At ca. 400 meters of wire 
out, a small block - used to make certain that the CTD cable could not jump the 
first sheave at low cable tensions - was removed by the winch operator (and re-
engaged on the up cast at about that depth).  Meanwhile, in the laboratory, the 
scientist on watch monitored the PDR and deck unit, engaged various on-screen 
real-time plots - updating the scales, parameters, and ranges as needed (the 
computer was capable of post-dating plots after changes with the data from 
earlier in the cast) - and chose sampling depths for the up cast.

Bottom approach and cast turn-around were easy:  With the deck leader monitoring 
the PDR as a back-up, the scientist monitoring the CTD computer (with its 
altimeter output) guided the winch operator to a final depth 10-15 meters above 
the bottom.  The final 50-100 meters of lowering were always accomplished at 
reduced winch speed.  As soon as the winch stopped, a simple button push and a 
three-second wait were all that were required before raising the rosette to the 
next stop depth, and so time near bottom was kept to the absolute minimum.  The 
CTD console operator was responsible for manually writing key back-up 
information on the console operations log at cast start, bottom, each rosette 
trip, and at the surface, although all of that information except depth 
information from the PDR was also logged automatically by the CTD computer.

Recovery and disassembly were virtually mirror images of assembly and launch in 
terms of procedures and personnel required, although, because of the added mass 
to the inner rosette ring, it was disassembled only on station; i.e., the vessel 
never left station until all was secure in the rosette area.

After each rosette cast was brought on board, analysts drew water samples from 
each bottle for various parameters.  Sample drawing order was set at: CFC, 
helium, oxygen, CO2, tritium, AMS 14C, nutrients, salinity, and alkalinity.  The 
only routine violation was that the nutrient and salinity samplers were allowed 
to preceed the AMS 14C sampler if little water had previously been drawn from a 
bottle.  In general, an attempt was made to collect gas samples in sequence as 
soon as possible after the air vent was opened.  Hence, on some casts oxygen 
sampling began in the upper layers, following CFC sampling.  In other cases - 
the norm - bottles were sampled in the order deepest to shallowest.

Rosette water sampling was often very busy, and for almost every rosette cast - 
except some rosette casts during large-volume stations - a "sample cop" armed 
with sample log sheet and pencil enforced sampling order, maintained records of 
the serial number of sample containers and the Niskin bottle each was filled 
from, and helped guide samplers to available rosette bottles.  Sampling took as 
little as 65-70 minutes if only CFC, O2, nutrients, and salinities were drawn 
(the minimum set every station), and well over two hours when enough sampling 
programs coincided.  However, in no case did sampling from the last station 
prevent the next station from beginning on schedule (just barely).

At the completion of sampling, the samplers ensured that their samples were 
properly stored and labled, the sample cop placed the sample log sheet in the 
folder reserved for unregistered data sheets, and the water was emptied from the 
rosette.

Gerard barrel casts:

Gerard barrels (LVS) casts were carried out usually with five from the 
scientific party for deployment and six for recovery, not including the trawl 
winch operator.  Space limitations dictated stern LVS casts on this cruise.  A 
heavy cable was fed from the trawl winch below decks with a long fairlead from 
the forward/amidships portion of the fantail over a large sheave on the after A-
frame.  Due to the large amount of equipment and vans stored on the Washington's 
decks, it was not possible to site the small crane used for LVS handling on the 
same side of the vessel as the LVS samplers.  Hence the trawl wire itself 
interfered with crane operation, forcing the crane operator during each transfer 
of a barrel between the stern and the barrel storage area to set down the 
barrel, move the crane "over" the trawl wire, and pick up the barrel again.  
During this time, it was necessary to have 2-4 tag/anchor lines on the LVS 
sampler to keep it upright.  It was partly this requirement for stabilizing the 
samplers that brought about such a heavy personnel requirement for LVS 
operations on the Washington.

Casts themselves went smoothly enough, with the principal problem being the 
effects of surge, which caused various tripping/closure problems.  As has been 
noted on other expeditions, the work load was very heavy when a Gerard cast 
followed a rosette cast because a full rosette sampling crew is required in 
addition to the Gerard cast deployment crew.  This never posed any special 
problem, and in fact the intensity and coordination required for these 
operations helped promote a certain 'group spirit' in the scientific party.

Additional information, and LVS-related data, may be obtained from Dr. Robert 
Key, Princeton University.

Surface radium and barium:

Bags with ion exchange filters designed to collect the isotopes radium-226, 
radium-228 and barium were soaked at the sea surface and collected for shore 
analysis by Richard Rotter (Princeton), on behalf of Robert Key (Princeton) at 
many Leg 2 stations (see .SUM file).   (Barium samples were transfered later to 
J. Bishop, LDEO.)  Information on this program may be obtained from Key.

Problems and comments:

At station 129 the rosette hit the side of the ship fairly hard and was brought 
back on board with damage to two bottles, several weight hangers, and the clamp 
that holds the end cap on the CTD pressure case, but we lost only 70 minutes due 
to these problems.

The first LVS station (#132) began on 23 July.  The first cast (deep) failed to 
yield confirmation of bottom bottle trip (double ping from pinger).  The 
recovery crew found six good closures, with the seventh bottle failing to trip 
or release.  This turned out to be a typical problem in Gerard casts from the 
fantail in conditions when surge from ship pitch could be quite pronouced 
(Gerard barrel casts are notoriously sensitive to surge).

The CTD cast at #133 showed small conductivity high spikes on downward sensor 
motion, no spikes on upward.  We decided to replace the CTD conductivity sensor 
on CTD #1, with the new sensor beginning on station 134.  By station 137 
continued conductivity problems (of the same type) on CTD #1 forced a switch to 
CTD #2.

We had to switch to CTD #10 on 29 July after the main PRT on CTD #2 went bad.  
CTD #10 needed adjustment for two-pylon use, but after that worked fine.  On 2 
August the rosette crashed into the ship, breaking 4 inner-ring bottles, 
loosening weights, etc.

During the transit from lines P17 to P16 (8-11 August), we cut off the end of 
the CTD cable and reterminated it, because wear had weakened the armor.

On the night of 10 August there was an interesting event:  The mate and seaman 
on watch saw two red flares on the far horizon somewhat to port of ship track.  
They altered course toward the sighting.  12-14 miles later a weak radar return 
was noted.  Finally a light was seen.  No radio response at first, but then 
radio contact was established.  It was a USSR vessel "practicing" with their 
flares.  It turned out we saw their flares from 24 miles.

A CTD software problem arose at the first P16 station (#180, 12 August), the 
deepest station in the cruise, causing greatly distorted corrected pressures for 
most of the up cast.  Several stations later (continued quite deep) this was 
diagnosed as a novel coincidence of CTD calibration data with a term in the 
hysteresis correction program and was easily corrected.

On station 182, at ca. 100 meters wire out, the signal stopped from the CTD 
(#10).  On inspection it was found partially flooded (through the second 
thermometer turret, although the O-rings looked good).  We switched to CTD #1, 
after applying additional shielding to a circuit board suspected of interfering 
with the conductivity channel.  But the problems with conductivity noise (very 
specifically-characterized noise) on the down cast continued.  We aborted #182 
at 2000 meters wire out, tripping 24 bottles on the up cast, in order to get the 
CTD into repair.  The suspect board was removed, but the CTD could still not be 
made to work properly.  We chose to go next to CTD #2, substituting the backup 
PRT for main temperature channel.  This worked reasonably well, although the 
physical separation of the backup PRT from the conductivity sensor made for more 
difficult salinity calculations, introducing noise typical of mismatched 
sensors.

On down cast at #189 near 300 meters CTD #2 froze up in T and C, but not P.  
Problem went away when hauled up.  Inspection and changes provided no 
improvement on cast #2, i.e. same problem reappeared.  New repairs did not fully 
fix things, but gave the CTD technicians enough new information to decide to 
construct a hybrid CTD out of working parts from #1 and #2.  This worked out 
fairly well, except that the conductivity noise problem from CTD #1 was 
transferred to the hybrid instrument.  Also, the oxygen channel had been noisy 
prior to this repair, so the sensor was replaced, but the oxygen profiles then 
were "flat".

During subsequent stations systematic card substitutions were made to the hybrid 
CTD, but failed to fix the conductivity problem.  Tests with this CTD pointed 
toward some other type of problem than the internal electronics.  The raw data 
showed a good correlation of conductivity jumps with package acceleration as 
judged via ship roll, increasing at higher winch speeds, suggesting a 
mechanical/electrical problem such as a stressed or loose connection or 
connector.  Meanwhile, the old oxygen sensor was re-installed, with a new cable, 
and this fixed that channel.  Finally on 18 August the roots of the CTD problems 
were identified:  combination of mechanical troubles including loose bulkhead 
port seals (fortunate that CTD was not flooded), and loose coating on 
conductivity sensor guard.  These were quite literally fixed with a crescent 
wrench and a pocket knife.

The hybrid CTD was used for the remainder of the cruise without further 
incident.

On 22 August we lost 1 hour with minor electrical problems (with slip ring 
plugs, as it turned out), and the restart was aborted when the CTD was launched 
without telling lab.

At station 211 the rosette hit the side of the ship on recovery.  Broke FSI bag 
along seam (but not bottle) and Niskin #2, and lost one lead weight.

The conductivity (salinity) channel of the underway surface measurement system 
ceased to function early during Leg 2 due to failure of the conductivity cell.  
Underway temperature and pCO2 were unaffected.

Other equipment problems arose during the cruise but had little ot no effect on 
the data.  These include failure of both temperature-instrumented sampling tubes 
for O2 sampling, reduction of the active pinger complement usually to one 
instrument, and failure of two power boards on the nutrient autoanalyzer.  The 
air pumps used for radiocarbon extraction and the underway system (same model) 
experienced heavy wear, and most of the replacement parts were found to be 
defective.  The Gerard barrels required continued maintenance to remain 
operational, but this is not unusual.  Various terminals and serial ports went 
out, but no special problems were generated.  Wear and tear on the double-
rosette was evident from the gradually-increasing "looseness" of its frame.  The 
inner ring design does not adequately support the Niskin bottles, causing wear 
on the attachment blocks and pins.  With the launch/recovery set-up on the 
Washington, occasional accidents were inevitable, and several occurred, causing 
additional damage.

The ship's power was an occasional problem during the cruise.  Serious brown-
outs occurred three times when failure of the main generator voltage regulator 
drove the generator off-line.  These power interruptions had a serious effect on 
the computers and peripherals, and probably on other electrical equipment.  
While little permanent damage seems to have occurred, various software glitches 
are probably traceable to these events.

Communications with shore facilities were a disappointment during Leg 2.  The 
INMARSAT antenna mechanism did not function properly, and for the most part 
voice, data, and electronic mail through that service was lost, or at best were 
sporadic.  Voice communications via ATS were also occasionally weak.  
Radioteletype messages were relayed daily via SIO radio station WWD and formed 
the principal vehicle for communications.

Leg 2 involved operations during the austral winter, at latitudes to 37 30'S, 
and though the weather was mostly excellent for winter, long period swell 
generally prevailed.  Scientific operations with the WOCE rosette and Gerard 
barrels are sensitive to ship motion, hence equipment wear and tear played a 
more prominent role than desired during this leg.  Adding to this, the heavy 
cast schedule - itself a major contributor to extra wear - provided very little 
time for maintenance.

The R/V Thomas Washington (now the Chilean naval oceanographic vessel Vidal 
Gormaz) was in advance of this expedition thought to be a marginally suitable 
vessel for US WHP operations.  Negative aspects with respect to WOCE needs 
included small free laboratory space, marginal scientific party capacity (22 
berths, with three of these quite poor), limited range and stores capacity, 
small scientific hold space, and excessive ship roll.  But the vessel was 
prepared for TUNES by an agressive and capable marine department (SIO/MARFAC), 
who created space for three 20-foot laboratory vans, an 11-foot nutrient van, 
and a trash van, and built a first-class rosette sampling room and radiocarbon 
extraction room on the fantail while still leaving room for the Gerard barrels, 
extraction tanks, trawl wire, and cranes.  The vessel was already fitted with a 
feedback-controlled hydraulic ram line tensioner.  It appeared to reduce roll-
induced upward package motion and resultant CTD data artifacts during down CTD 
casts, and greatly reduced line tension fluctuations.  Probably the most 
important positive factor was the excellent quality of the ship's personnel 
complement and their helpful, always-friendly attitude.  The only ways in which 
the size of the vessel impacted operations were (1) with Gerard barrels deployed 
from the stern, even moderate pitch created enough surge to make tripping the 
barrels uncertain; and (2) the lack of space/capability to deploy a weight 
underneath the rosette made rosette deployment and recovery more hazardous to 
the equipment - and somewhat more hazardous to the scientific personnel - than 
would otherwise have been the case.

The LDGO CO2 work on Leg 2 was intensive, plus there was the unique situation 
for TUNES Leg 2 of the CO2 group being asked to obtain shore samples for two 
other labs (WHOI and SIO).  Hence on Leg 2 the CO2 group needed sampling 
assistance.  The CTD station rate was close to 4 36-level casts per day, which 
kept the non-CO2 scientific party busy, and left little time for volunteer 
activities, especially technically exacting ones such as drawing the SIO shore 
samples.  The two nutrient technicians agreed that on a time-available basis 
they would draw the SIO samples, and other assistance was occasionally provided, 
and so the CO2 program achieved its goals.  As a result of this experience, it 
was recommended to the US JGOFS CO2 consortium that on future WOCE cruises the 
CO2 groups prepare self-contained sampling and analytical programs within the 
limitations of the laboratory and bunk space available to the CO2 program as a 
whole.

FSI water sampling bottle:

We experimented with a prototype "Fougere" bottle from Falmouth Scientific, 
which used a flushed bag-like liner to capture and isolate a ca. 6-liter water 
sample from gas exchange even during sampling.  The first problem was mounting 
it on the ODF outer rosette frame, which does not accept General Oceanics-type 
block mounts (for which the FSI bottle was equipped).  A suitable mount was 
constructed and adjusted for the sampler.  Only three casts were completed with 
this arrangement before the sampler closed in air, incurring heavy damage.  
Later, after repairs, additional casts were made.  In general, there were 
continuing mechanical problems with the design, although it did function, 
especially in good weather.  (The FSI bottle suffered an exaggerated form of one 
of the main mechanical weaknesses of Niskin bottles in that the center of mass 
is held well away from the attachment block, leading to high risk of material 
failure at the attachment point during routine mechanical stress.)  The bag 
holder/closure was always clumsy to use, though re-engineering might produce 
improvement.

Comparison water sample data showed that the bags sent out were contaminated 
with CFC.  (This was not unexpected, and was one of the leading reserrvations 
regarding bag-like sampling for other water sampler designs.)  One bag was baked 
extensively by the shipboard CFC group (to reduce CFC contamination), and it did 
show lower CFC levels, though still far above those from the ODF bottles.  
Salinity and nutrient samples from intact bags showed no real differences from 
samples drawn from 10-liter ODF bottles.  Dissolved oxygens were always slightly 
(0.01 ml/l) lower than those from an ODF bottle, and the good news was that 
analyzed oxygen levels exhibited very little change when the bag literally hung 
out on deck an hour or two and was resampled.  (In a similar situation, oxygen 
concentrations in water held in an opened Niskin-type bottle would have 
increased far beyond WOCE specifications during the hold time.)  The temperature 
of the water in an FSI bag at the time of sample drawing was much warmer than 
the corresponding Niskin or ODF bottle, indicative of the lack of insulation in 
the FSI bottle.  On this cruise we were not able to test the behavior in deep 
high oxygen cold water, where the warming of the contained water would result in 
a sample supersaturated in oxygen at the time of drawing.

A tentative conclusion was that though the mechanical design of this early 
version of the FSI sampler needed improvement, the general concept of the bag-
type sampler did have promise, if delayed sampling for gas samples were an 
expedition requirement, and with the caveat that the CFC contamination issue 
would require close attention.

Data Notes:

Reports on the methodology and related information for all TUNES Leg 2 
measurement programs will be added to the documentation as they come available 
from the participating investigators.  For example, ODF has submitted reports on 
the bottle data pressure, temperature, salinity, oxygen, and nutrient data, and 
on the CTD data, and Rana Fine's group has a report on CFC measurements.

The ".SUM", ".SEA", and ".CTD" files for 31WTTUNES/2 were prepared according to 
the specifications and model files published in Joyce et al (1991).  ODF created 
the original ".SEA" file (for pressure, temperature, salinity, oxygen, nitrate, 
nitrite, phosphate, and silicate only) and the ".CTD" file, and J. Swift created 
the ".SUM" file.  Parameters, formats, units, and other related matters for the 
WHPO data files are as specified in Joyce et al (1991).  Comments:

Station numbers are consecutive from the beginning to end of the cruise, without 
interruption, as assigned by the Chief Scientist, continuing the TUNES Leg 1 
sequence except for unreported test stations.

Cast numbers are consecutive at each station, including aborted casts.

The WHPO does not include meteorological data in header files.  However, we 
intend that the NODC "Master File" SD2 format version of the routine 
hydrographic data, when available, will contain weather information collected by 
the ship's officers and copied by hand from the Washington's Bridge Log.  Other 
meteorological data were reported by the ship to collection agencies as per 
standard practice.

Positions for ROS and LVS casts were recorded by the ODF to 0.1 minutes, not the 
hundredths of a minute required by the WHPO.  We have thus padded the hundredths 
place with meaningless zeros.  We also note that the position of the underwater 
equipment was difficult enough to know to tenths.

"Uncorrected Bottom Depths" are in almost every case actual raw readings in 
meters read manually from the trace on the ship's PDR plus the depth of the 
transducer below waterline, which we took to be an average of about 2 meters for 
this cruise.  When there were multiple bottom returns, the Watch Leader chose a 
"most likely depth" from the information at hand.  Occasionally only corrected 
bottom depths were available in the cruise files, in which cases these were 
back-calculated to raw depths using the appropriate tables and algorithms.  
Corrected depths will be issued by the WHPO.

Bottom depths were not recorded at cast ends and so are not reported in the .SUM 
file.

"Height Above Bottom" was determined for most ROS casts both from an altimeter 
on the rosette which returned altitude above bottom through the CTD data stream, 
and also from a pinger on the rosette frame used with the ship's PDR.  Priority 
in reported height above bottom was given to altimeter data when available.

The "Meter Wheel" readings are the wire out as recorded on the winch operator's 
display (and the repeater in the ship's laboratory).  Cast-start winch readings 
are nominally adjusted at the surface by the winch operators; however this was 
not verified on a cast by cast basis by the scientists on watch.  Meter wheel 
readings at bottle trip time were not recorded for one-barrel LVS surface casts.

"Maximum Pressure" is for ROS casts the preliminary corrected CTD pressure at 
the time of tripping the first (deepest) rosette bottle and for LVS casts the 
pressure calculated for the deepest LVS sampler from the thermometers on its 
piggyback Niskin bottle.  The data acquisition system used for the CTD data on 
this cruise records and reports preliminary corrected pressures in real time, 
hence it was decided after consultation with the WHPO not to report in the 
".SUM" file raw CTD pressures which do not correspond to expedition records 
distributed to participants.

The "Number of Bottles" is not the maximum number attempted each cast, but the 
number returned to deck with sampleable water inside.  This distinction was not 
discussed in the WHPO reference manual, and so we made our own decision, which 
bears comment:  If a rosette bottle came up open or otherwise unsampleable, it 
did not count in the tally in this column; if it came up full, but was later - 
on examination of the chemical data - found to be faulty, it did count in the 
tally shown.  This makes sense from the standpoint of the chemistry groups, 
because their tallies keep track of the number of bottles sampled for the 
parameters of interest.  The problem is that the CTD data acquisition system 
prepared a file (containing CTD pressure, temperature, conductivity, oxygen, and 
other parameters) for each attempt to close a rosette bottle (including some 
bogus "double-trips" which had nothing to do with pylon tripping), and so some 
versions of the CTD rosette trip files from this expedition may show different 
numbers of bottles than in this column.  Should CTD data be reported from 
attempted bottle trips which produced no bottle data?  The reason to do this is 
that it helps fill out the vertical profiles for T, S, and O2 for those who 
primarily use bottle data.  (Generally speaking, the CTD console operators 
attempt to close rosette bottles at key or interesting places in the water 
column.  A gap will make representation of that layer impossible from only the 
bottle data file.)  The reason not to do this is that there are no bottle data 
at those depths.  This difference between the number of bottles attempted and 
the number sampled should perhaps be addressed by the WHPO in a future version 
of the reference document.

Three groups carried out CO2 system sampling during TUNES Leg 2:  A group from 
LDEO (PI's were Chipman and Takahashi) carried out on-board analyses for pCO2 
and TCO2.  Samples for alkalinity were returned to shore for analyses by Goyet 
(WHOI), and samples for TCO2 were returned to shore for analyses by Keeling 
(SIO).  At the time this report was written it is not yet known how the WHPO 
will report multiple observations of the same parameter (TCO2) by different 
groups.  (It is also possible that there will be some overlap in the helium 
program, which was carried out by two groups.  Again, it is not yet known how 
the WHPO will report these multiple observations.)

The parameter codes listed in Joyce et al (1991) for CO2 sampling are for total 
carbon, alkalinity, and fugacity of CO2.  The parameters measured during TUNES 
Leg 2 were total inorganic carbon (also called total CO2, which combines total 
dissolved CO2 with carbonate and bicarbonate, but does not include organic 
carbon), alkalinity, and partial pressure of CO2.  The parameter code for total 
carbon ("23") is here used for total CO2 and similarly for fugacity/pCO2 ("25").

No WHPO sample code existed for the IO3 profiles carried out on TUNES Leg 2.  
Hence, according to the instructions on pp. 24-25 of Joyce et al (1991), code 
"26" was temporarily assigned for IO3.  Similarly no WHPO sample code existed 
for the Barium surface samples and so code "27" was temporarily assigned for 
these.

Note that the Radium isotope (code "18" and "19") and Barium (code "27") 
sampling programs took place only from surface samples (fiber-filled bags with 
ion exchange resins suspended in the water on a line thrown over the side of the 
vessel).

Note that while profiles for TCO2 and pCO2 were made at about one station each 
day, at most other stations samples for these parameters were collected from the 
near-surface bottles and so the relevant parameter codes ("23" and "25") show up 
at almost every station.

TUNES Leg 2 was originally proposed in a different configuration:  the P17 
portion of the work was to be part of a long "P17C" expedition proposed by 
Talley and Tsuchiya and the P16 portion was part of an Antarctica-to-Tahiti 
"P16S" line in a P19S/P16S plan proposed by Swift.  The original cruises were 
delayed by difficulties with the refit of the intended vessel (R/V Knorr), so 
the lines were restructured and rescheduled.  The P17 portion of the cruise was 
known before and during the expedition as "P17C" and since the P16 portion 
completed was mostly in the subtropics, it, too, was called P16C by the 
participants.  However, Joyce et al (1991) state that line designations must 
match that of the WOCE Implementation Plan.  In the published international 
version of the plan, this would be simply P17 and P16, but the WHPO (personal 
communication) has renamed these lines "P17S" and "P16S".  We have tried to 
change "P17C" to "P17S", etc., in this and all other submitted final 
documentation.

Reversing thermometer measurements were made at many of the CTD stations.  
Results were used only for data processing and are not reported in the .SUM" and 
.SEA" files.

WHPO Parameter Codes used in the .SUM file for TUNES Leg 2:

1  salinity      8  CFC-12         19  radium226
2  oxygen        9  tritium        23  total CO2
3  silicate     10  helium         24  alkalinity
4  nitrate      11  del helium3    25  pCO2
5  nitrite      12  del carbon14   26  IO3
6  phosphate    18  radium228      27  barium
7  CFC-11

	

One of the appendices to this report contains a complete listing of all TUNES 
Leg 2 bottles where the reported data quality code for the routine hydrographic 
parameters is not "22222222", sorted by the type of error or problem.

Data files in other formats:

Although the TUNES Leg 2 CTD and routine hydrographic data were prepared in WHPO 
format (".SUM", ".SEA", and ".CTD" files), some investigators may find other 
formats useful, especially for the water sample data, which in WHPO format 
contain known bad values (although these are always indicated by the appropriate 
quality flags).  Acting on the belief that persons closest to the data 
collection are best qualified to prepare "clean" bottle data sets, we plan to 
prepare water sample data files in the following alternative formats:
NODC SD2:	This is a standard transmission format and is compatible with the 
NODC Master Files, therefore when this file is submitted to NODC, it should be 
accessible under the search and retreival system in use in 1993.  Headers will 
be based on the .SUM file created by the Chief Scientist, but will hopefully 
also contain other information, such as meteorological data on station, not 
recorded in the WHPO-format headers.  The format requires that oxygen and 
nutrient data be in volume units.  It would have been most convenient to use the 
original source data from the analyses, which were in these units before being 
converted to mass units for the WHPO format version of the data, but this would 
not have permitted use during translation of the WHPO codes, required here 
because the ODF file from which the WHPO .SEA file was made contains the bad 
values.  We used in situ temperature to back-convert the oxygen concentrations 
and a laboratory temperature of 25C to back-convert the nutrients.  In addition 
to the formatting, we substituted CTD salinities for bad bottle salinities in 
order to preserve density field information.  Note that temperature, salinity, 
and oxygen data were degraded somewhat to fit NODC requirements.

ASCII flat file report:	We plan to prepare ASCII electronic data reports based 
on the version of the data in the NODC SD2 file, adding calculated parameters 
(depth, potential temperature, density referred to 0, 2000, and 4000 decibars, 
oxygen percent saturation, dynamic height, and stability), and also standard ODF 
cast/sample numbers.

OceanAtlas for Macintosh:  We will prepare a binary Macintosh data file from the 
version of the data in the NODC SD2 file, in "OceanAtlas for Macintosh" format, 
for use in that application.

Data Distribution:

TUNES Leg 2 hydrographic and CTD data and headers will be sent to the WHP Office 
in Woods Hole.  The WHPO will create an evolving documentation file (".DOC") 
from various records.  

Merging of TUNES Leg 2 CTD/hydrographic data in WHPO format with CFC, helium, 
tritium, radiocarbon, and other data is a continual exercise.  The WHPO will 
submit assembled data files and all documentation to the WOCE Hydrographic 
Program Special Analysis Center in Hamburg, Germany.  Data tracking for all 
TUNES Leg 2 data will be provided during WOCE by the WOCE Data Information Unit. 

The WHP SAC will act as an intermediary data distribution point.  The SAC will 
prepare a final data report in mixed print/electronic form, and will submit data 
and complete documentation (metadata) to the appropriate long-term archives.  
According to tentative agreements, the WDC-A will hold the TUNES Leg 2 data and 
all documentation in a WOCE program archive yet to be established.
Warning:	TUNES Leg 2 "Level 1" or originator data were supplied to the WOCE 
Hydrographic Program Office in "WHPO" format, which contains, as required, the 
complete hydrographic data listing, including known bad values.  Each datum in 
the principal water sample listings is accompanied by a quality code byte (see 
Joyce et al, 1991).  Additional documentation supplied with these data lists the 
reason for every degraded quality code.  (The documentation also includes much 
additional detail, such as remarks about data initially thought suspicious but 
assigned "good" codes during data processing.)  The following "filtering" is 
highly recommended to anyone using the TUNES Leg 2 ".SEA" file:

Discard all salinity, oxygen, or nutrient data reported with a "4" quality byte.  
Note that this does not include the bottle quality byte.

Seriously consider discarding salinity, oxygen, or nutrient data reported with a 
"3" quality byte.  These data have some sort of discrepancy compared to other 
data, but cannot be unambiguously proven "bad".  Examine the bottle data comment 
documentation, and make your own choice.  We plan to delete code "3" salinity, 
oxygen, and nutrient data from our version of the NODC SD2 file and its 
subsequent derivatives.

Discard all bottle data, for any parameter, where the bottle quality byte is "3" 
and all other water sample codes are "4".

Discard all gas sample data (oxygen, helium, CFC, and maybe CO2) for any bottle 
where the bottle quality byte is "3" (leaking) and the oxygen quality byte is 
"4" (the leak affected a gas sample, so probably all gas samples from the bottle 
are bad).

If the bottle quality byte is "3", the accompanying water sample data may or may 
not be reliable.  Check the additional text documentation for guidance.  
(Sometimes leaks are reported by the deck crew, but are later found to have no 
discernible effect on the reported water sample data.)  For example, the bottle 
code may be "3", and the oxygen code "4", but the salinity and nutrients may be 
coded "2" meaning that they have been investigated and found reliable.  In our 
version of the NODC SD2 file and its subsequent derivatives we kept code "2" 
salinity and nutrient data from water samples with code "3" bottles and code "4" 
oxygens.

A bottle quality byte of "4" ("did not trip correctly") is not of itself an 
indicator of the reliability of the water samples from that bottle.  Instead, 
this might mean only that the bottle did not close at the level intended by the 
operator of the cast.  If the actual closure level was determined in later 
processing, the water sample data may be fully recoverable, though at a 
different depth than noted on the original operator's log sheet.  For example, 
if the rosette pylon fails to release a lanyard at the intended level, but 
subsequently releases two lanyards at the next intended level, the quality byte 
on the mistripped bottle will be "4", but all the water sample data may be 
perfectly valid, but reported at the depth where it tripped with the other 
bottle.  We will not delete code "2" water samples from code "4" bottles in our 
NODC SD2 file and its subsequent derivatives.

Data Assembly and Distribution Centers:

WHP Data Assembly Center:
WHP Special Analysis Center:
WOCE Hydrographic Program Office
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
9500 Gilman Drive    MS 0214
La Jolla  CA  92093-0214    USA

contacts:
  Dr. James H. Swift
  phone: 858-534-3387
  email: jswift@ucsd.edu

Mr. Steve C. Diggs
  phone: 858-534-1108
  fax:   858-534-7383
  email: sdiggs@ucsd.edu

WHP Special Analysis Center
Bundesamt fur Seeschiffahrt und Hydrographie (BSH)
Deutsches Ozeanographisches Datenzentrum
Postfach 30 12 20    D-20305 Hamburg    Germany

contact:
Mr. Kai Jancke
  phone: 49-40-3190-3536
  fax:   49-40-3190-5000
  telex: 215448 HYDRO H
  omnet: WOCE.WHP.SAC
 email:  kai.jancke@m5.hamburg.bsh.dbp.de

Files with positions and depths every five minutes (in time) are held at:
     National Geophysical Data Center
     NOAA, Code E/GC
     325 Broadway
     Boulder, CO 80303-3328
          Contact:  Ms. Robin R. Warnken
                    Phone: (303) 497-6338
                    fax:   (303) 497-6513)
                    email: rrw@mail.ngdc.noaa.gov.

A.4.b  Comparisons with previous data

We compared TUNES Leg 2 water sample data with those from the Scorpio 28S 
section (SIO; 1967) and with preliminary/proprietary data from TUNES Leg 1 (ODF; 
1991; M. Tsuchiya, Chief Scientist), TUNES Leg 3 (WHOI/OSU; 1991; L. Talley, 
Chief Scientist), the P6 section (WHOI/OSU; 1992; M.McCartney, Chief Scientist), 
and from JUNO Leg 1, (ODF; 1992; J. Reid, Chief Scientist).  Water sample 
results were compared with reference to potential temperature.  All comparisons 
were restricted to the range _  2.5 C, or approximately the waters deeper than 
1500 meters, because in the deep waters most property gradients are relatively 
small.

Plots of bottle salinity, oxygen, nitrate, phosphate, and silicate against 
potential temperature for each comparison exercise are shown in the accompanying 
figures, along with tables summarizing the offsets and scatter 
(visually/arbitrarily judged) along isotherms.  In the plots, the TUNES Leg 2 
data are always shown with solid lines connecting data points whereas the 
comparison cruise data are always shown as triangles.

We summarize the findings below:

General:

The most disturbing differences may well be those with TUNES Leg 3, which was 
run following TUNES 2 with different technical groups.  There are large 
differences in all nutrients (TUNES 2 is higher by 1.1% for NO3, 3.5% for PO4, 
and 2.5% for SiO3), and disturbing differences in salinity.  At this writing 
there is no conclusive explanation for these differences.

Salinity:

TUNES salinities (both Legs 1 and 2) are lower than other expedition salinities 
by about 0.002, including the ODF JUNO expedition 14 months later, TUNES Leg 3, 
and the Scorpio expedition in 1967.  No problems were experienced with the TUNES 
salinometers or measurements and there were no discrepancies of this magnitude 
with the IAPSO standard seawater.  There is thus no known cause for these 
differences, which are larger than would be expected.  Scatter (apparent 
precision) of the TUNES 2 data is about 0.001.  The implied accuracy is on the 
edge of the WOCE specification and the precision is within specification.

Oxygen:

TUNES Leg 2 oxygens agree to within 0.01 ml/l with those from TUNES Leg 1, P6, 
and JUNO.  Scatter of the TUNES 2 data is about 0.01 ml/l.  The modern 
comparisons and scatter are well within WOCE specifications.  The TUNES Leg 2 
values are 0.06-0.09 ml/l lower than those from the Scorpio 28S section.

Silicate:

TUNES Leg 2 silicate values are about 1-3 m/l higher than those from other 
recent expeditions.  The differences are smaller (1-2 m/l) with ODF expeditions 
and larger (2-3 m/l) with OSU expeditions.  The latter agrees with Talley's 
recent findings.  Scatter of the TUNES 2 data is about 0.5-1 m/l, though this 
is uncertain due to effects of natural variability.

Nitrate:

TUNES Leg 2 nitrate values are occasionally 0.2-0.3 m/l lower than those from 
other recent expeditions, with a difference at the comparison station of 0.08 
m/l from TUNES Leg 1.  Scatter of the TUNES Leg 2 data is about 0.2 m/l.  The 
TUNES 1/2 comparison may be influenced by problems during TUNES Leg 1.  TUNES 3 
is lower than TUNES 2 by 0.4 m/l and this is as yet unexplained.  Nitrate 
methodology in 1967 was inferior to that in use today, so comparisons with 
Scorpio serve no point.

Phosphate:

TUNES Leg 2 phosphate values are never lower than those from other recent 
expeditions, and occasionally about 0.02 m/l higher, and in the case of TUNES 
3, they are 0.09 m/l higher.  Scatter of the TUNES Leg 2 data is about 0.2 
m/l.  Bad values (code 4) at station 124 distort the TUNES 1/2 comparison.  
TUNES Leg 2 phosphates are 4% lower (0.07-0.12 m/l) than those from Scorpio.

P17: TUNES Legs 1 & 2 comparison

TUNES 2 (124, 125) and TUNES 1 (122,123)
              6S, 135W
----------------------------------------
Property   Offset:      TUNES 2    TUNES 1
           T2 minus T1  scatter    scatter
---------  -----------  ---------  -------
S          0.000        0.001      0.001
O2 (ml/l)  0.00         0-0.02    <0.01
SiO3       1-2          1-3        2-5
NO3       -0.8          0-0.2      0.6-0.8
PO4        0?           0.02-0.08  0.06

Discussion:	
There is an unusual amount of nutrient noise for two consecutive legs of the 
same expedition (run by the same technical group), and a small (<1%) silicate 
offset and a larger (2%) nitrate offset.  TUNES 2 phosphates shown include known 
bad values, plus TUNES 1 station 122 reported high values possibly associated 
with an instrument problem, leaving this parameter noisy but with no obvious 
offset.  Salinity and oxygen noise and differences are small.

P17: TUNES Leg 2 and Scorpio comparison

(Nitrate methodology in use during  Scorpio significantly lower quality than 
that used during TUNES.)

TUNES 2 (169-171) and Scorpio (123-125)
              ca. 28S, 134W
-----------------------------------------------
Property   Offset:           TUNES 2    Scorpio
           T2 minus Scorpio  scatter    scatter
---------  ----------------  ---------  -------
S          -0.004            <0.001     0.003
O2 (ml/l)  -0.09             0.01       0.04
SiO3        ca. 4            0.5        2-10+
NO3         na    
PO4        -0.07             0.02       0.04-0.08+

Discussion:	
Correction of Scorpio IAPSO standard seawater to modern raises values by about 
0.002, at least half the difference, and probably to within WOCE tolerances.  
Oxygen difference is -2%, silicate is 3%, and phosphate is -3%, all higher than 
WOCE accuracy tolerances.  Apparent noise in TUNES data is within WOCE precision 
tolerances.

P17:  Tunes Leg 2 and P6 comparison

TUNES 2 (177-179) and Knorr P6 (107, 108)
              ca. 32.5S, 135W
------------------------------------------
Property   Offset:      TUNES 2    P6
           T2 minus P6  scatter    scatter
---------  -----------  -------    -------
S         -0.002        0.001      0.002
O2 (ml/l)  0.00         0.00-0.02  0.01-0.02
SiO3       2            1-2        1-2
NO3       -0.3          0.1-0.2    0.1-0.2
PO4        0.02         0.02-0.03  0.02-0.03

Discussion:	
Salinity offset of -0.002 is at edge of WOCE accuracy tolerance, silcate offset 
(2%) over tolerance but nitrate and phosphate within WOCE 1% level.  Scatter is 
acceptable for all parameters.  (P6 data are preliminary.)

P17:  TUNES Leg 1 & JUNO Leg1 comparison

TUNES 2 (178, 179) and JUNO 1 (118, 119)
              ca. 33S, 135W
---------------------------------------------
Property  Offset:          TUNES 2    JUNO 1
          T2 minus JUNO 1  scatter    scatter
--------- ---------------  ---------  -------
S         -0.003           0.001      0.001
O2 (ml/l)  0.00            0.01       0.01
SiO3       1-2             0.5        0.5
NO3       -0.2-0.3         0.1-0.2    0.1
PO4        0.03            0.01-0.03  0.01

Discussion:	
Salinity difference exceeds WOCE accuracy tolerance.  All other differences and 
scatter are within WOCE accuracy and precision tolerances.  Some indications of 
a north-south property gradient which may bias these comparisons.  (JUNO data 
are preliminary.)

P16:  TUNES Legs 2 & 3 comparison

TUNES 2 (219, 220) and TUNES 3 (221,222)
              ca. 17.5S, 150.5W
---------------------------------------------
Property  Offset:      TUNES 2  TUNES 3
          T2 minus T3  scatter  scatter
--------  -----------  -------  -------
S          -0.004      0.001    0.002
O2 (ml/l)  <0.02       0.01     0.01
SiO3        3          0.3-1    1-2
NO3         0.4        0.3      0.1
PO4         0.09       0.01     0.01

Discussion:	
There are baffling differences between these two legs, run on the same vessel 
but by different technical groups.  All the salinities were standardized to the 
same batch IAPSO SSW.  The same nutrient autoanalyzer was used (though with some 
methodological differences).  Oxygen methodology differed.  The questions raised 
here bear much further examination.

P16:  Tunes Leg 2 and Scorpio comparison

TUNES 2 (197-200) and Scorpio (132-134)
              ca. 28S, 150.5W
----------------------------------------------------
Property  Offset:           TUNES 2      Scorpio
          T2 minus Scorpio  scatter      scatter
--------  ----------------  -----------  -----------
S         -0.003            0.001-0.002  0.002-0.005
O2 (ml/l) -0.06             0.00-0.02    0.02-0.10
SiO3       0?               0.5-1.0      ca. 10
NO3        na               0.2          (2)
PO4      -0.1-.12           0.01-0.02    0.04

Discussion:	
Most of salt difference is accounted for by 0.002 correction of Scorpio salts to 
modern IAPSO standard seawater.  Oxygen difference (-1.5%) and phosphate 
difference (-4%) exceed WOCE accuracy standards.  Precision of TUNES 2 data 
within WOCE tolerances.  Scorpio nutrients, and perhaps some of oxygens, well 
off WOCE precision tolerances.  (Nitrate comparison shown only to illustrate 
improved quality with modern autoanalyzer methodology.)

P16:  TUNES Leg 2 and P6 comparison

TUNES 2 (189-191) and Knorr P6 (127-129)
              ca. 32.5S, 150.5W
----------------------------------------------------
Property   Offset:      TUNES 2        P6
           T2 minus P6  scatter (wm?)  scatter (wm?) 
---------  -----------  -------------  -------------
S         -0.003        0.001-0.004    0.002-0.010
O2 (ml/l)  0?           0.01-0.03      0.02-0.10
SiO3       2-3          0.5-2.0        1-6
NO3        0.0-0.2      0.2            0.2-0.4+
PO4        0?           0.02           0.02-0.06+ 

Discussion:	
Comparisons difficult due to possible natural (watermass) variability.  Salinity 
difference of -0.003 and silicate difference of 2-3 are slightly outside WOCE 
accuracy tolerances.  Precision comparisons suggest slightly lower apparent 
noise in the TUNES 2 data, but this could be influenced by shape of natural 
gradients.  (P6 data are preliminary.)

P16:  TUNES Leg 1 & JUNO Leg 1 comparison. effects of natural variability

TUNES 2 (180, 181) and JUNO 1 (3, 4)
              ca. 37.5S, 150.5W
-------------------------------------------------------
Property  Offset:          TUNES 2        JUNO 1
          T2 minus JUNO 1  scatter (wm?)  scatter (wm?)
--------  ---------------  -------------  -------------
S         -0.002           0.001-0.005    0.001-0.003
O2 (ml/l)  0.01            0.00-0.05+     0.00-0.03
SiO3       1-2             0-3            1-2
NO3        0.0             0.2            0.2-0.4
PO4        0.00-0.02       0.02-0.03      0.01-0.02

Discussion:	
Comparisons may be complicated by natural (watermass) variability.  Salinity 
difference of -0.002 and silicate difference of 1-2 are on edge of WOCE accuracy 
tolerance. Estimated precision in both data sets looks to be within WOCE 
tolerances; that is, if natural variability accounts for the station-to-station 
differences.

A.4.c	Vertical sections along the ship's track

Figures 2 and 4 show the distribution of small volume (10-liter) water samples 
on the P17 and P16 portions of TUNES Leg 2, and Figures 3 and 5 show the 
sectional distribution of large volume (Gerard) water samples.  Note that in the 
upper ca. 1000 meters, small volume water samples were collected for radiocarbon 
analyses, hence the general absence of LVS samples in that layer.
and Tsuchiya (1993)".

A.5. 	Major Problems and Goals Not Achieved
None of the problems noted in the "narrative" section resulted in serious loss 
or degradation of data.  The areal and property coverage of TUNES Leg 2 was 
exactly as planned.

A.6.	Other Incidents of Note
The "narrative" section covers the entire scope of this cruise.

A.7.	List of Cruise Participants

Name                Group                            Institution
------------------  -------------------------------  -----------
Birdwhistell, Scot  Helium (upper)                   WHOI
Boaz, John          resident technician              SIO/STS
Bouchard, George    computer technician & ODF        SIO/SCG
Delahoyde, Frank    CTD system                       SIO/ODF
Goddard, John       CO2                              LDGO
Guffy, Dennis       nutrients                        TAMU
Lewis, Diana        physical oceanography (student)  SIO
Maillet, Kevin      CFC                              U of Miami
Masten, Doug        LVS/C14                          SIO/ODF
Mathieu, Guy        CFC                              LDGO
Orsi, Alex          ADCP                             TAMU
Patrick, Ron        marine tech                      SIO/ODF
Peterson, Ray       physical oceanography            SIO/PORD
Rotter, Rich        LVS/AMS/C14                      Princeton
Rubin, Stephany     CO2                              LDGO
Schmitt, Jim        electronics                      SIO/ODF
Streib, Rebecca     marine tech                      SIO/ODF
Swift, James        physical oceanography            SIO/PORD/ODF
Tedesco, Kathy      helium (deep)                    UCSB
Williams, Nadya     nutrients                        SIO/ODF
Williams, Robert    marine tech/data                 SIO/ODF

B.	Underway Measurements

B.1.	Navigation and bathymetry

Navigation information was provided by the SIO Shipboard Computer Group and 
relayed to the ODF data acquisition displays and computers.  Methodology was 
solely GPS, with net RMS system accuracy during the cruise of 100 meters of 
absolute planetary position, i.e. the performance level available in mid-1991 
without classified equipment.

Multi-beam bathymetric observations were recorded continuously underway by the 
SeaBeam system on the vessel.  This was operated and overseen by George 
Bouchard, acting on behalf of Christopher DeMoustier (SIO).  There are several 
data gaps due to power failures or a secondary operator forgetting to turn the 
system back on after a CTD station, but, in general, the system worked well for 
the voyage.  A data file with center-track bottom depths and positions every 
five minutes is available in MGD77 exchange format from S. Smith (SIO) or the 
National Geophysical Data Center (see PI listing).

B.2.	Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)

An Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler was operated by Alex Orsi (TAMU; on behalf 
of Peter Hacker and Eric Firing, University of Hawaii).  The system appeared to 
perform well over the balance of the expedition.  No data are held by the Chief 
Scientist and the quality and utility of these measurements is unknown to the 
Chief Scientist.  Information on this program should be obtained from the 
investigators.

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

A system to determine underway sea surface temperature and salinity was operated 
by Bob Williams (SIO; on behalf of Lynne Talley, SIO).  The conductivity sensor 
ceased functioning normally shortly into Leg 2, but the temperature channel 
functioned acceptably for the balance of the leg, with short periods off line 
for various reasons.  No data are held by the Chief Scientist and the quality 
and utility of these measurements is unknown to the Chief Scientist.  
Information on this program should be obtained from the investigator.

B.4.	XBT and XCTD

There were no XBT or XCTD profiles taken during TUNES Leg 2.

B.5.	Meteorological observations

The ship's officers collected and recorded routine weather observations at two-
hour intervals.  These will form the basis of on-station weather observations if 
any appear with the NODC SD2 format version of the hydrographic data. (The WHPO 
does not record station weather data in its header format.)  Weather data were 
reported as per standard ship operations and are also available (copies of logs) 
from the Marine Facility at SIO.  No further information on the scope or quality 
of these data is held by the Chief Scientist. 

B.6.	Atmospheric chemistry

A system to determine underway pCO2 was operated by Guy Mathieu (LDGO; on behalf 
of Ray Weiss, SIO).  No data are held by the Chief Scientist and the quality and 
utility of these measurements is unknown to the Chief Scientist.  Information on 
this program should be obtained from the investigator.

C.	Description of Measurement Techniques and Calibrations

C.1.	Bottle Data Collection, Analyses, and Processing
	(Kristin Sanborn and James Swift)

ODF CTD/rosette casts were carried out with a 24/12 double-ring  36-bottle 
rosette sampler of ODF manufacture using General Oceanics pylons.  An ODF-
modified NBIS Mark 3 CTD, a Benthos altimeter and a SeaTech transmissometer 
provided by Texas A&M University (TAMU) were mounted on the rosette frame.  
Seawater samples were collected in 10-liter PVC Niskin and ODF bottles mounted 
on the rosette frame.  A Benthos pinger with a self-contained battery pack was  
mounted separately on the rosette frame; its signal was displayed on the 
precision depth recorder (PDR) in the ship's laboratory.  The rosette/CTD was 
suspended from a three-conductor wire which provided power to the CTD and 
relayed the CTD signal to the laboratory.

Each CTD cast extended to within approximately 10 meters of the bottom unless 
the bottom returns from both the pinger and the altimeter were extremely poor.  
The bottles were numbered 1 through 36.  When one of these 36 bottles needed 
servicing, and repairs could not be accomplished by the next cast, the 
replacement bottle was given a new number.  The replacement bottles were 
numbered 37 through 39, 61, 62, 64, and 68 through 70.  Subsets of CTD data 
taken at the time of water sample collection were transmitted to the bottle data 
files immediately after each cast to provide pressure and temperature at the 
sampling depth, and to facilitate the examination and quality control of the 
bottle data as the laboratory analyses were completed.

After each rosette cast was brought on board, water samples were drawn in the 
following order: Freon (CFC-11 and CFC-12), Helium-3, Oxygen, Total CO2, 
Alkalinity, AMS 14C, Tritium, Nutrients (silicate, phosphate, nitrate and 
nitrite), and Salinity.  The samples and the ODF or Niskin sampler they were 
drawn from were recorded on the Sample Log sheet.  Comments regarding validity 
of the water sample (valve open, lanyard caught in lid, etc.) were also noted on 
the Sample Log sheets.

Gerard casts were carried out with 270-liter stainless steel Gerard barrels on 
which were mounted 2-liter Niskin bottles with reversing thermometers.  Samples 
for salinity and 14C were obtained from the Gerard barrels.  The Gerard barrels 
were numbered 81 through 94 and the piggy-back Niskin bottles were  numbered 41 
through 50 and 71.  Salinity check samples were always drawn from the piggy-back 
bottles for comparison with the Gerard barrel salinities to verify the integrity 
of the Gerard sample.

The discrete hydrographic data were entered into the shipboard data system and 
processed as the analyses were completed.  The bottle data were brought to a 
useable, though not final, state at sea.  ODF data checking procedures included 
verification that the sample was assigned to the correct level.  This was 
accomplished by checking the raw data sheets, which included the raw data value 
and the water sample bottle, versus the sample log sheets.  Any comments 
regarding the water samples were investigated.  The raw data computer files were 
also checked for entry errors.  Investigation of data included comparison of 
bottle salinity and oxygen with CTD data, and review of data plots of the 
station profile alone and compared to nearby stations.

The oxygen and nutrient data were compared by ODF with those from adjacent 
stations.  Dr. Mizuki Tsuchiya, Dr. James Swift, and Dr. Ray Peterson did 
comparisons with historical data sets.

Historically, most failures to return a validated water sample can be traced to 
the rosette pylon, with ship's wire and CTD cable end termination the next most 
frequent leading cause.  However, on this expedition the pylons and wire worked 
nearly perfectly, and the leading cause of failure to return a reportable water 
sample was miscellaneous mechanical problems with the rosette bottles, i.e., a 
lanyard hanging up in a lid, open spigot and/or vent, etc.

If a data value did not either agree satisfactorily with the CTD or with other 
nearby data, then analyst and sampling notes, plots, and nearby data were 
reviewed.  If any problem was indicated, the data value was flagged.  ODF 
preserved all bottle data values.  The Bottle Data Processing Notes include 
comments regarding miss.ascii samples and investigative remarks for comments 
made on the Sample Log sheets, as well as all flagged (WOCE coded) data values.

The WOCE codes were assigned to the water data using the criteria:

code 5  Data value deleted. Value did not fit station profile or adjoining 
        station data comparison. Comments were made that clearly indicated a 
        leak and contamination of the samples.

code 4  Does not fit station profile and/or adjoining station comparisons.  
        There are analytical notes indicating a problem, but data values were 
        reported.  ODF recommends deletion of these data values. Analytical 
        notes for salinity and/or oxygen may include large differences between 
        the water sample and CTD profiles. Sampling errors are also coded 4.

code 3  Does not fit station profile or adjoining station comparisons. No 
        notes from analyst indicating a problem. Datum could be real, but the 
        decision as to whether it is acceptable will be made by a scientist 
        rather than ODF's technicians.

code 2  Acceptable measurement.

code 1  Sample for this measurement was drawn from water bottle, but results 
        of analysis not received.

The quality flags assigned to the bottle as defined in the WOCE Operations 
manual are further clarified as follows:  If the bottle tripped at a different 
level than planned, ODF assigned it a code 4.  If the bottle tripped between the 
scheduled trip and the next trip, as indicated by the water sample data, ODF 
coded these bottles 3.  If there is a 4 code on the bottle, and 2 codes on the 
salinity, oxygen and nutrients then the pressure assignment was probably  
correct.  An air leak is identified by a 3 code on the bottle and 4 code on the 
oxygen.  Air leaks affect only the gas samples.

The  following table is a tabulation of the number of ODF samples drawn and the 
number of times each WOCE sample code was assigned.

Stations 124-220                                               

  Reported levels | Bottle Codes    | Water Sample Codes
                  | 2     3   4  9  | 1  2      3  4   5  9
------------------|-----------------|-----------------------
           3468   | 3427  28  0  13 |           
Salinity   3453   |                 | 4  3417   4  28  0  15
Oxygen     3450   |                 | 2  3413   1  34  0  18
Silicate   3454   |                 | 0  3430   2  22  0  14
Nitrate    3454   |                 | 0  3434   0  20  0  14
Nitrite    3454   |                 | 0  3434   0  20  0  14
Phosphate  3454   |                 | 0  3413  12  29  0  14

Replicate sampling program:

ODF carried out a replicate Niskin sampling program during Leg 2 at the 
direction of the Chief Scientist.  At stations where the distributions of 
characteristics and maximum depth permitted, at some convenient level (or 
levels) two rosette bottles were tripped (within 10 seconds).  In most cases the 
two bottles were tripped below 2000 meters.  (Four Niskin bottle pairs were 
collected above 2000 meters.)  The samples were drawn and analyzed exactly as if 
the samples had come from different depths.  (In almost all cases, the 
technicians were unaware that the bottles were from the same depth.)  These 
might thus be called "operational replicates", because they evaluate the overall 
capacity to collect, draw, and analyze water samples.

TUNES Leg 2 Replicate Sample Summary (D=delta)

sta# |depth|salt #1|O2#1 |NO3 1|PO4 1|SiO3 1|D S   |D O2 |D NO3|D PO4|D SO3
     | (m) |  psu  |ml/l |M/l |M/l | M/l |psu   |ml/l |M/l |M/l |M/l
-----|-----|-------|-----|-----|-----|------|------|-----|-----|-----|-----
133  | 916 |34.532 |2.10 |40.7 |2.91 | 75.6 |0.002 |0.01 |0.2  |0.00 |0.1
134  | 856 |34.527 |1.80 |41.1 |2.90 | 68.7 |0.001 |0.02 |0.0  |0.01 |0.0
135  | 314 |34.712 |0.77 |27.8 |2.46 | 21.6 |0.002 |0.00 |0.1  |0.01 |0.4
141  |4061 |34.689 |3.93 |35.1 |2.46 |136.4 |0.002 |0.01 |0.0  |0.00 |0.8
143  |4040 |34.687 |3.90 |35.1 |2.47 |135.3 |0.001 |0.01 |0.1  |0.00 |0.2
151  |3053 |34.676 |3.79 |35.3 |2.48 |130.8 |0.000 |0.00 |0.0  |0.01 |0.3
151  |3256 |34.678 |3.81 |35.3 |2.47 |131.3 |0.000 |0.00 |0.1  |0.01 |0.8
151  |3459 |34.680 |3.83 |35.2 |2.47 |133.0 |0.001 |0.00 |0.2  |0.00 |0.1
157  |2920 |34.670 |3.76 |35.4 |2.48 |126.8 |0.001 |0.02 |0.0  |0.00 |0.1
157  |3124 |34.673 |3.85 |35.4 |2.48 |127.2 |0.000 |0.02 |0.2  |0.00 |0.4
157  |3330 |34.675 |3.89 |35.0 |2.47 |127.6 |0.002 |0.01 |0.1  |0.02 |0.4
160  |3375 |34.680 |3.93 |35.3 |2.46 |127.8 |0.001 |0.00 |0.1  |0.01 |0.4
161  |3614 |34.683 |3.98 |35.1 |2.45 |128.8 |0.001 |0.00 |0.0  |0.01 |0.0
164  |3421 |34.685 |3.98 |35.0 |2.45 |128.3 |0.000 |0.00 |0.1  |0.01 |0.0
164  |3625 |34.686 |4.01 |35.0 |2.45 |128.3 |0.001 |0.00 |0.2  |0.01 |0.1
165  |1630 |34.589 |3.54 |35.5 |2.50 |101.5 |0.007 |0.02 |0.7  |0.06 |2.5
166  |3895 |34.688 |4.06 |34.6 |2.41 |128.2 |0.000 |0.01 |0.1  |0.00 |0.6
170  |3510 |34.685 |3.98 |34.8 |2.44 |128.3 |0.001 |0.00 |0.0  |0.02 |0.3
177  |3860 |34.697 |4.23 |34.0 |2.37 |126.1 |0.000 |0.00 |0.0  |0.00 |0.0
195  |2163 |34.643 |3.46 |36.3 |2.54 |123.8 |0.000 |0.00 |0.0  |0.00 |0.0
195  |3806 |34.699 |4.26 |34.0 |2.35 |127.9 |0.001 |0.00 |0.1  |0.01 |0.7
199  |2829 |34.669 |3.56 |36.2 |2.54 |135.7 |0.000 |0.00 |0.1  |0.01 |1.1
199  |3028 |34.676 |3.70 |35.7 |2.50 |133.7 |0.000 |0.00 |0.0  |0.00 |0.7
215  |2404 |34.652 |3.57 |35.9 |2.54 |125.4 |0.000 |0.00 |0.1  |0.00 |0.9
215  |3209 |34.676 |3.86 |35.1 |2.46 |128.4 |0.000 |0.01 |0.0  |0.01 |0.4
216  |3753 |34.686 |4.04 |34.7 |2.44 |128.1 |0.001 |0.00 |0.0  |0.01 |0.0
219  |2297 |34.652 |3.60 |36.3 |2.54 |125.5 |0.000 |0.00 |0.0  |0.00 |0.0
219  |3092 |34.676 |3.88 |35.6 |2.49 |130.4 |0.000 |0.00 |0.1  |0.01 |0.3
219  |3240 |34.678 |3.92 |35.5 |2.46 |129.5 |0.001 |0.00 |0.0  |0.00 |0.7
220  |2609 |34.660 |3.66 |35.9 |2.51 |128.5 |0.001 |0.00 |0.0  |0.00 |1.0
220  |3407 |34.683 |3.98 |34.9 |2.43 |129.7 |0.001 |0.00 |0.0  |0.01 |0.7
-----|-----|-------|-----|-----|-----|------|------|-----|-----|-----|-----
avg. |     |34.666 |3.63 |35.4 |2.50 |121.2 |0.0009|0.005|0.08 |0.008|0.45
as % |conc.|       |     |     |     |      |      |0.12%|0.24%|0.31%|0.37%
-----|-----|-------|-----|-----|-----|------|------|-----|-----|-----|-----
>2000|m avg|34.677 |3.87 |35.2 |2.47 |129.3 |0.0006|0.003|0.06 |0.006|0.41
as % |conc.|       |     |     |     |      |      |0.09%|0.17%|0.24%|0.32%

Thirty-one pairs of same-depth replicates (salinity, oxygen, and nutrients) were 
collected.  The results are tabulated above.  The average difference in salinity 
was  0.0009 psu, the average difference in oxygen was 0.005 ml/l (0.12% average 
net difference with respect to concentration), the average nitrate difference 
was 0.08 m/l (0.24%), the average phosphate difference was 0.008 m/l (0.31%), 
and the average silicate difference was 0.45 m/l (0.37%).  The differences were 
slightly smaller for the 27 sample pairs collected below 2000 meters (see 
table).

The small size of these differences suggests that on this expedition the net 
capability of drawing and analyzing a routine hydrochemistry sample from a given 
depth meets WOCE repeatability specifications.  The frequency of replicates was 
under 1% (there were over 3000 water samples), well below the frequency 
recommended in general laboratory manuals.  However the relative station-to-
station homogeneity of the deep waters provides a much more frequent type of 
near-replicate sampling, and this is utilized - more than same-depth or same-
bottle replicates - by the seagoing technicians during data quality examination.

C.1.a	Pressure and Temperature
	(Kristin Sanborn)

All pressures and temperatures for the bottle data tabulations on the rosette 
casts were obtained by averaging CTD data for a brief interval at the time the 
bottle was closed on the rosette.  All reported CTD data are calibrated and 
processed with the methodology described in the CTD documentation.

Gerard pressures and temperatures were calculated from deep-sea reversing 
thermometer (DSRT) readings.  Each DSRT rack normally held 2 protected 
(temperature) thermometers and 1 unprotected (pressure) thermometer.  
Thermometers were read by two people, each attempting to read a precision equal 
to one tenth of the thermometer etching interval.  Thus, a thermometer etched at 
0.05 degree intervals would be read to the nearest 0.005 degrees.  Each 
temperature value is therefore calculated from the average of four readings 
provided both protected thermometers function normally.

The temperatures are based on the International Temperature Scale of 1990.

C.1.b	Salinity
	(Kristin Sanborn and James Swift)

Salinity samples were drawn into 200ml Kimax high alumina borosilicate bottles 
with custom-made plastic insert thimbles and Nalgene screw caps.  This assembly 
provides very low container dissolution and sample evaporation.  Salinity 
bottles were rinsed three times before filling.  Salinity was determined after 
sample equilibration to laboratory temperature, usually within about 8-36 hours 
of collection.  Salinometers were located in a temperature-controlled laboratory 
van designed, constructed, and loaned for this purpose by the Woods Hole 
Oceanographic Institution.  Only one salinometer was used for TUNES Leg 2 
salinity samples.

Salinity has been calculated according to the equations of the Practical 
Salinity Scale of 1978 (UNESCO, 1981).  This calculation uses the conductivity 
ratio determined from bottle samples analyzed (minimum of two  recorded analyses 
per sample bottle after flushing) with an ODF-modified Guildline Autosal Model 
8400A salinometer.  The initial plan was to calibrate against a single batch of 
Wormley IAPSO standard seawater, P-114, with at least one fresh vial opened per 
cast.  However, while the latter part of this procedure  was used, it was 
necessary to use two batches because upon opening one of the boxes marked P-114 
it was found to contain P-108.  Hence salinities for stations 124-140 are 
standardized against batch P-114, and those from stations 141-220 against batch 
P-108.  A single comparison at sea during TUNES Leg 2 yielded a salinity value 
for P-114 ca. 0.002 higher than that of P-108, when standardized against P-108.

Accuracy estimates of bottle salinities run at sea are usually better than 0.002 
psu relative to the specified batch of standard.  Although laboratory precision 
of the Autosal can be as small as 0.0002 psu when running replicate  samples 
under ideal conditions, at sea the expected precision is about 0.001 psu under 
normal conditions, with a stable lab temperature.

Supplementary documentation:	

Bottle salinities for stations 124-140 were standardized against IAPSO Standard 
Seawater batch P-114, while those from stations 141-220 were standardized 
against batch P-108.  A single comparison at sea during TUNES Leg 2 yielded a 
salinity value for P-114 ca. 0.002 higher than that of P-108, when standardized 
against P-108.  On its own, such a difference is meaningless.  It is the 
difference in measured-salinity-of-standard versus labeled-salinity-of-standard 
that is important.  Laboratory tests of P-108 had been performed earlier by two 
groups (Mantyla, personal communication).  These showed that P-108 was about 
0.0003-0.0004 higher than the labelled value.  In 1993, careful laboratory tests 
at ODF on both batches showed that P-114 was about 0.0001 lower than labelled.  
These very small errors are insignificant at the 0.001 level.  However, if one 
wishes to correct for these this means that all salinities standardized against 
batch P-114 should have 0.0001 psu subtracted from them and all salinities 
standardized against batch P-108 should have 0.0003 psu added to them to be 
statistically compatible with Mantyla's overall modern reference (based on 
studies of batches 91-110).  However, no batch-to-batch corrections have been 
made to the data, which are reported relative only to the standard seawater 
batch used in the original analyses.

The repeatability of replicate determinations by the Autosal 8400A of standard 
seawater in an environmentally-controlled shore laboratory is about 0.0002 psu. 
Because a small droplet of fresh water, or the residue from a small evaporated 
droplet of seawater, can affect a bottle salinity in the third decimal place, 
and because the Autosal salinometer is sensitive to temperature, electrical, and 
EMF fluctuations, salinities from bottle samples have a lower true precision 
under field conditions than in the laboratory. 

Salinometer performance during TUNES Leg 2 was excellent, except as usual during 
ship's radio operations.  (This was easily worked around by establishing 
mutually exclusive routine schedules for both operations.)  There were small 
problems with bath overflow during ship roll, but these did not affect the 
measurements.  There was no problem with readings drifting up and down during 
ship roll.  Temperature control was adequate in the van where the salinity 
analysis occurred.  ODF flagged the bottle salinity whenever there was any 
question regarding its validity.

Examination of bottle salinity profiles from relatively low gradient portions of 
the water column suggests that on this cruise, salinity precision was typically 
about 0.001 psu.  Because each profile is typically cross-checked to at least 
two vials of IAPSO Standard Seawater, accuracies with respect to the batch used 
should be nearly the same as precision.  This is because there are normally no 
vial-to-vial differences in standard seawater observable from correctly 
manufactured and stored vials of standard seawater (from the same batch) under 
seagoing conditions, and the occasional defective vial is usually obvious in the 
cross-checking procedure used by ODF.

C.1.c	Oxygen
	(Kristin Sanborn and James Swift)

Samples were collected for dissolved oxygen analyses soon after the rosette 
sampler was brought on board and after CFC and helium were drawn.  Nominal 100 
or 125 ml volume iodine flasks were rinsed carefully with minimal agitation, 
then filled via a drawing tube, and allowed to overflow for at least 2 flask 
volumes.  Reagents were added to fix the oxygen before stoppering.  The flasks 
were shaken twice, immediately after drawing and then again after 20 minutes, to 
assure thorough dispersion of the Mn(OH)2 precipitate.  The samples were 
analyzed within 4-36 hours.

Dissolved oxygen analyses, reportable in both milliliters per liter and 
micromoles per kilogram, were performed via titration in the volume-calibrated 
iodine flasks with a 1 ml microburet, using the whole-bottle Winkler titration 
following the technique  of Carpenter (1965) with modifications by Culberson et 
al. (1991).  Standardizations were performed with 0.01N potassium iodate 
solutions prepared from preweighed potassium iodate crystals.  Standards were 
run at the beginning of each session of analyses, which typically included from 
1 to 3 stations.  Several standards were made up and compared to assure  that 
the results were reproducible, and to preclude basing the entire cruise on one 
standard, with the possibility of a weighing error.  A correction was made for 
the amount of oxygen added with the reagents.  Combined reagent/distilled water 
blanks were determined to account for oxidizing or reducing materials in the 
reagents.  (Note:  This was the first ODF cruise to adopt the WOCE 
recommendation for distilled water blanks.)

The data processor and/or analyst plotted the oxygen standards and blanks and 
have reviewed the data for possible problems with standards and/or blanks.

Oxygens were converted from milliliters per liter to micro-moles per kilogram 
using the in-situ temperature.  Ideally, for whole-bottle titrations, the 
conversion temperature should be the temperature of the water issuing from the 
Niskin bottle spigot.  The temperature of the samples was measured at the time 
the sample was drawn from the bottle, but were not used in the conversion from  
milliliters per liter to micromoles per kilogram because the software was not 
available.  Aberrant temperatures provided an additional flag indicating that a 
bottle may not have tripped properly.  Measured sample temperatures from mid-
deep water samples were about 4-7 degree C warmer than in-situ temperature.  
Converted oxygen values, if this conversion with the measured sample temperature 
were made, would be about 0.08% higher for a 6 degree C warming (or about 
0.2um/kg for a 250um/kg sample).

Supplementary documentation:	

The iodine determination flasks with ground glass stoppers are used by ODF 
because they have steeply sloped sides and a flared mouth, and thus tiny bubbles 
are easier to eliminate during sampling, and because the large volume 
theoretically reduces the effects of a given volume of contaminant.  The oxygen 
error from post-pickling introduction of a tiny amount of oxygenated water into 
the flask is much lower than that from an equivalent volume of air.  With oxygen 
samples run soon after collection, and with the flared-top iodine determination 
flasks, so long as there is water in the top, above the stopper, air cannot be 
drawn in.

The reagent concentrations followed the Carpenter modifications of the Winkler 
method.

For over 20 years with several different chemical suppliers ODF has seen a 
measurable reagent blank, even if small, and so ODF included a blank 
determination, measured approximately 2-3 times each week.  This was done 
because the size of the oxygen blank is observed to vary from batch to batch of 
the pickling reagents and also to drift from an initially higher value toward 
zero within a given batch.

Multiple and overlapping KIO3 standards (pre-weighed amounts) were used in order 
to help identify, isolate, and quantify the effects of standard weighing errors, 
if any.  As a result of this overlapping application of standard, ODF in post-
cruise processing fit the oxygens overall to an improved estimate of the 
standard, i.e., "smoothed" out any batch-to-batch variations.  The actual 
technique varies somewhat with the circumstances, but is documented for each 
expedition leg.  (The word "batch" in this paragraph means one unit of weighed 
KIO3.  This does not refer to manufacturer's batch number, which is the same 
over the expedition.)

The quality of the KIO3 is the ultimate limitation on the accuracy of this 
methodology.  The assay value bandwidth of the KIO3 used by ODF is 0.1% (i.e., 
0.05%), and so this is the absolute accuracy limit of the methodology.  The 
thiosulfate is known to change over time, for example via the action of bacteria 
and evaporation and condensation.  This in itself is no problem because its 
normality is continually checked against KIO3.

The true limit in the quality of the bottle oxygen data probably lies in the 
practical limitations of the present sampling and analytic methodology, from the 
time the rosette bottle is closed through calculation of oxygen concentration 
from titration data.  We do not really measure oxygen, but instead measure 
iodine equivalents in seawater, most of which is oxygen.  Sampling presents 
problems.  On a deep cast into cold bottom waters, the deep samples on this 
cruise (which used rapid profiling) typically sat in the bottle about two hours 
before the oxygen sample was drawn.  During this time it is passed through 
layers of much warmer water, the bottles may be exposed to direct sunlight and 
warm air temperatures (however the rosette is soon moved into a sheltered area), 
and on this expedition the oxygen sampling technician usually waited for the CFC 
and helium sampling technicians.  However, some comparison experiments with 
rapid bottle retrieval and immediate oxygen sample drawing on other expeditions 
suggest that the oxygen concentration in the rosette bottle stays intact during 
this time.  Of course, the technique of drawing the sample must be absolutely 
correct or else the data suffer visibly.  The net effect of these common errors 
can go beyond those introduced by careful laboratory procedures.

Iodate /blank profiles:

Several times during this expedition Robert T. Williams (SIO/ODF) collected and 
analyzed samples of the seawater blank (mostly natural iodate) which contributes 
to measured oxygen values.  The resulting profiles strongly resemble those for 
nutrients.  Ultimately, this information may contribute to a more accurate 
determination of dissolved oxygen in seawater than that permitted by the 
distilled water blank technique recommended for WOCE in 1991.  Any further 
information on this activity must be obtained directly from Williams.

(Note that for some of the preliminary data reported from this cruise leg, a 
generic seawater blank was applied to the ODF oxygen data.  Though this 
correction is potentially more accurate than the WOCE methodology recommended by 
Culbertson, it also contains the uncertainty of the spatial variability of the 
seawater blank, whereas oxygen data corrected for distilled water blanks, as now 
recommended, and as done for the final data, can at least in theory be converted 
at some later date once the natural vartiability of the seawater blank is better 
understood.)
Automatic oxygen titrator:

The ODF UV oxygen autotitration system was tested extensively during this 
expedition.  Though never used to provide reported data, agreements with ODF 
manual titrations were typically 0.002 ml/l.  This was the final development 
phase for the autotitrator, and it was put into service on subsequent ODF WOCE 
cruises with good results.

C.1.c	Nutrients
	(Kristin Sanborn and James Swift)

Nutrients (phosphate, silicate, nitrate, and nitrite) analyses, reported in 
micromoles/kilogram, were performed on a Technicon AutoAnalyzer(R).  The 
procedures used are described in Hager et al (1972) and Atlas et al (1971).  
Standardizations were performed with solutions prepared aboard ship from 
preweighed standards; these solutions were used as working standards before and 
after each cast (approximately 36 samples) to correct for instrumental drift 
during analyses.  Sets of 4-6 different concentrations of shipboard standards 
were analyzed periodically to determine the linearity of colorimeter response 
and the resulting correction factors.  Phosphate was analyzed using hydrazine 
reduction of phosphomolybdic acid as described by Bernhardt & Wilhelms (1967).  
Silicate was analyzed using stannous chloride reduction of silicomolybdic acid.  
Nitrite was analyzed using diazotization and coupling to form dye; nitrate was 
reduced by copperized cadmium and then analyzed as nitrite.  These three 
analyses use the methods of Armstrong et al (1967).

Samples were drawn into 45 cc high density polyethylene, narrow mouth, screw-
capped bottles which were rinsed twice before filling.  The samples may have 
been refrigerated at 2 to 6 degree C for a maximum of 15 hours.

Nutrients were converted from micromoles per liter to micromoles per kilogram by 
dividing by sample density calculated at an assumed laboratory temperature of 25 
degree C.

Nutrient sample storage tests:

Nadya Williams, chief nutrient analyst, acting on direction from the Chief 
Scientist, carried out two nutrient sample storage tests:

In the first, a duplicate 36-place tray of nutrients was drawn at station 137, 
with special care not to fill beyond the shoulder of the tube.  The tray was 
then placed in a freezer in the science hold (cold enough to keep ice cream hard 
frozen, i.e., ca. -17C), on a horizontal shelf (so that no ice could form near 
the caps).  These were left for 20 days, then thawed quickly by partial 
immersion in water at laboratory temperature, shaken twice, and run at once.  
Results are tabulated below.  In short, the differences from the samples run 
fresh exceeded WOCE specifications.  While this is not a comprehensive test, 
even a single such failure - when no unknown thawing occurred - indicates that 
freezing of nutrient samples is probably not a viable option for WOCE work.

Nutrient replicates, fresh-minus-frozen

parameter  minimum     maximum     number      mean         standard     avg. difference as %
           difference  difference  of points   difference   deviation    of avg. concentration
SiO3       -9.4        -0.5          36        -3.8          3.0       -6.3%
PO4        -0.02        0.29         36         0.05         0.08       2.9%
NO3         0           7.3          36         1.4          2.1        5.8%

The second nutrient test was more germane to US WOCE as it is now configured:  
we experimented three times drawing two sets of nutrients from bottles, running 
one set at once, while the other was stored in the laboratory refrigerator for 
8-10 hours, then warmed in air for one hour (to lab temperature), then run, with 
all analyses completed within 10-14 hours after drawing.  In every case, the 
differences were very small (see below), near the expected difference of 
replicate samples run fresh, and within WOCE repeatability standards.  Hence it 
is our preliminary judgement that the overnight storage methodology as practiced 
by ODF - and used on many ODF cruises but not this one - remains a valid option 
for US WOCE.

Nutrient replicates, fresh-minus-refrigerated

parameter  minimum     maximum     number      mean         standard     avg. difference as %
           difference  difference  of points   difference   deviation    of avg. concentration 
SiO3      -1.6         1.0           36        -0.2         0.5        -0.3%
          -0.6         0.6           36         0.1         0.3         0.2%
          -1.3         0.7           35        -0.1         0.4        -0.2%
PO4       -0.01        0.02          36         0.00        0.01        0%
          -0.01        0.02          36         0.00        0.01        0%
          -0.05        0.03          35         0.00        0.01        0%
NO3       -0.4         0.1           36        -0.1         0.2        -0.4%
          -0.2         0.4           36         0.1         0.1         0.4%
          -0.2         0.5           35         0.2         0.1         0.8%

C.1.d	CFC Measurements
	(Kevin A. Maillet and Kevin F. Sullivan)

Concentrations of the dissolved atmospheric cholorfluorocarbons (CFCs) F-11 and 
F-12 were measured by shipboard electron-capture gas chromatography according to 
the methods described by Bullister and Weiss (1988).  The  measurements were 
carried out by the group at the University of Miami under the direction of Dr. 
Rana A. Fine with the assistance of a technician from LDEO, Columbia University. 
A total of 1847 water analyses were carried out, 23 of which were duplicate 
analyses as tabulated in Table 1.  The mean value of duplicate analyses are 
reported in the data file and are assigned a quality byte of 6.

Occasional problems with the analytical system resulted in the loss of a sample. 
In accordance with WHP protocol, the value for these analyses has been reported 
as -9.000 and they have been assigned a quality byte of 5.

On a number of occasions, the CFC analysis appeared routine yet the values 
obtained were clearly inappropriate based on the depth at which the Niskin was 
tripped. Upon further inspection it was noticed that there appeared to be 
problems with other measured quantities from these bottles as well and in many 
cases, the quality byte assigned to the bottle itself had been set to 4 to 
indicate a problem with that bottle. In these situations, we are reporting the 
data as measured and have assigned a data qulity flag of 4 to the quality byte 
for that measurement.

Situations where this occurred were:

                               Station  Niskin
                               -------  ------
                               126        6
                               133        6
                               136        6
                               137       11
                               138       11
     
The following analyses are suspect in relation to the surrounding values and 
have been flagged as questionable data (quality byte 3):

                          Station  Niskin  Parameter(s)
                          -------  ------  ------------
                          127        17     F11
                          212        19     F12
                          217        17     F11 & F12

A combination bottle and handling blank was used to correct for contamination 
from the Niskin bottles and from the collection and storage of the samples.  
This blank was estimated by analyzing samples from Niskins after they were 
tripped in what is believed to be CFC-free water.  The bottle blanks were low 
throughout the cruise.  In cases where the bottle/handling blank is greater than 
the measured concentration, a negative concentration is reported in the data 
file.  A list of all Niskins and their bottle-handling blanks over the entire 
cruise is included in Table 2.

Measurements of the atmospheric concentration of F-11 and F-12 were carried out 
regularly during the cruise.  Air samples were pumped through a Decabond tubing 
air line run along the railing of the ship and up the mast at the bow.  Air 
measurements were usually carried out while on station when the bow of the ship 
was heading into the wind to avoid contamination from the stack.  Usually, three 
to six air measurements were carried out in sequence.  The mean values of 
replicate air analyses are tabulated in Table 3.

Table 18: Duplicate analyses from TUNES 2 cruise on R/V Thomas Washington 
          July/August 1991
(duplicate syringes drawn on same niskin)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station #   Niskin    Depth    pM12/kg    pM11/kg    Avg F12      Avg F11
                                                    Stdev F12    Stdev F11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
999              11     400       0.111     0.189     0.1108      0.1904
999              11     400       0.111     0.192     0.0003      0.0013

999              12     400       0.117     0.209     0.1173      0.2087
999              12     400       0.118     0.208     0.0006      0.0003

999              13     400       0.117     0.209     0.1155      0.2079
999              13     400       0.114     0.207     0.0018      0.0007

132               2      25       0.884     1.702     0.8789      1.7036
132               2      25       0.874     1.705     0.0050      0.0012

132               4      85       0.911     1.709     0.9076      1.7093
132               4      85       0.904     1.709     0.0036      0.0000

132               6     125       0.960     1.879     0.9627      1.8809
132               6     125       0.966     1.883     0.0031      0.0022

132               8     190       0.987     2.028     0.9887      2.0176
132               8     190       0.991     2.007     0.0019      0.0102

133               2      40       0.877     1.645     0.8753      1.6505
133               2      40       0.873     1.656     0.0020      0.0051

133               5     120       1.002     1.831     0.9961      1.8349
133               5     120       0.990     1.839     0.0060      0.0038

135              11     310       0.164     0.305     0.1667      0.3004
135              11     310       0.169     0.296     0.0025      0.0047

173              61       1       1.262     2.479     1.2605      2.4710
173              61       1       1.259     2.463     0.0010      0.0081

175               2      40       1.297     2.581     1.2996      2.5584
175               2      40       1.302     2.535     0.0024      0.0229

184              61       1       1.432     2.924     1.4320      2.9374
184               1       1       1.432     2.951     0.0004      0.0133

184               2      45       1.453     2.917     1.4417      2.9280
184               2      45       1.430     2.939     0.0113      0.0112

190              68     360       0.923     1.972     0.9212      1.9471
190              68     360       0.920     1.922     0.0015      0.0250

191              69     420       0.884     1.856     0.8788      1.8553
191              69     420       0.873     1.855     0.0053      0.0003

197               6     180       1.256     2.409     1.2511      2.4079
197               6     180       1.246     2.406     0.0047      0.0016

197              69     370       0.648     1.296     0.6510      1.2955
197              69     370       0.654     1.295     0.0027      0.0006

197              70     440       0.570     1.088     0.5587      1.0826
197              70     440       0.548     1.077     0.0108      0.0051

198               2      40       1.174     2.261     1.1657      2.2618
198               2      40       1.157     2.263     0.0084      0.0012

198              64     110       1.215     2.366     1.2113      2.3734
198              64     110       1.207     2.381     0.0042      0.0077

198               6     180       1.190     2.341     1.1965      2.3472
198               6     180       1.203     2.354     0.0064      0.0064

199               6     140       1.185     2.331     1.1786      2.3400
199               6     140       1.172     2.349     0.0061      0.0093

199              11     320       0.789     1.586     0.7887      1.5844
199              11     320       0.788     1.582     0.0003      0.0021

(duplicate niskins at same depth or duplicate analyses from the same syringe)

Station#   Niskin   Depth   pM12/kg   pM11/kg     Avg F12   Avg F11
                                                  Stdev F12 Stdev F11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
133          17       900     0.005     0.002      0.0052   0.0052
133          18       900     0.005     0.008      0.0003   0.0033

134          16       850     0.002     0.002      0.0043   0.0039
134          17       850     0.006     0.006      0.0019   0.0024

204           6       100     1.132     2.250      1.1334   2.2541
204           7       100     1.135     2.258      0.0013   0.0036

193          61         1     1.253     2.493      1.2432   2.5116
193          61         1     1.233     2.530      0.0101   0.0183
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 19.  Bottle/handling blanks applied to TUNES2 water analyses

                  CFC 11 TUNES 2   | CFC 12 TUNES 2
                  Niskin  pmol/kg  | Niskin  pmol/kg 
                  ------  -------  | ------  -------
                     1     0.003   |    1     0
                     2     0.005   |    2     0
                     3     0.003   |    3     0
                     4     0.004   |    4     0
                     5     0.003   |    5     0
                     6     0.002   |    6     0
                     7     0.003   |    7     0
                     8     0.004   |    8     0
                     9     0.002   |    9     0
                    10     0.005   |   10     0
                    11     0.005   |   11     0
                    12     0.002   |   12     0
                    13     0.002   |   13     0.002
                    14     0.002   |   14     0.002
                    15     0.002   |   15     0.002
                    16     0.002   |   16     0.003
                    17     0.002   |   17     0.002
                    18     0.002   |   18     0
                    19     0.002   |   19     0
                    20     0.003   |   20     0
                    21     0.002   |   21     0
                    22     0.002   |   22     0
                    23     0.002   |   23     0
                    24     0.002   |   24     0
                    25     0.002   |   25     0
                    26     0.002   |   26     0
                    27     0.002   |   27     0
                    28     0.002   |   28     0
                    29     0.002   |   29     0
                    30     0.002   |   30     0
                    31     0.004   |   31     0
                    32     0.003   |   32     0
                    33     0.003   |   33     0
                    34     0.002   |   34     0
                    35     0.002   |   35     0
                    36     0.003   |   36     0
                    37     0.002   |   37     0.002
                    38     0.002   |   38     0
                    61     0.002   |   61     0
                    64     0.003   |   64     0
                    68     0.003   |   68     0
                    69     0.003   |   69     0
                    70     0.003   |   70     0

Table 20: Air analyses carried out during TUNES2
                        ---------------------
                         6.0 S    482    270
                        12.5      486    262
                        15.4 S    480    266
                        20.3      475    255
                        37.0 S    476    231
           
C.2.a  Description of L VS Measurement Techniques and Calibrations

Large Volume Sampling (LVS) was performed on this expedition. These commonly 
referred to as Gerard casts were carried out with ~270 liter stainless steel 
Gerard barrels on which were mounted 2.2-liter Niskin bottles (Piggyback 
bottles) with reversing thermometers.

There were 11 large volume stations, with at least one deep cast (2500db to the 
bottom), and either or both an intermediate (1000db to 2500db) and/or a shallow 
cast (surface to 1000db). There were 29 casts total, 2 of which were 
redeployments to complete the complement of 9 levels. The cast was relowered if 
the complement of 9 levels was not achieved due to pretrips or failure of one 
Gerard barrel releasing it's messenger thereby tripping the rest of the string 
of barrels. The Gerard barrel platform, as set up in port prior to the cruise, 
did not allow enough clearance for barrel during deployment & recovery. The 
Chief Engineer cut the platform loose and rewelded it to the deck about one foot 
forward. The spring-loaded trapping-pin was no longer usable so a chain was 
shackled to one forward corner of the platform, passed aft of the wire then 
hooked to the other forward corner to hold the trawl wire in the platform "V" 
while the barrels were being attached and detached. Limited fantail space and 
the low trawl wire lead required that the crane work over the wire to move 
barrels from racks to near the centerline just forward of the platform, then the 
barrel was unhooked and the crane moved to the other side of the wire and 
rehooked to move the barrel to the attachment position. This procedure was 
reversed for recovery. Working Gerards off the stern went well in good weather 
but, as expected, pitching in moderate seas (15-20 knots wind) caused tripping 
problems. Slowing down the lowering rate to less than 50 meters/minute seemed to 
help.

Samples for salinity, silicate and 14C were obtained from the Gerard barrels; 
samples for salinity were drawn from the piggyback bottles and at station 172 
PO4, NO3, NO2 and Silicate were sampled. The salinity and silicate samples from 
the piggyback bottle were used for comparison with the Gerard barrel salinities 
to verify the integrity of the Gerard sample. The identifiers of the sample 
containers and the numbers of the ODF or Piggyback samplers from which the 
samples were drawn were recorded on the Sample Log sheet. Normal ODF sampling 
practice is to open the drain valve before opening the air vent to see if water 
escapes, indicating the presence of a small air leak in the sampler. This 
observation ("air leak"), and other comments ("lanyard caught in lid", "valve 
left open", etc.) which may indicate some doubt about the integrity of the water 
samples were also noted on the Sample Log sheets. These comments are included in 
this documentation with investigative comments and results.

The discrete hydrographic data were entered into the shipboard data system and 
processed as the analyses were completed. The bottle data were brought to a 
usable, though not final, state at sea. ODF data checking procedures included 
verification that the sample was assigned to the correct depth. This was 
accomplished by checking the raw data sheets, which included the raw data value 
and the water sample bottle, versus the sample log sheets. The salinity and 
nutrient data were compared by ODF with those from adjacent stations. Any 
comments regarding the water samples were investigated. The raw data computer 
files were also checked for entry errors that could have been made on the 
station number, bottle number and/or sample container number. The salinity 
values were transmitted from a PC attached to the salinometer system.

Investigation of data included comparison of piggyback salinities and silicates 
versus Gerard salinities and silicates, and review of data plots of the station 
rosette data profile. If any problem was indicated, the data value was flagged. 
The Quality Comments includes comments regarding missing samples and 
investigative remarks for comments made on the Sample Log sheets, as well as all 
flagged (WOCE coded) data values other than 2, an acceptable measurement.

The WOCE codes were assigned to the water data using the criteria:

code 1 = Sample for this measurement was drawn from water bottle, but results 
         of analysis not yet received.
code 2 = Acceptable measurement.
code 3 = Questionable measurement. Does not fit station profile or adjoining 
         station comparisons. No notes from analyst indicating a problem. Datum 
         could be real, but the decision as to whether it is acceptable will be 
         made by a scientist rather than ODF's technicians.
code 4 = Bad measurement. Does not fit station profile and/or adjoining 
         station comparisons. There are analytical notes indicating a problem, 
         but data values are reported. ODF recommends deletion of these data 
         values. Analytical notes for salinity may include large differences 
         between the piggyback and Gerard sample. Sampling errors are also coded 
         4.
code 5 = Not reported.
code 9 = Sample for this measurement not drawn.

Quality flags assigned to parameter BTLNBR (bottle number) as defined in the 
WOCE Operations manual are further clarified as follows:

code 4 = If the bottle tripped at a different level than planned, ODF 
         assigned it a code 4. If there is a 4 code on the bottle, and 2 codes 
         on the salinity, oxygen and nutrients then the pressure assignment was 
         probably correct.
code 3 = An air leak large enough to produce an observable effect on a sample 
         is identified by a 3 code on the bottle and 4 code on the oxygen. 
         (Small air leaks may have no observable effect, or may only affect gas 
         samples).
code 2 = Acceptable measurement.

The following table shows the number of ODF samples drawn and the number of 
times each WOCE sample code was assigned. 

Large Volume Samples

Stations 132-210                                                        
          | Reported   |    |      |   |       WHP Quality Codes 
          | levels     | 1  |   2  |3  |   4  |  5  | 6  | 7  | 8  |  9 
----------|------------|----|------|---|------|-----|----|----|----|----
BTLNBR    |    306     | 0  | 271  |9  |  23  |  0  | 0  | 0  | 0  |  3 
SALNTY    |    303     | 0  | 292  |0  |  11  |  0  | 0  | 0  | 0  |  3 
SILCAT    |    303     | 0  | 290  |0  |  13  |  0  | 0  | 0  | 0  |  3 
NITRAT    |    177     | 0  |   0  |0  | 177  |  0  | 0  | 0  | 0  |129 
NITRIT    |    177     | 0  |   0  |0  | 177  |  0  | 0  | 0  | 0  |129 
PHSPHT    |    176     | 0  |   0  |0  | 176  |  1  | 0  | 0  | 0  |129 
REVPRS    |    306     | 0  | 306  |0  |   0  |  0  | 0  | 0  | 0  |  0 
REVTMP    |    276     | 0  | 274  |0  |   2  | 10  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 20 

Pressure and Temperature

LVS pressures and temperatures were calculated from deep-sea reversing 
thermometer (DSRT) readings. Each DSRT rack normally held 2 protected 
(temperature) thermometers and 1 unprotected (pressure) thermometer. 
Thermometers were read by two people, each attempting to read a precision equal 
to one tenth of the thermometer etching interval. Thus, a thermometer etched at 
0.05 degree intervals would be read to the nearest 0.005 degrees.

Each temperature value reported on the LVS casts is calculated from the average 
of four readings provided both protected thermometers function normally. The 
pressure is verified by comparison with the calculation of pressure determined 
by wireout. The pressure from the thermometer is fitted by a polynomial equation 
which incorporates the wireout and wire angle.

Calibration of the thermometers are performed in ODF's calibration facility 
depending on the age of the thermometer and not more than two years of the 
expedition.

The temperatures are based on the International Temperature Scale of 1990.

Salinity Analysis

Salinity samples were drawn into 200 ml Kimax high alumina borosilicate bottles 
after 3 rinses, and were sealed with custom-made plastic insert thimbles and 
Nalgene screw caps. This assembly provides very low container dissolution and 
sample evaporation. As loose inserts were found, they were replaced to ensure a 
continued airtight seal. Salinity was determined after a box of samples had 
equilibrated to laboratory temperature, usually within 8-12 hours of collection. 
The draw time and equilibration time, as well as per-sample analysis time and 
temperature were logged.

A single Guildline Autosal Model 8400A salinometer (Serial Number 57-396) 
located in a temperature-controlled laboratory was used to measure salinities. 
The salinometer was modified by ODF and contained interfaces for computer-aided 
measurement. A computer (PC) prompted the analyst for control functions 
(changing sample, flushing) while it made continuous measurements and logged 
results. The salinometer cell was flushed until successive readings met software 
criteria for consistency, then two successive measurements were made and 
averaged for a final result.

The salinometer was standardized for each cast with IAPSO Standard Seawater 
(SSW) Batch P-114 on Stations 124 through 140, and P-108 on stations 141 through 
220. The estimated accuracy of bottle salinities run at sea is usually better 
than 0.002 PSU relative to the particular Standard Seawater batch used. PSS-78 
salinity (UNESCO 1981) was then calculated for each sample from the measured 
conductivity ratios, and the results merged with the cruise database.

303 salinity measurements were made and 18 vials of standard water were used. 
The temperature stability of the laboratory used to make the measurements was 
good. Salinities were generally considered good for the expedition. Salinity 
samples were analyzed for the Large Volume casts from both the piggyback bottle 
and the Gerard barrel.

Nutrient Analysis

Nutrient samples were drawn into 45 ml high density polypropylene, narrow mouth, 
screw-capped centrifuge tubes which were rinsed three times before filling. 
Standardizations were performed at the beginning and end of each group of 
analyses (one station, usually 18 samples) with a set of an intermediate 
concentration standard prepared for each run from secondary standards. These 
secondary standards were in turn prepared aboard ship by dilution from dry, pre-
weighed primary standards. Sets of 5-6 different concentrations of shipboard 
standards were analyzed periodically to determine the deviation from linearity 
as a function of concentration for each nutrient.

Nutrient analyses (phosphate, silicate, nitrate and nitrite) were performed on 
an ODF-modified 4 channel Technicon AutoAnalyzer II, generally within one hour 
of the cast. However, on LVS cast, samples for the Gerard barrels were analyzed 
for silicate only as an added check (with salinity) on barrel sample integrity. 
Occasionally some samples were refrigerated at 2 to 6 degree C for a maximum of 
4 hours. The methods used are described by Gordon et al. (1992), Atlas et al. 
(1971), and Hager et al. (1972).

All peaks were logged manually, and all the runs were re-read to check for 
possible reading errors.

Silicate is analyzed using the technique of Armstrong et al. (Armstrong 1967). 
Ammonium molybdate is added to a seawater sample to produce silicomolybdic acid 
which is then reduced to silicomolybdous acid (a blue compound) following the 
addition of stannous chloride. Tartaric acid is also added to impede PO4 
contamination. The sample is passed through a 15 mm flowcell and the absorbence 
measured at 820nm. ODF's methodology is known to be non-linear at high silicate 
concentrations (>120 uM); a correction for this non-linearity is applied in 
ODF's software.

Modifications of the Armstrong et al. (1967) techniques for nitrate and nitrite 
analysis are also used. The seawater sample for nitrate analysis is passed 
through a cadmium column where the nitrate is reduced to nitrite. Sulfanilamide 
is introduced, reacting with the nitrite, then N-(1-naphthyl)ethylenediamine 
dihydrochloride which couples to form a red azo dye. The reaction product is 
then passed through a 15 mm flowcell and the absorbence measured at 540 nm. The 
same technique is employed for nitrite analysis, except the cadmium column is 
not present, and a 50 mm flowcell is used.

Phosphate is analyzed using a modification of the Bernhardt and Wilhelms (1967) 
technique. Ammonium molybdate is added to the sample to produce phosphomolybdic 
acid, then reduced to phosphomolybdous acid (a blue compound) following the 
addition of dihydrazine sulfate. The reaction product is heated to 55 degree C 
to enhance color development, then passed through a 50 mm flowcell and the 
absorbence measured at 820 nm.

Nutrients, reported in micromoles per kilogram, were converted from micromoles 
per liter by dividing by sample density calculated at zero pressure, in-situ 
salinity, and an assumed laboratory temperature of 25 degree C.

Na2SiF6, the silicate primary standard, is obtained from Fluka Chemical Company 
and Fischer Scientific and is reported by the suppliers to be >98% pure. Primary 
standards for nitrate KNO3, nitrite NaNO2, and phosphate KH2PO4, are obtained 
from Johnson Matthey Chemical Co. and the supplier reports purities of 99.999%, 
97%, and 99.999%, respectively.

303 nutrient (Silicate) analyses were performed. Phosphate, Nitrate and Nitrite 
were analyzed starting with station 172, however, these samples are coded as bad 
and should only be used if there is an unresolved problem of gerard barrel 
integrity. No major problems were encountered with the measurements. 

REFERENCES AND UNCITED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Armstrong, F. A. J., C. R. Stearns, and J. D. H. Strickland, 1967.  The
     measurement of upwelling and subsequent biological processes by means
     of the Technicon Autoanalyzer and associated equipment, Deep-Sea
     Research, 1144, 381-389.

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

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

Bryden, H. L., 1973. New Polynomials for Thermal Expansion, Adiabatic
     Temperature Gradient, Deep-Sea Research, 2200, 401-408.

Carpenter, J. H., 1965. The Chesapeake Bay Institute technique for the
     Winkler dissolved oxygen method, Limnology and Oceanography, 1100,
     141-143.

Carter, D. J. T., 1980 (Third Edition).  Echo-Sounding Correction Tables,
     Hydrographic Department, Ministry of Defence, Taunton Somerset.

Chen, C.-T. and F. J. Millero, 1977. Speed of sound in seawater at high
     pressures.  Journal Acoustical Society of America, 6622, No. 5,
     1129-1135.

Fofonoff, N. P., 1977. Computation of Potential Temperature of Seawater for
     an Arbitrary Reference Pressure.  Deep-Sea Research, 2244, 489-491.

Fofonoff, N. P. and R. C. Millard, 1983. Algorithms for Computation of
     Fundamental Properties of Seawater. UNESCO Report No. 44, 15-24.

Gordon, L. I., Jennings, Joe C. Jr, Ross, Andrew A., Krest, James M., 1992.
     A suggested Protocol for Continuous Flow Automated Analysis of
     Seawater Nutrients in the WOCE Hydrographic Program and the Joint
     Global Ocean Fluxes Study. OSU College of Oceanography Descr. Chem Oc.
     Grp. Tech Rpt 92-1.

Hager, S. W., E. L. Atlas, L. D. Gordon, A. W. Mantyla, and P. K. Park,
     1972.  A comparison at sea of manual and autoanalyzer analyses of
     phosphate, nitrate, and silicate.  Limnology and Oceanography, 1177,
     931-937.

Key, R. M., D. Muus and J. Wells, 1991, Zen and the art of Gerard barrel
     maintenance, WOCE Hydrographic Program Office Technical Report.

Lewis, E. L., 1980. The Practical Salinity Scale 1978 and Its Antecedents.
     IEEE Journal of Oceanographic Engineering, OE-5, 3-8.

Mantyla, A. W., 1982-1983. Private correspondence.

Millero, F. J., C.-T. Chen, A. Bradshaw and K. Schleicher, 1980.  A New
     High Pressure Equation of State for Seawater.  Deep-Sea Research, 2277AA,
     255-264.

Saunders, P. M., 1981. Practical Conversion of Pressure to Depth.  Journal
     of Physical Oceanography, 1111, 573-574.

Sverdrup, H. U., M. W. Johnson, and R. H. Fleming, 1942.  The Oceans, Their
     Physics, Chemistry and General Biology, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
     Cliff, N.J.

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

Quality Comments

Remarks for missing samples, and WOCE codes other than 2 from WOCE P17, P16 
Large Volume Samples. Investigation of data may include comparison of bottle 
salinity and silicate data from piggyback and Gerard with CTD cast data, review 
of data plots of the station profile and adjoining stations, and rereading of 
charts (i.e., nutrients). Comments from the Sample Logs and the results of ODF's 
investigations are included in this report. Units stated in these comments are 
micromoles per liter for Silicate unless otherwise noted. The first number 
before the comment is the cast number (CASTNO) times 100 plus the bottle number 
(BTLNBR). PB refers to the bottle that is attached to the Gerard.

Remarks for  missing samples, and WOCE codes other than 2 from WOCE P17,
P16 Large Volume Samples.  Investigation of data may include comparison of
bottle salinity and silicate data from piggyback and Gerard with CTD cast
data, review of data plots of the station profile and adjoining stations,
and rereading of charts (i.e., nutrients).  Comments from the Sample Logs
and the results of ODF's investigations are included in this report.  Units
stated in these comments are micromoles per liter for Silicate unless
otherwise noted.  The first number before the comment is the cast number
(CASTNO) times 100 plus the bottle number (BTLNBR). PB refers to the bottle
that is attached to the Gerard.

Station 132

385 @1489db    Sample log: "Air leak before vent."  Gerard looks ok.  PB
               (45) @1489db.

348 @2950db    Pretripped  ~1000m (1150m) shallower than scheduled.  Delta-
               S (PB-G) is 0.013 and silicate is high, gerard appears to be
               okay at reassigned pressure.  Code bottle did not trip as
               scheduled, silicate and salinity bad.  Gerard (93)
               pretripped.

393 @2950db    Pretripped ~1000m (1150m) shallower than scheduled (4000m).
               Samples appear to be okay.  PB (48) pretripped @2950db.

144 @3179db    Sample log: "Niskin open.  No samples.  No therms."  Gerard
               (85) is okay.

185 @3180db    Sample log: "Air leak before vent."  Gerard looks ok, no
               temperature.  PB (44) @3179db had no samples.

349 @3470db    Pretripped ~1000m (930m) shallower than scheduled (4300m).
               Samples appear to be okay.  Gerard (94).  Delta-S(PB-G) at
               3470db is 0.003, salinity is 34.686.

394 @3470db    Pretripped ~1000m (930m) shallower than scheduled (4300m).
               Samples appear to be okay.  PB (49) @3470db.

STATION 143

485 @1194db    Sample log: "Air leak when vented."  PB (43); Gerard looks
               ok.

142 @2631db    Delta-S(PB-G) at 2631db is 0.03, salinity is 34.701.
               Silicate is low.  Suspect niskin leaked, Gerard (83) is
               okay.

183 @2632db    Sample log: "Did not drop messenger."  PB (42).  Cast 2
               performed for seven gerards that did not trip.

243 @2856db    Gerard (84).  Delta-S(PB-G) at 2856db is -0.003, salinity is
               34.673.

245 @3108db    Gerard (85) appears to be okay.

285 @3109db    Sample log: "Air leak when vented."  PB (45); Gerard looks
               ok.

244 @3361db    Looks like Niskin did not close.  No samples drawn.  Therms:
               Malfunction. Temps way off.  Temperature not reported.
               Gerard (87) is okay.

287 @3362db    Temperature not reported, see PB (44) comments.

294 @4276db    Sample log: "Air entered top vent during drain, gerard empty
               before barrel filled."  PB (49); Gerard looks ok.

STATION 153

349 @   7db    Surface bbl. No therms.  No temperature, Gerard (81).
               Delta-S(PB-G) at 7db is 0.024, salinity is 36.450.

381 @   7db    No temperature, see PB (49) comment.

385 @1595db    Sample log: "Small leak when vented."  PB (43); Gerard looks
               ok.

142 @3046db    Delta-S(PB-G) at 3046db is 0.003, salinity is 34.674.
               Salinity difference is a little high, but suspect drawing
               rather than a problem with Gerard.  Gerard (83) is okay.

183 @3046db    See PB (42) salinity comment.

143 @3248db    Delta-S(PB-G) at 3248db is -0.014, salinity is 34.670.
               Footnote bottle leaking, and salinity and silicate bad.
               Temperature also appears low, footnote temperature bad.
               Gerard (84) leaked or mistripped.

184 @3248db    Sample log: "Top vent cracked open."  Footnote Gerard leaked
               and salinity and silicate bad.  PB (43) also leaked or
               mistripped.

185 @3450db    Sample log: "Small leak when vented."  PB (45); Gerard looks
               ok.

187 @3653db    Sample log: "Leaking from loose bolt on bottom when
               retrieved, also top vent cracked open."  PB (44); Gerard
               looks ok.

150 @4054db    Delta-S(PB-G) at 4054db is 0.064, salinity is 34.743.
               Salinity high, silicate low.  Footnote bottle leaking,
               samples bad.  Gerard (90) is okay.

190 @4055db    Sample log: "Small leak when vented."  Gerard appears to be
               okay.  PB (50) leaked.

STATION 165

Cast 1         Sample log: "Cast no good, 100% pretrip."  No shorebased
               data taken.

STATION 166

Cast 1         Therms: "No double ping - appeared on way up.  Will use
               samples."

449 @   4db    Surface barrel.  No therms.  Gerard (81).  Delta-S(PB-G) at
               4db is 0.002, salinity is 35.549.

481 @   5db    Surface barrel.  No therms.  PB (49).

147 @ 449db    Delta-S(PB-G) at 449db is -0.024, salinity is 34.460.
               Footnote as pretrip, but Gerard also has a leaking problem.
               Gerard (85) leaked.

185 @ 449db    Sample log: "Small leak when vented."  Gerard and niskin
               appear to have pretripped.  Water appears to be 50-150m
               deeper.  Footnote as pretrip, but Gerard also has a leaking
               problem.  Footnote salinity and silicate bad.  PB (47)
               pretripped, Gerard (85) leaked.

144 @ 744db    Pretripped. Salinity and silicate are acceptable at
               reassigned pressure.  See Gerard (87) comment.  Delta-S(PB-
               G) at 744db is -0.005, salinity is 34.316.

187 @ 744db    Pretripped. Salinity and silicate are acceptable at
               reassigned pressure.  PB (44).

145 @1121db    Niskin pretripped, gerard also pretripped but appears to
               have leaked.  Gerard (89) pretripped and leaked.

189 @1121db    Sample log: "Major leak when vented-pressure leak did not
               allow C14 barrel to fill."  Delta-S (PB-G) is -.0290.
               Footnote as leaking.  Footnote bottle did not trip as
               scheduled, samples bad.  PB (45) also pretripped.

342 @1545db    Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled. See Gerard (87)
               posttrip comments.

387 @1546db    Sample log: "Pre- or posttrip."  Footnote posttripped,
               samples appear to be okay at reassigned pressure.  PB (42).

341 @2399db    Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled. See Gerard (90)
               posttrip comments.  Delta-S(PB-G) at 2399db is 0.002,
               salinity is 34.654.

390 @2399db    Sample log: "Posttripped when retrieving first bottle."
               Footnote posttripped, samples appear to be okay at
               reassigned pressure.  PB (41).

143 @2434db    Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled. See Gerard (90)
               posttrip comments.  Gerard (90) appears to be okay at
               reassigned pressure.  Delta-S(PB-G) at 2434db is -0.003,
               salinity is 34.652.

190 @2435db    Sample log: "Posttripped when retrieving first bottle."
               Footnote posttripped, samples appear to be okay at
               reassigned pressure, PB (43).

350 @2619db    Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled. See Gerard (93)
               posttrip comments.

393 @2619db    Sample log: "Posttripped when retrieving first bottle."
               Footnote posttripped, samples appear to be okay at
               reassigned pressure.  PB (50).

142 @2637db    Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled. See Gerard (93)
               posttrip comments.

193 @2638db    Sample log: "Posttripped when retrieving first bottle."
               Footnote posttripped, samples appear to be okay at
               reassigned pressure.  PB (42).

141 @2777db    Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled. See Gerard (94)
               posttrip comments.

194 @2778db    Sample log: "Posttripped when retrieving first bottle."
               Footnote posttripped, samples appear to be okay at
               reassigned pressure.  PB (41).

348 @2907db    Footnote bottle did not trip as scheduled. See Gerard (94)
               posttrip comments.

394 @2907db    Sample log: "Posttripped when retrieving first bottle."
               Footnote posttripped, samples appear to be okay at
               reassigned pressure.  PB (48).

STATION 172

449 @   4db    Surface barrel.  No therms.  Gerard (90) leaked.

490 @   5db    Surface barrel.  No therms.  Delta-S (PB-G) is 1.970, gerard
               silicate is 1.0 high. Difficult to explain where the
               extremely low salinity water came from.  Footnote Gerard as
               leaking, salinity and silicate bad.  PB (49).

350 @1239db    Sample log: "Hangup.  No sample."  Gerard (85) looks okay.

385 @1239db    Sample log: "Small leak when vented."  PB (50); no

               temperature, Gerard looks ok.

341 @1488db    Gerard (81) appears to be okay.

381 @1488db    Sample log: "Air leak when vented, top valve loose."  PB
               (41); Gerard looks ok.

345 @2239db    Gerard (87) appears to be okay.

387 @2240db    Sample log: "Air leak when vented, top valve loose."  PB
               (45); Gerard appears to be okay.

142 @3505db    Nutrients: "PO4 value impossibly high - contamination
               suspected."  Therms way off. Wrong break. Temperature not
               reported.  Gerard (87).  No po4.

187 @3506db    Temperature not reported, see PB (42) comments.

148 @4235db    Gerard (94) is okay.

194 @4235db    Sample log: "Significant air leak at lid when vented."
               Sample looks ok.  PB (48).

STATION 179

Cast 3         Sample log: "No double ping."

342 (No Pressure)
               Gerard (94) posttripped.  Salinity, nutrients sampled, no
               C-14.  Samples not reported.

394 (No Pressure)
               Sample Log: "Post-tripped @1500m."  Salinity, nutrients
               sampled, no C-14.  Samples not reported.

343 (No Pressure)
               See Gerard (93) comment, no samples.

393 (No Pressure)
               Sample Log: "Tripped near surface, no sample."  PB (43), no
               samples.

341 (No Pressure)
               See Gerard (89) comment, no samples.

389 (No Pressure)
               Sample Log: "Tripped near surface, no sample."  PB (41).

350 (No Pressure)
               Salinity apparently sampled, salinity not reported. No C-14
               or nutrients.

387 (No Pressure)
               Sample Log: "Did not trip, no sample."  PB (50).

449 @   3db    Surface barrel. No therms.  Gerard (90) is okay.

490 @   4db    See PB (49) comment, no temperature.

344 @1467db    Footnote bottle leaking, and no3, po4, sio3, no2, salinity
               bad.  Delta-S (PB-G) is 0.4041.  Looks like niskin leaked.
               Gerard (83) is okay.

383 @1467db    Gerard po4 slightly high compared with CTD cast.  PB (44)
               leaked.

345 @1700db    Gerard (84) is okay.

384 @1700db    Sample log: "Did not drop messenger."  PB (45); Gerard is
               okay.

144 @4094db    Gerard (89) leaked.

189 @4094db    Delta-S(PB-G) at 4099db is 0.017, salinity is 34.702.
               Silicate is ~3.5 low.  Looks like gerard leaked. Footnote
               bottle leaking and samples bad.  PB (44).

148 @4495db    Gerard (94) leaked.

194 @4496db    Delta-S(PB-G) at 4497db is 0.0217, salinity is 34.705.
               Silicate is ~5.0 low.  Footnote bottle leaking and samples
               bad.  PB (48).

STATION 180

471 @   3db    Surface barrel.  No therms.  Gerard (90) is okay.

490 @   4db    No temperature, see PB (71) comment; Gerard is okay.

348 @3426db    Gerard (85) is okay.

385 @3427db    Sample log: "Small leak when vented."  Gerard data looks ok.
               PB (48); Gerard is okay.

141 @4432db    Temps bad, salt, sil ok.  Temperature not reported, rubber
               on rack reversal may be bad.  Gerard (84) is okay.

184 @4432db    Temperature not reported, see PB (41) comment; Gerard is
               okay.

145 @5011db    Temps bad, salt, sil ok.  Temperature not reported, rubber
               on rack reversal may be bad.  Gerard (89) is okay.

189 @5012db    Temperature not reported, see PB (45) comment; Gerard is
               okay.

STATION 187

Cast 1         Sample log: Pinger started double ping, short in wire
               brought it up and changed switch.  Barrels are ok.  Looks
               like comment refers to start of cast before barrels were
               hung.

471 @   3db    Sample log: "Surface sample, no therms."  Gerard (90) is
               okay.

490 @   4db    No temperature, see PB (71) comment.

348 @1591db    Therms: "Wrong break. No therms."  Temperature not reported,
               Gerard (81) is okay.

381 @1592db    Temperature not reported, see PB (48) comment.

350 @2472db    Gerard (89) silicate is low.

389 @2473db    Silicate is 1.6 low, footnote silicate bad. Salt looks ok.
               PB (50).

341 @2726db    Silicate is 1.9 low, footnote silicate bad. Salt looks ok.
               Gerard (93) is okay.

393 @2727db    PB (41) silicate is bad.

342 @3244db    Gerard (85) is okay.

385 @3245db    Sample log: "Small leak when vented."  Gerard data looks ok.
               PB (42).

STATION 198

471 @   3db    Surface barrel. No therms.  Gerard (90) is okay.  Delta-
               S(PB-G) at 3db is 0.006, salinity is 35.571.

490 @   4db    No temperature, see PB (71) comment.

341 @1736db    Gerard (84) is okay.

384 @1737db    Sample log: "Leaking around bottom valve."  PB (41); Gerard
               appears to be okay.

345 @2237db    Gerard (89) is okay.

389 @2237db    Salt too high, looks like drawn from gerard 93 (next bottle
               down), or salt analyst made an error in numbering.  On this
               same cast, the salt for 93 was missing on the salt form, but
               was redrawn from ext barrel by rtw and rotter and found to
               agree with niskin, suggesting that the salt run for 89 was
               in fact that for 93, and 89's salt was not recorded,
               although drawn and run.  Nuts look fine on 89, probably no
               leak.  Since shipboard data processor states that a salinity
               sample was redrawn and it agreed with niskin value will use
               niskin value for gerard, in order for current programs to
               calculate kg units on nutrients.  PB (45).

STATION 210

Cast 3         Sample log: "No double ping, put 90 on for surface sample
               before start-up."  Called 90 cast 4.

471 @   3db    Surface barrel. No therms.  Gerard (90) is okay.

490 @   4db    No temperature, see PB (71) comment.

345 @1985db    Gerard (89) is okay.

389 @1986db    Sample log: Closed but not latched.  Did not leak when
               vented.  Gerard data looks ok.  PB (45).

C.2.b  P16S17S TUNES-2 FINAL REPORT FOR LARGE VOLUME SAMPLES
       (Robert M. Key)
       July 3, 1996

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

WOCE section P16S17S was the second in a series of three cruise legs 
collectively referred to as "TUNES" (expedition designation 31WTTUNES_2). The 
cruise was carried out aboard R/V Thomas Washington during the period July 16 - 
August 25, 1992. The cruise began and ended in Papeete, Tahiti. Jim Swift of SIO 
was chief scientist for this leg. This report covers details of data collection 
and analysis for the large volume Gerard samples. The reader is referred to the 
final cruise report prepared by Swift as the primary source for cruise 
information. Portions of this report were taken from that data report.

Ten large volume (LV) stations were occupied on this leg. The cruise plan called 
for 2 Gerard casts of 9 barrels each at each LV station. The planned sampling 
density was 1 station every 5 of latitude (~300nmi). Each station included at 
least one deep cast (2500db to the bottom), and an intermediate (1000db to 
2500db) cast. In the event of mis-tripped Gerard sampler(s), casts were repeated 
as time allowed in an attempt to collect the full suite of samples. The purpose 
of these casts was to collect samples for 14 C analysis. 14 C coverage for the 
upper water column was done via small volume AMS sampling from the Rosette.

All LV casts for the TUNES cruises were done using the stern A-frame on the R/V 
Thomas Washington. As is generally the case, the combination of a small vessel 
with working off the stern led to an elevated failure rate for the LV work 
relative to working off the side of a larger vessel. This problem is a result of 
accelerations on the trawl wire caused by ship motion and sea state. Slowing the 
lowering rate to 50 meters per minute or less reduced the failure rate. For 
several of the stations the number of Gerards per cast was reduced to 7 or 8 in 
an effort to reduce pretrip problems. On these stations a third cast with one 
bottle was used to collect the surface sample. The Gerard barrel platform, as 
set up in port prior to the cruise, did not allow enough clearance for barrel 
deployment and recovery. The Chief Engineer cut the platform loose and re-welded 
it to the deck about one foot forward. The spring-loaded trapping-pin was no 
longer usable so a chain was shackled to one forward corner of the platform, 
passed aft of the wire then hooked to the other forward corner to hold the trawl 
wire in the platform "V" while the barrels were being attached and detached. 
Limited fantail space and the low trawl wire lead required that the crane work 
over the wire to move barrels from racks to near the center-line just forward of 
the platform, then the barrel was unhooked and the crane moved to the other side 
of the wire and re-hooked to move the barrel to the attachment position. This 
procedure was reversed for recovery. Problems were minimized by the exceptional 
effort and capability of the Washington's crew. Table 1 summarizes the LV 
sampling.

TABLE 1. LV Sampling Summary

                            South    West      No. Ger.
               Station Cast Latitude Longitude Samples
               ------- ---- -------- --------- -------
                 132     1  10.030   134.982      9
                         3  10.000   134.967      9
                 143     1  15.385   133.877      2
                         2  15.387   133.867      7
                         4  15.365   133.918      8
                 153     1  20.273   132.860      9
                         3  20.262   132.848      8
                 166     1  26.650   133.250      6
                         3  26.667   133.260      8
                         4  26.667   133.800      1
                 172     1  29.567   134.070      7
                         3  29.550   134.058      7
                         4  29.550   134.058      1
                 179     1  32.998   135.013      7
                         3  33.053   135.022      7
                         4  33.053   135.022      1
                 180     1  37.513   150.470      7
                         3  37.533   150.517      8
                         4  37.533   150.517      1
                 187     1  34.008   150.497      7
                         3  34.030   150.545      8
                         4  34.030   150.545      1
                 198     1  28.460   150.502      7
                         3  28.482   150.502      8
                 210     1  22.485   150.493      7
                         3  22.512   150.522      9
               Total    26                      160

Each Gerard barrel was equipped with a piggyback 5 liter Niskin bottle which had 
a full set of high precision reversing thermometers to determine sampling 
pressure and temperature. Both Gerard and Niskin were sampled for salinity and 
silicate. Approximately half of the Gerard-Niskin pairs were sampled for other 
nutrients (nitrate, nitrite and phosphate) Additionally, each Gerard was sampled 
for radiocarbon. The salinity and silicate samples from the piggyback bottle 
were used for comparison with the Gerard barrel values to verify the Gerard 
sample integrity. As samples were collected, the information was recorded on a 
log sheet. Any abnormalities with sampler or sample collection were also noted. 
Hydrographic data were entered into the shipboard data system and processed as 
the analyses were completed. The bottle data were brought to a usable, though 
not final, state at sea. Data checking included verification that the sample was 
assigned the correct depth. Salinity and nutrient data were compared by ODF with 
values from adjacent stations and with the rosette cast data from the same 
station. Any comments regarding the water samples were investigated. The raw 
data computer files were also checked for entry errors.

2.0 PERSONNEL

LV sampling for this cruise was under the direction of the principal 
investigator, Robert M. Key (Princeton). All LV 14 C extractions at sea were 
done by Rich Rotter (Princeton). Deck work and reading thermometers was done by 
the SIO CTD group with assistance from many of the scientific party. Salinities 
and nutrients were analyzed ODF/SIO personnel with assistance from Dennis Guffy 
(TAMU).14 C analyses were split between Gte stlund's laboratory (U. Miami, 
R.S.M.A.S.) and Minze Stuiver's laboratory (U. Washington). Key collected the 
data from the originators, merged the files, assigned quality control flags to 
the 14 C, rechecked the flags assigned by ODF and submitted the data files to 
the WOCE office (7/96). 

3.0 RESULTS 

This data set and any changes or additions supersedes any prior release. In this 
data set Gerard samples can be differentiated from Niskin samples by the bottle 
number. Niskin bottle numbers are in the range 41-49 while Gerards are in the 
range 81-94.

3.1 Pressure and Temperature

Pressure and temperature for the LV casts are determined by reversing 
thermometers mounted on the piggyback Niskin bottle. Each bottle was equipped 
with the standard set of 2 protected and 1 unprotected thermometer. Reported 
temperatures were calculated from the average of four readings provided that all 
protected thermometers function normally. The temperatures are based on the 
International Temperature Scale of 1990. All thermometers, calibrations and 
calculations were provided by SIO-ODF. Reported temperatures for samples in the 
thermocline are believed to be accurate to 0.01C and for deep samples 0.005C. 
Pressures were calculated using standard techniques combining wire out with 
unprotected thermometer data. In cases where the thermometers failed, pressures 
were estimated by thermometer data from adjacent bottles combined with wire out 
data. Because of the inherent error in pressure calculations and the finite 
flushing time required for the Gerard barrels, the assigned pressures have an 
uncertainty of approximately 10 db. The pressures recorded in the data set for 
each Gerard-Niskin pair generally differ by approximately 0.5 db with the Gerard 
pressure being the greater. This is because the Niskin is hung near the upper 
end of the Gerard. Figure 2 shows potential temperatures. pressure for the LV 
casts (1500m to bottom). Rosette data from the same stations and depth ranges 
are shown as connected small filled squares. The agreement is excellent for 
almost all data.

3.2 Salinity

Salinity samples were collected from each Gerard barrel and each piggyback 
Niskin bottle. Analyses were performed by the same personnel who ran the salt 
samples collected from the Rosette bottles so the analytical precision should be 
the same for LV salts and Rosette salt samples. When both Gerard and Niskin trip 
properly, the difference between the two salt measurements should be within the 
range 0.000 - 0.003 on the PSU scale. Somewhat larger differences can occur if 
the sea state is very calm and the cast is not "yoyo'ed" once the terminal wire 
out is reached. This difference is due to the flushing time required for the 
Gerard barrels and the degree of difference is a function of the salinity 
gradient where the sample was collected. In addition to providing primary 
hydrographic data for the LV casts, measured salinity values help confirm that 
the barrels closed at the desired depth. For the area covered by this leg, deep 
nutrient values (especially silicate) are as useful for trip confirmation as 
salt measurements due to the very low salt gradients.

Salinity samples were drawn into 200 ml Kimax high alumina borosilicate bottles 
after 3 rinses, and were sealed with plastic insert thimbles and Nalgene screw 
caps. This assembly provides very low container dissolution and sample 
evaporation. As loose inserts were found, they were replaced to ensure a 
continued airtight seal. Salinity was determined after a box of samples had 
equilibrated to laboratory temperature, usually within 8-12 hours of collection. 
The draw time and equilibration time, as well as per-sample analysis time and 
temperature were logged.

A single Guildline Autosal Model 8400A salinometer located in a temperature 
controlled laboratory was used to measure salinities. The salinometer was 
standardized for each cast with IAPSO Standard Seawater (SSW) Batch P-114 
(Stations 124-140) and Batch P-108 (Stations 141-220), using at least one fresh 
vial per cast. The estimated accuracy of bottle salinities run at sea is usually 
better than 0.002 PSU relative to the particular Standard Seawater batch used. 
PSS-78 salinity (UNESCO 1981) was then calculated for each sample from the 
measured conductivity ratios, and the results merged with the cruise database. 
There were some problems with lab temperature control throughout cruise; the 
Autosal bath temperature was adjusted accordingly. Salinities were generally 
considered good for the expedition despite the lab temperature problem and the 
use of two batches of SSW. Figure 3 shows potential temperature vs. salinity for 
the Gerard casts (1500m - bot-tom only). For comparison the CTD/Rosette data for 
the same stations and pressure range are plotted as connected small filled 
squares. In general the agreement between the Gerard- piggyback Niskin pairs is 
excellent as is agreement between the LV and CTD/Rosette casts.

3.3 Nutrients

Nutrient samples were collected from Gerard casts. On this leg silicate values 
were measured on all samples and phosphate and nitrate on selected samples. 
Nutrients collected from LV casts are frequently subject to systematic offsets 
from samples taken from Rosette bottles. For this reason it is recommended that 
these data be viewed primarily as a means of checking sample integrity (i.e. 
trip confirmation). The Rosette-Gerard discrepancy is frequently less for 
silicate than for other nutrients.

Nutrient samples were drawn into 45 ml high density polypropylene, narrow mouth, 
screw-capped centrifuge tubes which were rinsed three times before filling. 
Standardizations were performed with solutions prepared aboard ship from 
preweighed chemicals; these solutions were used as working standards before and 
after each cast to correct for instrumental drift during analysis. Sets of 4-6 
different concentrations of shipboard standards were analyzed periodically to 
determine the linearity of colorimeter response and the resulting correction 
factors.

Nutrient analyses were performed on a modified 4 channel Technicon AutoAnalyzer 
II, generally within one hour of the cast. Occasionally some samples were 
refrigerated at 2 to 6C for a maximum of 4 hours. The methods used are 
described by Gordon et al. (1992), Atlas et al. (1971), and Hager et al. (1972). 
All peaks were logged manually, and all the runs were re-read to check for 
possible reading errors.

Silicate was analyzed using the technique of Armstrong et al. (1967). ODF's 
methodology is known to be non-linear at high silicate concentrations (>120M); 
a correction for this non-linearity was applied. Phosphate was analyzed using a 
modification of the Bernhardt and Wilhelms (1967) technique.

Na2SiF6 , the silicate primary standard, was obtained from Fluka Chemical 
Company and Fischer Scientific and is reported by the suppliers to be >98% pure. 
Primary standards for phosphate, KH2PO4 , were obtained from Johnson Matthey 
Chemical Co. and the supplier reports purity of 99.999%.

Nutrients, reported in micromoles per kilogram, were converted from micromoles 
per liter by dividing by sample density calculated at zero pressure, in-situ 
salinity, and an assumed laboratory temperature of 25C. 258 silicate analyses 
were performed. No major problems were encountered with the measurements. Figure 
4 shows the LV cast silicate values plotted against potential temperature (1500m 
- bottom only). The Rosette cast measurements from the same stations and depth 
range are overlain as small filled connected squares. In general the agreement 
is good. The difference between most Gerard - Niskin pairs is approximately half 
the systematic LV - Rosette offset which is turn is approximately 2 mol/kg.

3.4 14 C

Most of the DELTA 14C values reported here have been distributed in data reports 
produced by Ostlund (1994, 1995) and by Stuiver (1994). Those reports included 
preliminary hydrographic data and are superseded by this submission.

All Gerard samples deemed to be "OK" on initial inspection were extracted for 14 
C analysis using the technique described by Key (1991). The extracted 14CO2/NaOH 
samples were returned to the Ocean Tracer Lab at Princeton and subsequently 
shipped to stlund's lab in Miami. Ostlund kept the P17S samples for analysis in 
his lab and forwarded those from P16S to Stuiver. Both 13C and delta14C 
measurements are performed on the same CO2 gas extracted from the large volume 
samples. All 13 C analyses were done in Stuiver's lab. The standard for the 14 C 
measurements is the NBS oxalic acid standard for radiocarbon dating. R-value is 
the ratio between the measured specific activity of the sample CO 2 to that of 
CO 2 prepared from the standard, the latter number corrected to a d 13 C value 
of -19 and age corrected from today to AD 1950 all according to the 
international agreement. DELTA 14C is the deviation in  from unity, of the 
activity ratio, isotope corrected to a sample d 13 C value of -25. For further 
information of these calculations and procedures see Broecker and Olson (1981), 
Stuiver and Robinson (1974) and Stuiver (1980). stlund's lab reports a 
precision of 4 for each measurement based on a long term average of counting 
statistics. Stuiver reports individual errors for each measurement based on 
counting statistics.

Of the 160 Gerard samples collected, 14 C has been measured on 152 (95%). This 
exceeds the rate funded for this work (80%).

Existing 14 C data for the area sampled on this cruise is limited to a few 
GEOSECS measurements and neighboring WOCE measurements. Comparison of these data 
sets indicates that they are in agreement to the precision of the measurements.

4.0 DATA SUMMARY

Figures 5-8 summarize the large volume 14 C data collected on this leg. AllDELTA 
14C measurements with a quality flag value of 2 are included in each figure. 
Figure 5 shows the DELTA 14C values plotted as a function of pressure (1000m - 
bottom only). One sigma error bars are shown. The most noticeable characteristic 
is the strong minimum in the 2000-2600dB range for all stations. Figure 6 shows 
Delta 14C values plotted against measured Gerard barrel silicate values. The 
backward checkmark shape is typical of other profiles measured in the South 
Pacific. Figure 7 is a coarse resolution machine contoured section of the 14 C 
distribution in the deep and bottom waters for the P16 portion of this leg 
(155W). The minimum increases in depth to the south, but otherwise the section 
is rather monotonous. The squiggle in the -170 near bottom contour is an 
artifact of the gridding (there are two few data for reasonable objective 
section gridding). Figure 8 is an objectively gridded section for the samples 
collected along the P17 portion of this leg. Additional AMS delta14C results 
were used in preparing this section, but the data points are omitted from the 
figure. The minimum along this longitude (135W) appears to be lower and 
slightly shallower than was seen for the P16C section. The near bottom values 
along P17 are somewhat lower than for P16, but most of this difference is 
probably due simply to bottom depth differences.

5.0 QUALITY CONTROL FLAG ASSIGNMENT

Quality flag values were assigned to all bottles and all measurements using the 
code defined in Tables 0.1 and 0.2 of WHP Office Report WHPO 91-1 Rev. 2 
sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 respectively. In this report the only bottle flag 
values used were 2, 3, 4 and 9. For the measurement flags values of 2, 3, 4, 5 
or 9 were assigned. The interpretation of measurement flag 9 is unambiguous, 
however the choice between values 2, 3 or 4 is involves some interpretation. For 
this data set, the salt and nutrient values were checked by plotting them over 
the same parameters taken from the Rosette at the same station. Points which 
were clearly outliers were flagged "4". Points which were somewhat outside the 
envelop of the other points were flagged "3". In cases where the entire cast 
seemed to be shifted to higher or lower concentrations (in nutrient values), but 
the values formed a smooth profile, the data was flagged as "2". Once the 
nutrient and salt data had been flagged, these results were considered in 
flagging the 14 C data. There is very little overlap between this data set and 
any existing 14 C data, so that type of comparison was impractical. In general 
the lack of other data for comparison led to a more lenient grading on the 14 C 
data.

When using this data set for scientific application, any 14 C datum which is 
flagged with a "3" should be carefully considered. My opinion is that any datum 
flagged "4" should be disregarded. When flagging 14 C data, the measurement 
error was taken into consideration. That is, approximately one-third of the 14 C 
measurements are expected to deviate from the true value by more than the 
measurement precision of ~4.

No measured values have been removed from this data set. When using this data 
set, it is advised that the nutrient data (with the exception of silicate) only 
be considered as a tool for judging the quality of the 14 C data regardless of 
the quality code value. A summary of all flags is provided in Table 2. Note that 
there may be some errors between assignment of flag value 5 (not reported) and 
flag value 9 (no sample collected).

TABLE 2.  P16S17S LV Quality Code Summary

                                  WHP Quality Codes
               Reported  ---------------------------------------
                 Levels   1    2    3   4   5   6   7   8    9
         -------------------------------------------------------
         BTLNBR   284     0   284   3  12   0   0   0   0     0
         SALNTY   284     0   272   5   3   4   0   0   0     0
         SILCAT   284     0   255   1   2  26   0   0   0   154
         NITRAT   150     0   150   0   0   0   0   0   0   134
         NITRIT   150     0   150   0   0   0   0   0   0   134
         PHSPHT   150     0   150   0   9   0   0   0   0   134
         REVPRS   284     0   284   0   0   0   0   0   0     0
         REVTMP   284     0   258   0   3  23   0   0   0    10
         DELC14   152     0   147   0   5   0   0   0   0   132(a)  
         ---------------------------------------------------------
                  (a) 14C large volume samples can not be
                      collected from piggyback Niskin bottles

6.0 REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

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

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

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

Brewer, P. G. and G. T. F. Wong, The determination and distribution of iodate 
    in  South Atlantic waters, Journal of Marine Research, 32, 1:25-36, 1974.

Broecker, W.S., and E.A. Olson, Lamont radiocarbon measurements VIII, 
    Radiocarbon, 3, 176-274, 1961.

Bryden, H. L., New polynomials for thermal expansion, adiabatic temperature  
    gradient, Deep-Sea Research, 20, 401-408, 1973.

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

Carter, D. J. T., (Third Edition), Echo-Sounding Correction Tables, 
    Hydrographic  Department, Ministry of Defense, Taunton Somerset, 1980.

Chen, C.-T. and F. J. Millero, Speed of sound in seawater at high pressures, 
    Journal Acoustical Society of America, 62(5), 1129-1135, 1977.

Culberson, C. H., Williams, R. T., et al, August, A comparison of methods for  
    the determination of dissolved oxygen in seawater, WHP Office Report WHPO  
    91-2, 1991.

Fofonoff, N. P., Computation of potential temperature of seawater for an  
    arbitrary reference pressure, Deep-Sea Research, 24, 489-491, 1977.

Fofonoff, N. P. and R. C. Millard, Algorithms for computation of fundamental  
    properties of seawater, UNESCO Report No. 44, 15-24, 1983.

Gordon, L. I., Jennings, Joe C. Jr., Ross, Andrew A., Krest, James M., A  
    suggested protocol for continuous flow automated analysis of seawater  
    nutrients in the WOCE Hydrographic Program and the Joint Global Ocean 
    Fluxes  Study, OSU College of Oceanography Descr. Chem. Oc. Grp. Tech. 
    Rpt. 92-1,  1992.

Hager, S. W., E. L. Atlas, L. D. Gordon, A. W. Mantyla, and P. K. Park, A  
    comparison at sea of manual and autoanalyzer analyses of phosphate, 
    nitrate,  and silicate, Limnology and Oceanography, 17, 931-937, 1972.

Key, R.M., Radiocarbon, in: WOCE Hydrographic Operations and Methods Manual, 
    WOCE Hydrographic Program Office Technical Report, 1991.

Key, R.M., D. Muus and J. Wells, Zen and the art of Gerard barrel maintenance, 
    WOCE Hydrographic Program Office Technical Report, 1991.

Lewis, E. L., The practical salinity scale 1978 and its antecedents, IEEE  
    Journal of Oceanographic Engineering, OE-5, 3-8, 1980.

Mantyla, A. W., 1982-1983. Private correspondence

Millero, F. J., C.-T. Chen, A. Bradshaw and K. Schleicher, A new high pressure  
    equation of state for seawater, Deep-Sea Research, 27A, 255-264, 1980.

Ostlund, G., WOCE Radiocarbon (Miami), Tritium Laboratory Data Release #94-11, 
    1994.

Ostlund, G., WOCE Radiocarbon (Miami) Remaining Sample Analyses, Tritium  
    Laboratory Data Release #95-39, 1995.

Saunders, P. M., Practical conversion of pressure to depth, Journal of 
    Physical  Oceanography, 11, 573-574, 1981.

Stuiver, M., and S.W. Robinson, University of Washington GEOSECS North 
    Atlantic  carbon-14 results, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 23, 87-90, 1974.

Stuiver, M., Workshop on 14 C data reporting, Radiocarbon, 3, 964-966, 1980.

Stuiver, M., WOCE Radiocarbon (Seattle), Quaternary Isotope Laboratory Data  
    Report, 1994.

Sverdrup, H. U., M. W. Johnson, and R. H. Fleming, The Oceans, Their Physics, 
    Chemistry and General Biology, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, 
    N.J.,  1942.

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

FIGURE LEGENDS: (see PDF version for figures)

Figure 1: P16S17S large volume station locations.

Figure 2: Large symbols are from Gerard casts (1500m - bottom only). CTD data 
          for same stations and

          pressure range is shown as small filled connected squares.

Figure 3: Theta vs. salinity for LV casts. CTD/Rosette data from the same 
          stations and pressure range is
          overlain as small filled connected squares.

Figure 4: Silicate vs. potential temperature for LV casts (1500m - bottom  
          only). Rosette measurements from the same stations and depth ranges 
          are shown as small filled  connected squares.

Figure 5: LV Delta 14C vs. pressure for Gerard samples collected at depths 
          below  1000dB. Vertical bars indicate 1s standard deviations.

Figure 6: DELTA 14C vs. silicate for LV samples collected at pressures greater  
          than 1000dB. The backwards checkmark shape is typical for the South  
          Pacific in areas north of the circumpolar circulation.

Figure 7: DELTA 14C section for LV samples collected along P16 (~155W). Due 
          to  the low number of data points on this section, a linear gridding  
          scheme was rather than an objective technique. The squiggle in the -
          170 near bottom contour is erroneous and due to the gridding 
          method.

Figure 8: DELTA 14C section for LV samples collected along P17 (~135W). In  
          addition to the LV data shown, AMS samples collected along this 
          track  were used in preparing this objectively gridded section (AMS 
          data not  shown).

D. Calibrated Pressure-Series CTD Data Processing Summary and Comments
   (Mary C. Johnson/ODF CTD Group)
   August 31, 1993
                                                  Oceanographic Data Facility
                                          Scripps Institution of Oceanography
                                                 UC San Diego, Mail Code 0214
                                                            9500 Gilman Drive
                                                     La Jolla, CA  92093-0214

                                                        phone: (619) 534-1906
                                                          fax: (619) 534-7383
                                                    e-mail: mary@odf.ucsd.edu

Notes:	
* A single CTD processing file was produced for TUNES Legs 1 and 2.  An ASCII 
  version is shown here as received from the author.  We are aware that the WHP 
  Office requires reformatting of methodology reports to match that required by 
  the office.  However, in this case such a massive reformatting is simply not 
  justified.  A PostScript version of the CTD report was also prepared, but   
  cannot be inserted into this report.

* The CTD processing document refers to four appendices (A-D).  These do not fit 
  the numbering scheme used by the WHPO for appendices.  However, they are 
  attached to this report in their original letter-order due to the frequent 
  references in this document.  The ASCII versions attached to this document are 
  inferior to the PostScript version, which contains electronically-imbedded 
  figures. 

D.1.	Introduction

In this document we discuss CTDO data acquisition, calibration, corrections, and 
other processing for the TUNES cruise, Legs 1 and 2, on the R/V Thomas 
Washington.  At various times during these legs, the CTD instruments and sensors 
exhibited more than the usual share of noise, drifts or other problems, making 
CTD data processing more challenging than usual.  We believe that we have 
greatly reduced the uncertainty in the final reported values via careful 
examination and application of the preand post-cruise calibrations, and by 
comparison of CTD data with the water sample and thermometric data collected 
during the CTD casts.  Our techniques and calibration data are discussed below.

D.2.	CTD Acquisition and Processing Summary

221 CTD casts and 4 test casts were completed during TUNES Legs 1 and 2.  The 
rosette used was an ODF-designed 36-bottle system with a ring of twelve 10-liter 
bottles and 12and 24-place General Oceanics pylons nested inside a ring of 
twenty-four 10-liter bottles.  A CTD, altimeter, pinger and transmissometer were 
mounted on the bottom of the frame.  ODF CTDs #1 and #2 (modified NBIS Mark III-
B instruments) were used during both Legs 1 and 2.  CTD #10 was used on Leg 2 
only.

Each ODF CTD acquired data at a maximum rate of 25 Hz.  The data consisted of 
pressure, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, second temperature, four 
CTD voltages, trip confirmation, transmissometer, altimeter and elapsed time.  
Power to the CTD was optimized by applying the minimum current to attain the CTD 
voltages required to maintain sensor stability.  These voltages were monitored 
throughout the cast.

An ODF-designed deck unit demodulated the FSK CTD signal to an RS-232 interface.  
The raw CTD data server allowed the data to be split into three different paths: 
to be logged in raw digitized form, to be monitored in real time as raw data, 
and to be processed and plotted.  During the TUNES expedition, an Integrated 
Solutions Inc. (ISI) Optimum V computer served as the real-time data acquisition 
processor.  Additionally, Sun SPARC computers were used during postcruise 
processing.

The raw CTD audio signal was recorded on VHS videotape as an ultimate back-up, 
and all raw binary data were logged on a hard disk and then backed up to 
magnetic cartridge tape.  In addition, all intermediate versions of processed 
data were backed up to magnetic cartridge tape.

CTD data processing consists of a sequence of steps which is modified as needed.  
Data can be re-processed from any point in this sequence after the raw data are 
acquired from the sea cable and recorded on videotape and/or hard disk.  Each 
CTD cast is assigned a correction file, and while the corrections are usually 
determined for groups of stations, it is possible to fine tune the parameters 
for even a single station.  The acquisition and processing steps are as follows:

 Data are acquired from the CTD sea cable and assembled into
  consecutive .04-second frames containing all data channels.  The
  data are converted to engineering units.

 The  raw  pressure,  temperature and conductivity data are passed
  through broad absolute value and gradient  filters  to  eliminate
  noisy  data.  The entire frame of raw data is omitted, as opposed
  to interpolating bad points, if any one of the filters is exceed-
  ed.  The filters may be adjusted as needed for each cast.
 
TYPICAL TUNES RAW DATA FILTERS

                 Raw Data     |         |         | Frame-to-Frame
                 Channel      | Minimum | Maximum |    Gradient   
                 -------------|---------|---------|---------------
                 Pressure     |   -40   |  6400   |    2.0 dbar   
                 -------------|---------|---------|---------------
                 Temperature  |   -8    |  32.7   | .2 to .6 deg.C
                 -------------|---------|---------|---------------
                 Conductivity |    0    | 64.355  | .3 to .6 mmho 

 Pressure and conductivity are phase-adjusted to match the
  temperature response, since the temperature sensor responds more
  slowly to change.  Conductivity data are corrected for ceramic
  compressibility in accordance with the NBIS Mark III-B Reference
  Manual.

 The data are averaged into 0.5-second blocks.  During this step,
  data falling outside four standard deviations from the mean are
  rejected and the average is recalculated.  Then data falling
  outside two standard deviations from the new mean are rejected,
  and the data are re-averaged.  The resulting averages, minus
  second temperature and CTD voltages, are reported as the
  0.5-second time series.  Secondary temperature data are used to
  verify the stability of the primary temperature channel
  calibration.  Secondary temperature data are only filtered,
  averaged and reported with the time-series data when they are
  used in place of the primary temperature data due to a sensor
  malfunction.

 Corrections are applied to the data.  The pressure data are
  corrected using laboratory calibration data with the procedure
  described in Appendix A (Delahoyde/Williams).  Temperature
  corrections, typically a quadratic correction as a function of
  temperature, are based on laboratory calibrations.  Conductivity
  and oxygen corrections are derived from water sample data.
  Conductivity corrections are typically a linear fit as a function
  of conductivity.  Oxygen data are corrected on an individual cast

The averaged data are recorded on hard disk and sent to the realtime display 
system, where the averaged data can be reported and plotted during a cast.  The 
averaging system also communicates with the CTD acquisition computer for 
detection of bottle trips, almost always occurring during the up casts.  A 3to 
4-second average of the CTD data is stored for each detected bottle trip.

A down-cast pressure-series data set is created from the time series by applying 
a ship-roll filter to the down-cast time-series data, then averaging the data 
within 2-dbar pressure intervals centered on the reported pressure.  The first 
few seconds of data for each cast are generally excluded from the averages due 
to sensor adjustment or bubbles during the in-water transition.  Pressure 
intervals with no time-series data can optionally be filled by doubleparabolic 
interpolation.  When the down-cast CTD data have excessive noise, gaps or 
offsets, the up-cast data are used instead.  CTD data from down and up casts are 
not mixed together in the pressure-series data because they do not represent 
identical water columns (due to ship movement, wire angles, etc.).

The CTD time series is always the primary CTD data record for the pressure,  
conductivity  and  temperature channels.  The final corrections to the CTD 
oxygen data are made  by  correcting  pressure-series CTD  oxygen  data  to 
match the up-cast oxygen water samples at common isopycnals.  The final CTDO 
pressure-series data are the data reported to the principal investigator and to 
the WHP Office.

Subsequent sections of this document discuss the laboratory calibrations, data 
processing and corrections for each CTD used during TUNES Legs 1 and 2.

D.3.	CTD Laboratory Calibrations

D.3.a	Pressure Transducer Calibration

Each CTD pressure transducer was calibrated in a temperaturecontrolled bath to 
the ODF Ruska deadweight-tester (DWT) pressure standards.  The mechanical 
hysteresis loading and unloading curves were measured both preand post-cruise at 
cold temperature (-1.0 to 0.1 degrees C bath) to a maximum of 8830 psi, and at 
warm temperature (29.4-30.2 degrees C bath) to a maximum of 1730-2030 psi.  The 
CTD-1 pre-cruise calibration also included a cold calibration to 2030 psi as 
well as a warm calibration to 8830 psi.

CTD #10 was not calibrated post-cruise because it flooded during Leg 2 and was 
modified during repair.  CTD #1 and CTD #2 had parts interchanged during Leg 2; 
these were put back in their original configurations before their post-cruise 
calibrations.

CTD preand post-cruise pressure calibrations are summarized in Figures 1, 2 and 3.

D.3.b	PRT Temperature Calibration

All CTD PRT temperature transducers were calibrated in a temperature-controlled 
bath.  CTD temperatures were compared with temperatures calculated from the 
resistance of a standard platinum resistance thermometer (SPRT) as measured by a 
NBIS ATB-1250 resistance bridge.  The ultimate temperature standards at ODF are 
water and diphenyl ether triple-point cells and a gallium cell.  Six or more 
calibration temperatures, spaced across the range of -2.0 to 30.2 degrees C, 
were measured both preand post-cruise.

CTD preand post-cruise temperature calibrations are summarized in Figures 4, 5 and 6.

D.4.	CTD Data Processing

D.4.a	Pressure, Temperature and Conductivity/Salinity Corrections

A maximum of 36 salinity and oxygen check samples were collected during each CTD 
cast.  Thermometric temperature data were also measured at 1 or 2 levels per 
cast for stations 183 through 220 on Leg 2.  No thermometric pressure data were 
collected.

A 3- to 4-second average of the CTD time-series data was calculated for each 
sample.  The resulting data were then used to verify the preand post-cruise 
temperature calibrations, and to derive CTD conductivity/salinity and oxygen 
corrections.

Two CTDs were traded off during the equatorial section of Leg 1 so that 11-
bottle rosette casts with LADCP could alternate with 36-bottle rosette casts.  
During Leg 2, there were numerous CTD problems and repair attempts that resulted 
in various sensors and interfaces being shifted from one instrument to another.  
The following chart clarifies which sensors were being used for any given cast 
on Leg 1 or Leg 2:

SUMMARY OF CTD SENSORS@ USED ON EACH PROCESSED TUNES CAST

CTD|Press.| Temp.  |Cond.|STATIONS                                     
---|------|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------
 1 |  1   |1/PRT-1 |  1  |Leg1: 1-75,84-96even,98/2,100-116even,118-123
   |      |        |     |Leg2: 124-133,182,189,193-220                
---|------|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------
 1 |  1   |1s/PRT-1|  1  |Leg1: 76-80,82                               
---|------|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------
 1 |  1   |1/PRT-1 | 1s  |Leg2: 134-136                                
---|------|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------
 1 |  1   |1/PRT-1 | 1.2 |Leg2: 190-192                                
---|------|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------
 2 |  2   |2/PRT-1 |  2  |Leg1: 81-97odd,98/4,99-117odd                
   |      |        |     |Leg2: 137-147                                
---|------|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------
 2 |  2   |2/PRT-2 |  2  |Leg2: 148-150,183-188                        
---|------|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------
10 |  10  |10/PRT-1| 10  |Leg2: 151-181                                
@ Exact Sensor Serial numbers appear below:

   CTD |          |   Temperature   |                                 
   ID# | Pressure | PRT-1 |  PRT-2  | Conductivity                    
   ----|----------|-------|---------|---------------------------------
    1  |  131910  | 14304 | FSI1319 | 5902-F117                       
   ----|          |       |         |---------------------------------
   1s  |          |       | FSI1320 | spare (ser.no.unknown)          
   ----|          |       |         |---------------------------------
   1.2 |          |       |         | 5902-F117 | CTD-2 Cond.interface
   ----|----------|-------|---------|---------------------------------
    2  |  110188  | 15766 |  10680  | 2172-G147                       
   ----|----------|-------|---------|---------------------------------
   10  |  55504   | 16185 |  16188  | 2932-H137                       

D.4.a.1	CTD Pressure Corrections

CTD #1

CTD #1 preand post-cruise pressure calibrations, Figures 1a/b and 1c, were 
compared.  The warm/shallow and cold/deep calibration curves both shifted by 
about 3 decibars from preto post-cruise.  The slopes of the warm/shallow 
pressure calibration curves were nearly identical.  The slopes of the cold/deep 
curves were slightly different:  shallower points were 1 decibar closer than 
deeper points from the two calibrations.  Thermometric pressures were not 
measured during either leg.

An average of the preand post-cruise pressure calibrations, Figure 1d, was 
calculated and applied to the CTD #1 pressure data from both legs.

CTD #2

CTD #2 preand post-cruise pressure calibrations, Figures 2a and 2b, were 
compared.  The warm/shallow and cold/deep calibration curves both shifted by 
about 8 decibars from preto post-cruise.  The slopes of the 2 sets of pressure 
calibration curves differed by a maximum of 1 decibar over 6000 decibars.  
Thermometric pressures were not measured during either leg.

CTD #2 surface raw pressure data were compared over the course of both legs to 
determine when the 8-decibar shift might have occurred. CTD #2 was used on Leg 1 
for each LADCP cast: every other station from 81 through 117.  There was no 
apparent shift in the surface raw pressures during this time:  all values, down 
or up cast, were within 1 decibar of each other at equatorial surface 
temperatures.  These raw pressures were approximately halfway between the preand 
post-cruise laboratory calibration values at similar temperatures.

The Leg 2 CTD #2 casts, stations 137-150 and 183-188, were also checked.  Down 
and up cast raw pressures were consistent and an average 2 decibars lower than 
the Leg 1 values, closer to the precruise calibration than Leg 1.  There was no 
shift in raw pressure values between stations 150 and 183.

The pre-cruise calibration was left in place for the CTD #2 pressure data on 
both legs because of negligible slope differences between preand post-cruise 
calibrations.  Any residual offset was compensated for automatically at each 
station: as the CTD enters the water, the corrected pressure is adjusted to 0 
decibars.

CTD #10

CTD #10 could not be calibrated post-cruise: the instrument flooded during the 
first/aborted cast at station 182 and was subjected to major repairs and 
adjustments after the cruise.  Any calibration data collected after this repair 
would not apply to the TUNES cruises.
Thermometric pressures were not measured during Leg 2.  The precruise pressure 
calibration, Figure 3, remained in effect for the CTD #10 data on Leg 2.

D.4.a.2	CTD Temperature Corrections

CTD #1

CTD #1 had two temperature sensors: PRT-1 was calibrated preand post-cruise; 
PRT-2 was only calibrated pre-cruise and was used to check for PRT-1 drift 
during the cruise.  A comparison of the preand post-cruise laboratory CTD #1 
PRT-1 temperature transducer calibrations, Figures 4a and 4b, showed two curves 
with nearly identical slopes and a +.0025 deg.C temperature shift in the range 
of 0 to 32 deg.C.  An average of the two laboratory calibrations, Figure 4c, was 
applied to the CTD #1 temperature data.

Thermometric temperature data from Leg 2, stations 189 through 220, were 
compared to the calibrated CTD #1 temperature data.  The average difference 
between thermometric data and final calibrated CTD data was 0+/-.0005 deg.C, in 
good agreement with the average laboratory calibration used.

CTD #2

CTD #2 also had two temperature sensors, each calibrated preand post-cruise, 
Figures 5a/b (PRT-1) and 5c/d (PRT-2).  PRT-1, the primary sensor, shifted an 
average +.044 deg.C between calibrations; PRT-2, the secondary sensor, shifted 
an average -.011 deg.C.  The slopes also shifted by about .004 deg.C each over 
the 30 deg.C temperature range of the calibrations.  The PRT-1 minus PRT-2 
difference changed by +.055 deg.C between calibrations at both cold and warm 
temperatures.

CTD #2 Laboratory Temperature Calibrations

      CTD #2 | Lab.Calib. | Std.-CTD|T (deg.C) |  Change   | Avg. Change
      Sensor |   Temp.    | Pre-crs | Post-crs | in Corrxn |  in CTD T  
      -------|------------|---------|----------|-----------|------------
      PRT-1  | 0 degC     | -1.486  |  -1.528  |   -.042   |            
             |------------|---------|----------|-----------|            
             | 30 degC    | -1.496  |  -1.542  |   -.046   |    +.044   
      -------|------------|---------|----------|-----------|------------
      PRT-2  | 0 degC     | -1.497  |  -1.484  |   +.013   |            
             |------------|---------|----------|-----------|            
             | 30 degC    | -1.495  |  -1.486  |   +.009   |    -.011   

PRT-1 drifting was first noticed during Leg 2, station 149, as a possible 
conductivity problem; PRT-1 temperature offsets as large as +.7 deg. C were 
noted during station 150.  After CTD #10 flooded and CTD #1 was under repair for 
continuing conductivity noise problems, CTD #2 was used again for stations 183-
188.  The secondary sensor was used for CTD temperature data during these casts, 
and DSRT thermometer data were collected to monitor any PRT-2 sensor drifting 
problems.

The two PRTs were monitored shipboard to check for drifting or other problems.  
At first glance, PRT-1 appeared to be stable throughout the Leg 1 casts for 
which it was used; but PRT-1 minus PRT-2 differences had already shifted by 
approximately +.007 deg.C compared to the pre-cruise calibration.  Either sensor 
could have shifted in its preto post-cruise direction to cause this change, 
which was 3 times the WOCE standard.

The two PRTs were compared by lagging the faster PRT-1 raw temperature data by 
.15 seconds to match the PRT-2 raw data.  PRT-1 minus PRT-2 differences were 
tabulated for Leg 1 and Leg 2 CTD #2 casts to determine when temperature shifts 
occurred.  The PRT-1 data was too unstable to use for the comparison beginning 
with station 148. The results of the comparison are as follows:

CTD #2 PRT-1 vs PRT-2 Comparisons

                          |   Avg. PRT-1|minus PRT-2   |             
          Stations        | Warm/27degC | Cold/1.5degC | Avg. Change 
          ----------------|-------------|--------------|-------------
          Pre-crs calib.  |   +.001     |    -.011     |      -      
          ----------------|-------------|--------------|-------------
          Leg1,81-117     |   +.0075    |    -.0035    |   +.0070    
          ----------------|-------------|--------------|-------------
          Leg2,137-147    |   +.0285    |    +.0185    |   +.0215    
          ----------------|-------------|--------------|-------------
          Post-crs calib. |   +.056     |    +.044     |   +.0265    

The above comparison is only helpful if it can be determined when each PRT 
shifted.  Two thermometric temperature points per cast were measured on stations 
183-188 as a calibration check for PRT-2.  The DSRT vs. PRT-2 comparisons 
indicate agreement with the post-cruise PRT-2 calibration.  The average residual 
DSRT-CTD difference after applying the post-cruise calibration is +.0034 deg.C, 
the closest difference possible using either of the lab calibrations, or even a 
combination of the two.

PRT-2 had clearly shifted to the post-cruise temperature calibration by stations 
183-188, and corrections were applied accordingly.  The rest of the temperature 
corrections were determined from this information, combined with clues provided 
by an apparently stable CTD #2 conductivity sensor.

In an attempt to clarify when each sensor shifted, the CTD #2 data from Leg 1 
and Leg 2 were block-averaged two ways: using PRT-1 or PRT-2 temperature data to 
calculate CTD salinity.  PRT-2-based salinity corrections for stations 150/183 
were comparable using the post-cruise temperature calibration.  Using this same 
PRT-2 calibration for stations 137-150 also showed a smooth salinity picture, 
indicating that PRT-2 had shifted to its post-cruise calibration by the start of 
Leg 2.

PRT-2 was used for the primary temperature data for stations 148-150 based on 
major shifts in conductivity slopes from 147 to 148 when PRT-1 temperature data 
were used, and because of PRT-1 temperature shifts observed during stations 149-
150.  PRT-2 was not located as near to the conductivity sensor as PRT-1, so it 
generated noisier CTD salinity data: it was measuring slightly different water 
and could not be matched properly to the conductivity sensor response. Because 
of this, PRT-1 was used for all CTD #2 data prior to station 148, before it 
began to malfunction.

The PRT-1 minus PRT-2 difference was used to determine the Leg 2 PRT-1 
calibration for stations 137-147.  The pre-cruise calibration was used, with an 
offset, because the strange behavior of PRT-1 beginning at station 148 could 
have affected the post-cruise calibration slope and it would not apply to 
earlier casts.  The average preto post-cruise calibration drift for PRT-2 was -
.011 deg.C; the average PRT-1 minus PRT-2 change from pre-cruise to stations 
137-147, for cold or warm temperatures, was .0285 deg.C.  As PRT-2 drifted 
lower, increasing the difference by .011, PRT-1 had to drift higher; so the PRT-
1 pre-cruise calibration curve was decreased by -.0175 deg.C for stations 137-
147.  A smooth salinity correction for the PRT-1/PRT-2 transition at stations 
147-148 verified this decision.

The Leg 1 PRT-1 minus PRT-2 differences shifted an average +.0075 deg.C, cold or 
warm, compared to the pre-cruise calibrations.  No thermometer data was 
collected during this leg to verify which PRT(s) had changed since the pre-
cruise calibration.  Salinity differences from the last CTD #2 casts of Leg 1 
and the first CTD #2 casts from Leg 2 were compared.  When the Leg 1 PRT-1 
temperatures were corrected with the pre-cruise calibration and a -.0075 deg.C 
offset, the Leg 1/Leg 2 salinity differences were within .003 psu, a normal 
shift after any CTD has been on-deck and sitting idle for several weeks. This 
PRT-1 correction, which assumes that PRT-2 did its entire shift between Legs 1 
and 2, was used for all CTD #2 casts on Leg 1.

After Leg 2 conductivity/salinity corrections were calculated, there was up to a 
+.005 psu residual surface salinity offset for stations 143-147, indicative of 
an earlier PRT-1 problem than previously thought.  Two options were considered: 
use PRT-2 for temperature or use PRT-1 with an additional first-order T 
correction. Because of the noisy salt signal that results from using PRT-2, it 
was decided to use the added first-order T correction to PRT-1 for stations 143-
147.  This gave the best deep T/S data while pulling in the surface differences. 
A summary of the origin and correction of CTD #2 temperature  data  is listed 
below:

CTD #2 Temperature Correction Summary

      |                   | CTD #2 | Laboratory  | Calibration          
 Leg# | Stations          |  PRT#  | Calib. Used | Adjustment           
 -----|-------------------|--------|-------------|----------------------
  1   | 81-117odd + 98-4  | PRT-1  | Pre-cruise  | -.0075 offset        
 -----|-------------------|--------|-------------|----------------------
  2   | 137-142           | PRT-1  | Pre-cruise  | -.0175 offset        
 -----|-------------------|--------|-------------|----------------------
  2   | 143-147           | PRT-1  | Pre-cruise  | -.0175 offset plus   
      |                   |        |             | 1st-order T(T) corrxn
 -----|-------------------|--------|-------------|----------------------
  2   | 148-150 + 183-188 | PRT-2  | Post-cruise | None                 

CTD #10

CTD #10 had two temperature sensors, both calibrated pre-cruise only.  CTD #10 
could not be calibrated post-cruise: the instrument flooded during the 
first/aborted cast at station 182 and was subjected to major repairs and 
adjustments after the cruise.  Any calibration data collected after this repair 
would not apply to the TUNES cruises.

No thermometric temperatures were measured for this CTD.  The PRT-1 minus PRT-2 
difference shifted -.002 deg.C from the pre-cruise laboratory calibration, 
Figures 6a/b, to the first TUNES CTD #10 cast. The PRT difference changed by a 
maximum -.002 deg.C from the first to the last CTD #10 cast (stations 151-181).  
The conductivity correction shifted by more than .04 psu during this same time, 
a change 20 times greater than the PRT differences could account for.  The pre-
cruise calibration notes for CTD #10 indicated that PRT-2 was unstable, so it 
was assumed that any shift in the PRT difference was due to changes in PRT-2.  
The pre-cruise PRT-1 temperature calibration, Figure 6a, remained in effect for 
the CTD #10 data on Leg 2.

D.4.a.3	CTD Conductivity Corrections

In order to calibrate CTD conductivity, check-sample conductivities were 
calculated from the bottle salinities using CTD pressures and temperatures.  For 
each cast, the differences between sample and CTD conductivities at all 
pressures were fit to CTD conductivity using a linear least-squares fit.  Values 
greater than 2 standard deviations from the fits were rejected.  The resulting 
conductivity correction slopes were plotted as a function of station number.  
The conductivity slopes were grouped by stations, based on common PRT and 
conductivity sensor combinations, and then fit as a function of station number 
to generate smoothed slopes for each group. These smoothed slopes were either 
averages of the slopes in the station group (0-order) or changing by a fixed 
amount from station to station (1st-order).

Conductivity differences were then calculated for each cast after applying the 
preliminary conductivity slope corrections.  Residual conductivity offsets were 
computed for each cast and fit to station number.  Smoothed offsets were 
determined by groups as above, based on common PRT and conductivity sensor 
combinations.  The resulting smoothed offsets were then applied to the data.  
Then conductivity slope as a function of conductivity was re-checked: no changes 
were warranted.

Some offsets were manually adjusted to account for discontinuous shifts in the 
conductivity transducer response, or to insure a consistent deep T-S 
relationship from station to station.

Leg 1

CTD #1 and #2 were both used on Leg 1 without any apparent conductivity 
problems.  They were mounted on different rosettes and used for opposite casts 
during the equatorial stations to allow for adequate sampling time on the larger 
rosette without loss of ship time.  CTD #1 was on the 36-place rosette, while 
CTD #2 was on a 12-place rosette with the LADCP.  Plots of the final Leg 1 
conductivity slopes and offsets can be found in Figures 7a and 8a.

Leg 1 Conductivity Correction Summary

Stations       | CTD# |       Cond.Slopes       |       Cond.Offsets@      
---------------|------|-------------------------|--------------------------
1-3            |  1   |       +3.4450e-4        |         +9.337e-3        
---------------|------|-------------------------|--------------------------
4-9            |  1   |       +3.4450e-4        |        +1.0837e-2        
---------------|------|-------------------------|--------------------------
9-30           |  1   |       +3.4450e-4        | -2.2706e-4*sta +1.3643e-2
---------------|------|-------------------------|--------------------------
31-67          |  1   |       +3.4450e-4        | +4.9702e-5*sta +3.0220e-3
---------------|------|-------------------------|--------------------------
68-96even,     |  1   |       +3.4450e-4        |        +7.7941e-3        
98/2,          |      |                         |                          
100-116even,   |      |                         |                          
118-123        |      |                         |                          
---------------|------|-------------------------|--------------------------
81-117odd,98/4 |  2   | -1.12e-5*sta +1.7936e-3 | +3.6617e-4*sta -7.2150e-2

@ individual stations were adjusted after this for conductivity sensor shifting 
  or to insure a consistent deep T-S relationship from cast to cast.

Leg 2

During Leg 2, the CTD #1 conductivity sensor had downcast noise problems of .005 
psu or larger beginning with station 133.  The conductivity sensor was switched 
out for a spare before station 134, but the problem continued and actually 
tripled in size by station 136. Other CTDs were used until CTD #2's PRT problems 
and CTD #10's flooding problems required trying CTD #1 again, with its original 
conductivity sensor, at station 182; the noise problem continued.  CTD #2 was 
again used for several stations until it locked up.

CTD #1 was brought back on line at station 189 as a mixture of parts from CTDs 
#1 and #2.  Following numerous repair attempts and part switching, the culprit 
was discovered to be a coating on the PRT/Conductivity sensor guard that was 
flaking off and flapping in front of the sensor on the downcasts.  The coating 
was removed and there were no more noise problems beginning with station 197.  
Because of severe conductivity noise problems on their downcasts, the upcasts 
were used for stations 133-136, 182, and 189-196. Plots of the final Leg 2 
conductivity slopes and offsets can be found in Figures 7b and 8b.

Leg 2 Conductivity Correction Summary

         | Conduct.  |       Conductivity        |       Conductivity       
Stations | Sensor ID |          Slopes           |         Offsets@         
---------|-----------|---------------------------|--------------------------
124-133  |     1     |        +2.2324e-4         | +4.2845e-4*sta -4.8951e-2
---------|-----------|---------------------------|--------------------------
134-136  |    1s     | -1.8377e-4*sta -1.3375e-2 | +6.5794e-3*sta -8.7711e-1
---------|-----------|---------------------------|--------------------------
137-147  |     2     | -2.5674e-5*sta +3.7912e-3 | +1.4006e-3*sta -2.1403e-1
---------|-----------|---------------------------|--------------------------
148-150, |     2     | +2.9952e-6*sta -1.0495e-4 | -1.0969e-4*sta -1.9537e-3
183-188  |           |                           |                          
---------|-----------|---------------------------|--------------------------
151-181  |    10     | -1.1894e-5*sta +2.2683e-3 | +2.0299e-4*sta -3.1279e-2
---------|-----------|---------------------------|--------------------------
182,189, |     1     | +1.6366e-5*sta -3.7327e-3 | -5.0723e-4*sta +1.1454e-1
193-196  |           |                           |                          
---------|-----------|---------------------------|--------------------------
190-192  |    1.2    | +2.0127e-4*sta +1.0515e-2 |  -6.59775e-3*sta +1.2534 
---------|-----------|---------------------------|--------------------------
197-220  |     1     |        -6.5218e-4         |        +8.19092e-3       

@ individual stations were adjusted after this for conductivity sensor 
  shifting or to insure a consistent deep T-S relationship from cast to cast.

D.4.b	Bottle vs. CTD Conductivity Statistical Summary

The TUNES calibrated bottle-minus-CTD conductivity statistics include bottle 
salinity values with quality 3 or 4.  There is approximately a 1:1 
correspondence between conductivity and salinity residual differences.  The 
following statistical results were generated from the final bottle data set and 
the final corrected CTD data:

TUNES Final Bottle-CTD Conductivity Statistics

         |                 |  mean conductivity   |           |        
 cruise  |    pressure     |      difference      | standard  | #values
   leg   |  range(dbars)   | (bottle-CTD mmho/cm) | deviation | in mean
 --------|-----------------|----------------------|-----------|--------
 TUNES-1 | all pressures   |      -.00053@@       |   .01357  |  3819  
         | allp (4,2rej) @ |       .00033         |   .00365  |  3566  
         |-----------------|----------------------|-----------|--------
         | press < 1500    |      -.00077         |   .01741  |  2230  
         | p<1500(4,2rej)@ |       .00040         |   .00609  |  2081  
         |-----------------|----------------------|-----------|--------
         | press > 1500    |      -.00019@@@      |   .00412  |  1589  
         | p>1500(4,2rej)@ |       .00012         |   .00128  |  1527  
 --------|-----------------|----------------------|-----------|--------
 TUNES-2 | all pressures   |       .00013@@       |   .03991  |  3449  
         | allp (4,2rej) @ |       .00003         |   .00355  |  3310  
         |-----------------|----------------------|-----------|--------
         | press < 1500    |       .00016         |   .05191  |  2036  
         | p<1500(4,2rej)@ |      -.00012         |   .00566  |  1953  
         |-----------------|----------------------|-----------|--------
         | press > 1500    |       .00007@@@      |   .00242  |  1413  
         | p>1500(4,2rej)@ |      -.00010         |   .00084  |  1359  

  @ "4,2rej" means a 4,2 standard-deviation rejection filter was applied to 
    the differences before generating the results.  
 @@ Plots of these differences can be found in Figures 9a and 9b. 
@@@ Plots of these differences can be found in Figures 10a and 10b.

D.4.c.	CTD Dissolved Oxygen Data

D.4.c.1	CTD Oxygen Corrections

Dissolved oxygen data were acquired using Sensormedics dissolved oxygen sensors.  
During TUNES Legs 1 and 2, two oxygen sensors were used.  Sensor A was used with 
all CTDs for every station except 188-192, where it was temporarily replaced 
with sensor B because of oxygen signal problems.

CTD oxygen data are corrected after pressure, temperature and conductivity 
corrections have been determined.  CTD raw oxygen currents were extracted from 
the pressure-series data at isopycnals corresponding to the up-cast check 
samples.  Most pressure-series data were from the down casts, where oxygen data 
are usually smoother than up-cast data because of the more constant lowering 
rate, avoiding the flow-dependence problems occurring at up-cast bottle stops.  
However, the TUNES CTD oxygen data were affected with flow-dependence problems, 
down or up cast, each time a cast was stopped for several minutes around 20 
decibars to activate/de-activate the heave compensator.

The CTD oxygen correction coefficients were determined by applying a modified 
Levenberg-Marquardt nonlinear least squares fitting procedure to residual 
differences between CTD and bottle oxygen values.  Bottle oxygen values were 
weighted as required to optimize the fitting of CTD oxygen to discrete bottle 
samples.  Some bottle levels were omitted from a fit because of large pressure 
differences between downand up-cast CTD data at isopycnals.  Deep data points 
were often weighted more heavily than shallower data due to the higher density 
of shallow sampling on a typical 36-bottle sampling scheme.

The TUNES surface oxygen data fitting was adversely affected by the long heave 
compensator stop which, combined with the typical going-in-water bubbles/noise, 
made it difficult to fit CTD oxygens to the bottle data in the surface mixed 
layer of many casts.

Bottle vs. CTD Oxygen Statistical Summary

The CTD oxygens are generated by fitting up cast oxygen bottle data to down cast 
CTD raw oxygen (microamps) measurements along isopycnals.  Residual oxygen 
differences are not generated from these comparisons, so no comparison 
statistics are shown in this report.

D.4.d	Additional Processing

A software filter was used on 36 Leg1 casts and 40 Leg2 casts to remove 
conductivity or temperature spiking problems in about 0.1% of the time-series 
data frames.  Pressure did not require filtering.  A fourth of the T/C spiking 
problems occurred in station 182, and another fourth were concentrated in the 
CTD-2/PRT-2 casts, where the distance between the secondary PRT and the 
conductivity sensor resulted in poor signal matchup in high-gradient areas.

Oxygen spikes were filtered out of 2 Leg1 casts and 91 Leg2 casts; software 
improvements prior to the Leg2 oxygen processing enabled this large difference 
in oxygen filtering.  The filtered oxygen levels affected approximately 2.5% of 
the time-series data frames.  76% of the filtered oxygen data were shallower 
than 100 dbars and could be directly related to the stop at the heave 
compensator activation/de-activation, or bubbles trapped during the going-in-
water transition.

The remaining density inversions in high-gradient regions cannot be accounted 
for by a mis-match of pressure, temperature and conductivity sensor response.  
Detailed examination of the raw data shows significant mixing occurring in these 
areas because of ship roll.  The ship-roll filter resulted in a reduction in the 
amount and size of density inversions.

After filtering, the down cast (or up cast see table below) portion of each 
time-series was pressure-sequenced into 2-decibar pressure intervals.  A ship-
roll filter was applied to each cast during pressure sequencing to disallow 
pressure reversals.  The heave compensator installed on the R/V Washington 
decreased the magnitude of shiproll effects to a level comparable to 
Melville/Knorr CTD casts.

D.4.e	General Comments/Problems

There is one pressure-sequenced CTD data set, to near the ocean floor, for each 
of 221 casts at 220 station locations.  There was an extra CTD cast at station 
98, the equator station for Leg 1, to collect LADCP data.  There were four 
additional equipment test casts, plus four casts aborted because of various CTD 
problems; these were neither processed nor reported.  Another CTD cast was done 
immediately after any aborted cast at the same location.

The data reported is from down casts, excepting the stations listed below:

UP-CAST PRESSURE-SERIES DATA REPORTED

           Leg# | Station(s)          | Problem with Down Cast Data
           -----|---------------------|----------------------------
            1   | 16                  | VCR-operator error 800-1100
                |                     | dbar down, data not record-
                |                     | ed/lost; up ok             
           -----|---------------------|----------------------------
            2   | 133-136,182,189-196 | Conductivity sensor guard  
                |                     | coating flaking off, caus- 
                |                     | ing noisy conductivity sig-
                |                     | nal on down casts, much    
                |                     | less noise on up casts.    
                |                     | Problem resolved before    
                |                     | station 197.               

The 0-2 decibar level(s) of some casts were extrapolated using a quadratic fit 
through the next three deeper levels.  Recorded surface values were rejected 
only when it appeared that the drift was caused by sensors adjusting to the in-
water transition; if there were any question that the that the surface values 
might be real, the original data was reported.  Extrapolated surface levels are 
identified by a count of "1" in the "Number of Raw Frames in Average" reported 
with each data record on the tapes.

Several shipboard time-series data sets had areas of missing or noisy data.  
These casts were recovered by re-digitizing the raw signal from analog tape.  
The top 8 db of one Leg1 cast and 4 nonsurface data levels in 2 Leg2 casts were 
interpolated.  The pressures for these interpolated data frames as well as other 
cast-by-cast shipboard or processing comments are listed in the "CTD Processing 
Comments" in Appendix D.  All interpolated data levels have a count of "1" in 
the "Number of Raw Frames in Average" column in the data files.

In addition, missing data values, such as CTD oxygens in casts where the sensor 
failed, are represented as "-9" in the data files. There were two casts 
(stations 183-184) where the oxygen signal failed only during the top 200 
decibars; these are not reported as "-9", but the affected pressures are listed 
in Appendix D.

The CTD oxygen sensor often requires several seconds in the water before being 
wet enough to respond properly; this is manifested as low or high CTD oxygen 
values at the start of some casts.  Flow-dependence problems occur when the 
lowering rate varies, or when the CTD is stopped, as at the cast bottom, bottle 
trips or the heave-compensator activation, where depletion of oxygen at the 
sensor causes lower oxygen readings.  Station 133 oxygen data demonstrate a 
typical oxygen depletion effect at each bottle stop.  Delays and yoyos during 
the casts are documented in Appendix D.

D.4.f	Assignment of WHPO Quality Bytes for CTDO data
(Lynne Talley and Jeff Bytof)

1. Pressure:	
All are flagged 2, even though very very few reversing thermometers were used so 
there was no in situ calibration against bottles.  The assumption is that this 
flag really means quality of the lab calibration.

2. Temperature:	
All good values are flagged 2, as per comment 1.  Despiking was accomplished on 
the time series and not on the pressure series.  Therefore interpolations 
through spikes typically affected only a portion of a 2 dbar pressure bin, or 
portions of adjacent bins.  Since the only flagging which is suggested for use 
is either "correct" or "interpolated", we have flagged all pressure bins in 
which despiking was done as "6", for interpolated.  It should be noted though 
that there may be many good frames of data in the interpolated values.

3. Salinity:	
Same comment with regard to interpolation.  If a temperature was despiked, then  
salinity was flagged as interpolated, "6".   Then the additional levels for 
which conducitivity  was despiked were flagged as interpolated, "6". There are 
no "bad" values, only interpolated.

4. Oxygen:
A.	Because a heave compensator was used for the top 18-20 dbar of each cast, 
at the end of which there was an extensive wait while the compensator was being 
turned off, all oxygens above this pressure are flagged as "3" (questionable).

B.	The oxygen sensor cut out on stations 125, 183 and 184.  These values are 
flagged as "4" (bad).  The sensor continued to cause problems on subsequent 
stations (noise flagged 3).  There are no recorded oxygens for stations 189-192.

                      sta 183:    0-118  flag 4
                                120-140  flag 3
                      sta 184:    0-78   flag 4
                      sta 186: 1190-1544 flag 3 (noisy)
                      sta 187:    0-1658 flag 3 (noisy)
                      sta 188:  900-1550 flag 3 (noisy)
                      sta 189-192:       -9 for all O2

C.	Any other oxygens which were indicated as having been despiked were 
flagged as "6" (interpolated). except on 186,187,188 where all despikes were 
flagged "3" because of general problems with the sensor.

D.4.g	Acknowledgements

The collection of high quality data at sea rests upon the united capabilities 
and actions of too many people to individually acknowledge.  Special note must 
be made of the high quality, professionalism, and enthusiasm of Captain 
Arsenault, his officers, and crew.  Their accomplishments were made possible the 
extraordinary support for this expedition provided by the SIO Marine Facitities 
Group.  With this combination, the success of this expedition was assured.  The 
scientific party was a joy to work with, and each program owes part of its 
success to the comradie and selfless assistance provided by others.  I am 
grateful to my program officers at the National Science Foundation not only for 
their support, supplied for the principal physical oceanography program via 
grants OCE-9002483 and OCE-8918961, but also for their advice, encouragement, 
and patience.  Additional support was received from other agencies, and is 
listed in the investigator list.  This report was prepared with much assistance 
from Kristin Sanborn, Ben Crane, and Kim Coles.

D.4.h	References and Uncited Supporting Documentation

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

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

Bernhardt, H. and A. Wilhelms, 1967. The continuous determinaion of low level 
    iron, soluble phosphate and total phosphate with the AutoAnalyzer. Technicon 
    Symposia, Volume I, 385-389.

Brewer, P.G. and G.T.F. Wong, 1974. The determination and distribution of iodate 
    in South Atlantic waters. Journal of Marine Research, 32,1:25-36.

Bryden, H.L., 1973. New Polynomials for Thermal Expansion, Adiabatic Temperature 
    Gradient. Deep-Sea Research 20, 401-408.

Bullister, J.L. and R.F. Weiss. (1988) Determination of CCl3F and CCl2F2 in 
    seawater and air. Deep-Sea Research, 35, 839-853.

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

Carter, D.J.T., 1980 (Third Edition). Echo-Sounding Correction Tables. 
    Hydrographic Department, Ministry of Defence, Taunton Somerset.

Chen, C.-T. and F.J. Millero, 1977. Speed of sound in seawater at high  
    pressures. Journal Acoustical Society of America, Volume 62, No. 5, 1129-
    1135.

Culberson, C.H., Williams, R.T., et al,August, 1991. A comparison of methods for 
    the determination of dissolved oxygen in seawater. WHP Office Report WHPO 
    91-2.

Fofonoff, N.P., 1977. Computation of Potential Temperature of Seawater for an 
    Arbitrary Reference Pressure. Deep-Sea Research 24, 489-491.

Fofonoff, N.P. and R.C. Millard, 1983. Algorithms for Computation of Fundamental 
    Properties of Seawater. UNESCO Report No. 44, 15-24.

Hager, S.W., E.L. Atlas, L.D. Gordon, A.W. Mantyla, and P.K. Park, 1972. A 
    comparison at sea of manual and autoanalyzer analyses of phosphate, nitrate, 
    and silicate. Limnology and Oceanography 17, 931-937.

Joyce, T., C. Corry, and M. Stalcup, 1991. "WOCE Operations Manual, Volume 3: 
    The Observational Programme, Section 3.1: WOCE Hydrographic Programme, Part 
    3.1.2: Requirements for WHP Data Reporting", Rev. 1. WHP Office Report WHPO 
    90- 1, WOCE Report No. 67/91, 1991.

Lewis, E.L., 1980. The Practical Salinity Scale 1978 and Its Antecedents.  IEEE 
    Journal of Oceanographic Engineering, OE-5, 3-8.

Mantyla, A.W., 1982-1983. Private correspondence.

Millero, F.J., C.-T. Chen, A. Bradshaw and K. Schleicher, 1980. A New High 
    Pressure Equation of State for Seawater. Deep-Sea Research 27A, 255-264.

Saunders, P.M., 1981. Practical Conversion of Pressure to Depth. Journal of 
    Physical Oceanography 11, 573-574.

Sverdrup, H.U., M.W. Johnson, and R.H. Fleming, 1942. The Oceans, Their Physics, 
    Chemistry and General Biology, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliff, N.J.

UNESCO, 1981. Background papers and supporting data on the Pracical Salinity  
    Scale, 1978. UNESCO Technical Papers in Marine Science, No. 37, 144 p.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: DATA COMMENTS (routine hydrography)
            (Kristin Sanborn, SIO/ODF)

     Remarks for deleted or missing samples  from  WOCE  Pacific  91  P17S,
     P16S.  Investigation of data may include comparison of bottle salinity
     and oxygen with CTD data, review of data plots of station profile  and
     adjoining  stations,  rereading  of  charts (ie. nutrients).  Comments
     from the Sample Logs and ODF's results of investigation  are  included
     in  this  report.   Each  station  number is shown  as a header,  with
     concatenated  cast/sample number  (i.e., 101 = cast 1,  bottle 01) for
     each comment.

     Station 124
     1all           Nutrients:  Bubbles  were  coming through NO2 and PO4,
                    either a valve was partly stopped-up or a leak  in  the
                    NO2 sample tube.

     101  @   1db   Sample log: "Top valve not closed."  Samples appear to
                    be okay.

     108 @ 181db    Sample log: "Leaking, open end top and bottom  leaked."
                    Samples appear to be okay.

     113  @  454db  Sample log: "Top valve leak."  PO4 low see 1all com-
                    ment. Other samples appear to be  okay.   Footnote  po4
                    bad, rerun of po4 agrees with original -.01.

     120  @1392db   PO4  unreasonably  low.  See  1all Nutrients comment.
                    Footnote po4 bad, ODF recommends deletion.

     121 @1581db    PO4  unreasonably  low.  See  1all  Nutrients  comment.
                    Footnote po4 bad, ODF recommends deletion.

     129  @2989db   PO4  unreasonably  high.  See  1all Nutrients comment.
                    Footnote po4 bad, ODF recommends  deletion.   Rerun  of
                    po4 agrees with original -.02.

     130  @3185db   PO4  unreasonably  high.  See  1all Nutrients comment.
                    Footnote po4 bad, ODF recommends  deletion.   Rerun  of
                    po4 agrees with original -.02.

     132 @3692db    Sample log: "No samples drawn."  No samples drawn, rea-
                    son not in sample log.

     133 @3692db    PO4  unreasonably  high.  See  1all Nutrients comment.
                    Footnote po4 bad, ODF recommends  deletion.

     135 @4305db    Sample log: "Cracked stopcock."  Samples agree with CTD
                    profile and adjoining station.

     136  @4562db   Sample log: "Small stopcock leak."  Samples agree with
                    CTD profile and adjoining station.

     

     Station 125

     101 @   0db    Sample log: "Missed top valve; leaked."   Salinity  and
                    oxygen agree with CTD, other samples appear to be okay.

     128 @2976db    Salt missing. Sample depleted while experiencing  radio
                    interference.

     Station 126

     106  @  137db  All hydro data bad, leak or hangup Footnote salinity,
                    oxygen, and nuts bad, ODF recommends deletion.

     116 @ 640db    Sample log: "stopcock leaked."  Oxygen high  vs.  CTDO,
                    but samples all agree with adjoining station.

     135 @4394db    Sample log: "oxygen was taken before helium."

     136  @4452db   Sample log: "small air leak."  Oxygen appears a little
                    high, salinity slightly low (.0013) so samples may have
                    been  affected.   Footnote  oxygen bad, bottle leak may
                    only affect gas samples. Footnote bottle leaking.

     Station 127

     130 @3285db    Tsuchiya: "Verify the decrease in sil level (by ~5um/l)
                    from  the  previous station. This is probably real; see
                    the sil level on next station."  No analytical  problem
                    noted.

     131 @3482db    Tsuchiya: "See 130 comment."

     132 @3680db    Tsuchiya: "See 130 comment."

     133 @3892db    Tsuchiya: "See 130 comment."

     Station 128

     125  @2364db   No oxygen, forgot to record Manostat. Footnote oxygen
                    lost.

     Station 129

     209 @ 268db    All hydro data bad, leak or hangup  Footnote  salinity,
                    oxygen, and nuts bad, footnote bottle leaking, ODF rec-
                    ommends deletion.

     217 @ 872db    Sample log: "dripping from valve."  Samples  appear  to
                    be okay.

     229  @3186db   No water, lanyard hangup Sample log: "didn't trip; top
                    lanyard was stuck."

     231 @3598db    Tsuchiya: "Max in O2 and minima in all three nuts.  Are
                    these  real?"   No  analytical  problems  noted, oxygen
                    agrees with CTDO and samples agree with next station.

     234 @4211db    Sample log: "bottom lanyard."  No water, lanyard hangup

     Station 130

     101 @   0db    Sample log: "top was left open."  All samples appear to
                    be okay.
     111 @ 359db    Sample log: "Bottle open."  No samples taken

     113 @ 486db    Sample log: "Spring leaks."  All samples appear  to  be
                    okay.

     135  @4412db   Sample log: "stop cock leaked."  All samples appear to
                    be okay, oxygen agrees with CTDO.

     136 @4545db    Sample log: "maybe an air leak."  All samples appear to
                    be  okay, oxygen is a little low compared with CTDO but
                    agrees with adjoining station.

     Station 131

     101 @   0db    Sample log:  "leaks  again;  top  not  tight."   Oxygen
                    slightly high compared to CTDO. Leave as is.

     105  @  135db  Tsuchiya:  "O2  minimum real? Check against CTD O2."
                    Oxygen looks low compared with CTDO and adjoining  sta-
                    tions.  Footnote oxygen bad.

     112  @  462db  Sample log: "Drain valve broke off, nuts, salt only."
                    Oxygen not drawn.

     113 @ 562db    Sample log: "leaky;  bottom  end  cap."   Oxygen  looks
                    okay.

     115  @  762db  Tsuchiya: "PO4 and NO3 appear to be too high, but may
                    be real because O2 shows correspondingly  low  values."
                    No analytical problem noted.

     123  @1918db   Delta-S  is  -0.0177.  Salt same as 122, all else ok.
                    Suspect duplicate draw with 122, footnote salinity bad,
                    ODF recommends deletion of salinity.

     126 @2507db    Sample log: "dripping from spigot."  Samples look okay.

     137 @ 662db    Tsuchiya: "PO4 and NO3 appear to be too high,  but  may
                    be  real  because O2 shows correspondingly low values."
                    No analytical problem noted.

     Station 133

     106 @ 154db    Bottle leaked or hung,  all  bad.   Footnote  salinity,
                    oxygen and nuts bad, ODF recommends deletion.

     117  @  922db  Sample  log: "vent not closed."  Salinity and oxygen
                    agree with CTD. Samples look good.

     Station 134

     133 @3679db    Tsuchiya: "The sudden decrease in near bottom SiO3 from
                    Sta. 133 to 134 real? (Sta. 135 on shows the same level
                    of low Sio3)."  133-136 No analytical  problems  noted.
                    Samples look okay.

     134 @3884db    Tsuchiya: "See 133 comment."

     135 @4090db    Tsuchiya: "See 133 comment."

     136  @4219db   Tsuchiya:  "See 133 comment."  Sample log: "air leak;
                    water shooting out from spigot without top open."  Sam-
                    ples look okay compared with adjoining station.

     Station 135

     101  @    0db  Delta-S at 0db is -0.1998 No analytical problem, po4
                    high.  The computer did take two tries to get the first
                    conductivity.   Next  station's  salinity  also appears
                    low.  Station 137-139 indicates this bottle had a prob-
                    lem.  Footnote bottle leaking and samples as bad.

     127  @2675db   Tsuchiya: "O2 looks too low."  No analytical problems
                    noted. Agrees with CTDO.

     136 @4346db    Sample log: "air band loose" Samples look okay compared
                    with CTD and adjoining station.

     Station 136

     101  @    0db  Delta-S at 0db is 0.132 No analytical problem, other
                    samples look okay.  The computer did take two tries  to
                    get  the first conductivity.  Previous station's salin-
                    ity also appears low.  Station 137-139  indicates  this
                    bottle  had a problem.  Footnote bottle leaking, salin-
                    ity bad, and oxygen and nutrients as bad.

     106 @ 196db    Bottle leaked or hung,  all  bad.   Footnote  salinity,
                    oxygen  and nuts bad, footnote bottle leaking, ODF rec-
                    ommends deletion.

     123 @1710db    Delta-S at 1710db is  -0.0076  No  analytical  problem.
                    Footnote salinity uncertain.

     135  @4061db   Sample  log:  "stopcock  leaked."  Samples agree with
                    adjoining stations.

     136 @4212db    Delta-S at 4212db  is  0.0072  No  analytical  problem,
                    other  samples look okay.  Footnote salinity uncertain.

     Station 137

     101 @   1db    Sample log: "look at top!!  ok  bottom  lid."   Samples
                    appear to be okay agree with adjoining stations and CTD
                    profile.

     111 @ 360db    Sample log: "post trip? thermo?  Lower lid hung on mar-
                    mon  clamp."   Footnote salinity, oxygen, and nuts bad,
                    bottle leaking, ODF recommends deletion.

     117 @ 821db    Sample log: "top valve not closed."  Oxygen agrees with
                    CTD profile and previous station.

     134 @3920db    Nutrients: Ran out of hydrazine samples 34-36.  The po4
                    sample may be .02 high.  See comments on 135,  footnote
                    po4 bad.

     135  @4127db   Tsuchiya:  "PO4 slightly too high?"  The bottom 2 po4
                    are about .02 high, analyst reran samples  after  stds.
                    Unfortunately,  there  appears  to  be  a  drift on the
                    reruns, but we can't change  the  data  based  on  no3,
                    footnote po4 bad.

     136  @4289db   Tsuchiya:  "PO4 slightly too high?"  See comments for
                    134-135, footnote po4 bad.

     Station 138

     101 @   2db    Sample log: "leaks."  Samples appear to be okay.

     111 @ 464db    Lower lid hung on  marmon  clamp.   Footnote  salinity,
                    oxygen  and  nuts  bad,  bottle leaking, ODF recommends
                    deletion.

     121 @1642db    Salinity lost, no reason  noted,  the  system  tried  9
                    times to get a reading.

     131 @3499db    Raw oxygen sheet has order of 30 and 31 reversed.  Oxy-
                    gen agrees with  CTD  profile  and  adjoining  station.
                    Other  samples  except  salinity  appear  to  be  okay.
                    Delta-S at 3499db  is  0.0037  No  analytical  problem,
                    footnote salinity uncertain.

     Station 139

     101  @   2db   Sample log: "little leak."  Samples agree with adjoin-
                    ing station.

     111 @ 412db    Sample log: "has air because bottle hose clamp  of  the
                    CTD  had  to be rotated.  Oxygen seems high compared to
                    adjoining station and CTDO.  Other samples  look  okay.
                    Footnote  oxygen  uncertain,  bottle leak that may only
                    affect gas samples.

     127 @2676db    Tsuchiya: "Verify that the decrease (by  3-4  um/l)  in
                    sil  from  Sta  138  to  139 is not a measurement error
                    127-129."  No analytical problems noted.

     128 @2884db    Tsuchiya: See comments 127.

     129 @3091db    Tsuchiya: See comments 127.

     136 @4324db    Sample log: "leaked."  Oxygen  appears  slightly  high.
                    Check with CTDO.  Other samples appear okay.

     Station 140

     113  @ 569db   Sample log: "bottom cap leaked."  Samples appear to be
                    okay.

     131 @3506db    Sample log: "slow spigot leak."  Samples appear  to  be
                    okay.

     Station 141

     101  @    3db  Sample log: "still weak" Oxygen appears to be okay as
                    are other samples.  Not sure what  sample  log  comment
                    refers to.

     117  @  924db  Sample log: "top not closed."  Oxygen and other data
                    appears to be okay.

     130 @3292db    Delta-S at 3292db is  0.0036  No  analytical  problem,
                    other  samples  appear  okay.  Footnote salinity uncer-
                    tain.

     Station 142

     112 @4298db    Tsuchiya: "Bottom po4  and  no3  slightly  higher  than
                    those  at  Stas.  141 and 143."  No analytical problems
                    noted.

     113 @   1db    Sample log: "oxygen was run before helium."

     117 @ 135db    Sample log: "small leak."  Samples look good for  shal-
                    low water.

     135 @1744db    Sample log: "bottom leaked."  Samples look okay.

     136  @1950db   Sample  log:  "leaking  when  opened."   Oxygen looks
                    slightly high compared with CTDO and adjoining station.
                    Footnote  oxygen  bad,  bottle  leak, but may have only
                    affected gas samples.

     Station 143

     306 @ 173db    All parameters indicate leak or lid  hangup.   Footnote
                    salinity, oxygen and nuts bad, bottle leaking, ODF rec-
                    ommends deletion.

     311 @ 397db    Sample log: "bottom cap bumped  open."   Oxygen  agrees
                    with CTDO, other samples appear to be okay.

     336 @4279db    Sample log: "vent leaked."  Samples look okay.

     Station 144

     135  @4187db   Sample log: "small top leak."  Tsuchiya: "no3 slightly
                    too high?"  No analytical problems noted.

     136 @4336db    Sample log: "major air  leak."   Tsuchiya:  "all  three
                    nutrients too high?"  No analytical problems noted.

     Station 145

     111  @ 374db   Sample log: "top vent not closed."  Samples look okay.

     Station 146

     117 @ 925db    Sample log: "leaks with  top  valve  closed."   Samples
                    look  okay. Oxygen agrees with CTDO.  Salt values lost:
                    radio interference.

     124 @2056db    PO4 bottles 24-34 appears to  be  high  by  about  0.05
                    uM/l.   No  math errors, and no obvious way to correct.
                    Leave as is, footnote po4 uncertain.

     125 @2262db    See 124 po4 comment, footnote po4 uncertain.

     126 @2417db    See 124 po4 comment, footnote po4 uncertain.

     127 @2573db    See 124 po4 comment, footnote po4 uncertain.

     128 @2728db    See 124 po4 comment, footnote po4 uncertain.

     129 @2883db    See 124 po4 comment, footnote po4 uncertain.

     130 @3091db    See 124 po4 comment, footnote po4 uncertain.

     131 @3298db    See 124 po4 comment, footnote po4 uncertain.

     132 @3507db    See 124 po4 comment, footnote po4 uncertain.

     133 @3713db    See 124 po4 comment, footnote po4 uncertain.

     134 @3921db    See 124 po4 comment, footnote po4 uncertain.

     136 @4326db    Sample log: "leaky with  top  valve  closed."   Samples
                    agree with adjoining stations.

     Station 148

     136  @4013db   Sample log: "major air leaking."  Salt & no3 okay, sil
                    & po4 low, oxy high.  Footnote bottle leaking,  oxygen,
                    silicate and po4 bad.

     Station 150

     130  @3090db   Tsuchiya: "sil minimum real? (or sil max at 129 real?"
                    No analytical problems noted.

     131 @3297db    Tsuchiya: "o2 maximum real?"   No  analytical  problems
                    noted. O2 agrees with CTDO.

     134 @3712db    No water samples, no reason in sample log

     Station 151

     101 @   3db    Oxygens may be slightly low, footnote oxygen bad.  Oxy-
                    gen: "Bubble in O2 flask, may have pulled air  in  when
                    brought  into  van colder than in- situ temperature. O2
                    may be slightly high."

     102 @  44db    See 101 oxygen comment, footnote oxygen bad.

     Station 152

     101 @   2db    Sample log: "top was left open."   Samples  look  okay.
                    Oxygen:  "Bubble  in  O2  flask, may have pulled air in
                    when brought into van colder than in- situ temperature.
                    O2 may be slightly high."

     119  @1028db   Sample  log: "helium had to be re-run."  Samples look
                    okay

     130 @2884db    Sample log: "helium had to be  re-run."   Samples  look
                    okay

     Station 153

     227  @2676db   Tsuchiya:  "All  nuts look too low (bottom 9 bottles)
                    227-238.  Oxygen is higher and no3 is  lower  than  Sta
                    152,154."   No analytical problems. Therefore, features
                    are probably real.

     228 @2884db    Tsuchiya: "See 227 comments."

     229 @3091db    Tsuchiya: "See 227 comments."

     230 @3299db    Tsuchiya: "See 227 comments."

     231 @3506db    Tsuchiya: "See 227 comments."

     232 @3714db    Tsuchiya: "See 227 comments."

     233 @3921db    Tsuchiya: "See 227 comments."

     234 @4129db    Sample log: "lanyard to bottom cap hung up; no sample."

     235  @4337db   Tsuchiya: "See 227 comments."  Sample log: "bottom cap
                    leak when vent opened."
                    Delta-S at 4337db is -0.0034  Salinity  difference  is
                    not unreasonable just not to ODF standards, no analyti-
                    cal problems.  Oxygen appears to be  okay  as  well  as
                    other samples.

     238 @4487db    Tsuchiya: "See 227 comments."

     Station 154

     116 @ 722db    Delta-S at 722db is 0.0442 Salinity analyst got out of
                    sequence with samples.  It is difficult  to  understand
                    the pattern, however, this seems to have the same value
                    as 17 and does not agree with  CTD  or  adjoining  sta-
                    tions.  Footnote salinity bad, ODF recommends deletion.

     138 @4340db    S high, nuts low, O2 ok(!)  Footnote  salinity,  oxygen
                    and  nuts  as bad, ODF recommends deletion.  S and nuts
                    impossible. Correct O2 could be artifact of leakage  in
                    both low and high O2 regions above.  Sample log: "leak-
                    ing; vent was open."

     Station 156

     117 @ 870db    Sample log: "top vent not closed."  Oxygen agrees  with
                    adjoining station and CTDO.  Other samples look okay.

     Station 157

     128  @2534db   Tsuchiya: "sil looks low relative to neighboring sta-
                    tions 128-138."  Low compared with  previous  group  of
                    stations, but agree with next group of stations to Sta-
                    tion 166.  Oxygen goes up at station 157 also,  feature
                    appears real.

     129 @2741db    Tsuchiya: "See 128 comments."

     130 @2956db    Tsuchiya: "See 128 comments."

     131 @2956db    Tsuchiya: "See 128 comments."

     132 @3165db    Tsuchiya: "See 128 comments."

     133 @3165db    Tsuchiya: "See 128 comments."

     134 @3377db    Tsuchiya: "See 128 comments."

     135 @3375db    Tsuchiya: "See 128 comments."

     138 @3534db    Tsuchiya: "See 128 comments."

     Station 158

     106  @  178db  Sample  log:  "Nutrients were drawn before oxygens."
                    Oxygen agrees with adjoining stations and CTDO.

     Station 159

     135 @3406db    Sample log: "bottom leaked."
                    Delta-S at 3406db is -0.0032 Salinity is  just  within
                    accuracy  of  measurement,  0ther  samples appear to be
                    okay.

     Station 161

     113 @ 350db    Sample log: "spigot leaks (o-ring?)"  Salinity and oxy-
                    gen  agree with CTD and adjoining stations.  Other sam-
                    ples also look okay.

     116 @ 607db    Delta-S at 607db is  0.0318  Tsuchiya:  "Salinity  too
                    high?"   Salinity  minimum  gradient  area, agrees with
                    adjoining stations.

     126 @2009db    Sample log: "spigot broken; missing collar on  spigot."
                    Salinity  and  oxygen agree with CTD and adjoining sta-
                    tions.  Other samples also look okay.

     127 @2205db    Sample log: "spigot  leaks  (o-ring?)."   Salinity  and
                    oxygen  agree  with  CTD and adjoining stations.  Other
                    samples also look okay.

     Station 162

     116 @ 655db    Sample log: "Bottom lid stuck open."  No water drawn

     117 @ 697db    Sample log: "little leak."  Salinity and  oxygen  agree
                    with  CTD  and  adjoining stations.  Other samples also
                    appear okay.

     135 @3809db    Sample log: "bottom leak."  Salinity and  oxygen  agree
                    with  CTD  and  adjoining stations.  Other samples also
                    appear okay.

     137 @ 622db    Delta-S is 0.2185.  Salt high, no obvious error,  nuts,
                    o2 ok Footnote salinity bad, ODF recommends deletion.

     Station 163

     101  @   2db   Sample log: "bottle open."  Rosette hit ship on recov-
                    ery,  breaking  bottles  1,8,9,10,  and  opening  drain
                    valves  on  bottle  12. Nuts obtained on all bottles by
                    recovering water between drain  valve  and  lower  lid.
                    Salts  missed on 1 and 9. O2 missed on 1, 9, 10, Salin-
                    ity not drawn. Oxygen not drawn.  Samples appear to  be
                    okay.

     108  @  370db  Sample log: "bottle broken; see 101."  Samples agree
                    with CTD and adjoining station.  Leave as is.

     109 @ 434db    Sample log: "bottle open."   Bottle  broken;  see  101.
                    Oxygen  and  salinity  not drawn.  Samples appear to be
                    okay.

     110 @ 501db    Sample log:  "bottle  broken;  see  101."   Oxygen  not
                    drawn.  Samples appear to be okay.

     112  @ 636db   Sample log: "bottle open."  Drain valve opened by hit-
                    ting ship; see 101.  Samples agree with CTD and adjoin-
                    ing station.  Leave as is.

     130  @2965db   Sample  log: "major air leak."  O2 high, perhaps from
                    air leakage at impact.   Footnote  oxygen  bad,  bottle
                    leak which may have only affected gas samples, ODF rec-
                    ommends deletion of oxygen.

     131 @3168db    O2 high, perhaps from air leakage at impact.   Footnote
                    oxygen bad,bottle leak which may have only affected gas
                    samples, ODF recommends deletion of oxygen.

     135 @4001db    O2 high, perhaps from air leakage at impact.   Footnote
                    oxygen  bad,  bottle  leak which may have only affected
                    gas samples, ODF recommends deletion of oxygen.

     Station 164

     135 @3677db    Sample log: "bottom cap  leak  (spring?)"   Delta-S  is
                    .0021,  all  other  deep  salinities  are  no more than
                    .0010. This  was  a  duplicate  trip  with  bottle  34.
                    Suspect  that there is slight leakage.  Footnote bottle
                    leaking, oxygen and salinity bad.  See comment on  Sta-
                    tion 163, rosette hit side of ship.

     Station 165

     235  @1645db   Delta-S  at 1645db is 0.0071 This is a duplicate trip
                    with bottle 34 and samples do not agree.  Suspect  that
                    there  is  slight leakage.  See comment on Station 163,
                    rosette hit side of ship.   Footnote  salinity,  oxygen
                    and  nuts bad, bottle leaking, ODF recommends deletion.

     Station 166

     213 @ 672db    Sample log: "small bottom cap leak."  Salinity and oxy-
                    gen  agree with CTD and adjoining stations.  Other sam-
                    ples also look okay.

     234 @3954db    Sil .6 um/l low, peak looks good, no analytical  error.
                    Duplicate  level  with  bottle 35.  Footnote sil uncer-
                    tain.

     Station 167

     106 @ 261db    Delta-S is -0.1847.  Salt low, probable draw  from  107
                    Footnote salinity bad, ODF recommends deletion.

     111 @ 517db    Sample log: "tritium was drawn before CO2."

     113 @ 659db    Sample log: "tritium was drawn before CO2."

     119  @1028db   Sample  log:  "lanyard was caught in bottom cap."  No
                    water drawn

     169 @ 384db    Sample log: "tritium was drawn before CO2."

     170 @ 445db    Sample log: "tritium was drawn before CO2."

     Station 168

     168 @ 296db    Delta-S is 0.2607.  Salt high, probable draw  from  106
                    Footnote salinity bad, ODF recommends deletion.

     Station 169

     104  @   81db  Tsuchiya:  "Check  if  weak temperature inversion is
                    real."  Final CTD data indicates inversion is real.

     117 @ 976db    Sample log: "top vent not tight."  Samples appear to be
                    okay,  salinity and oxygen agree with CTD and adjoining
                    stations.

     Station 170

     119 @ 924db    Sample log: "lanyard in bottom cap" No water drawn

     1deep          Tsuchiya: "Deep po4 (>1500m) increases at this  station
                    and remains high as far as Sta 174. Verify the increase
                    because no3 does not show such an  increase."   Station
                    170  looked  okay, 169 seemed low.  Correction was made
                    to ending F1 on Station 169.

     Station 171

     107 @ 279db    Sample log: "bottle leaked."  Salinity and oxygen agree
                    with  CTD  and  adjoining stations as do the other sam-
                    ples.

     135 @4116db    Sample log: "slight leak in the bottom."  Salinity  and
                    oxygen  agree with CTD and adjoining stations as do the
                    other samples.

     137 @ 635db    Bottle salt drawn but not run, no reason.   Salinometer
                    log  indicates  there  are  only  35 samples.  Footnote
                    salinity lost.

     Station 172

     268 @ 211db    Sample log: "vent open."   Salinity  and  oxygen  agree
                    with  CTD  and  adjoining  stations  other samples also
                    appear okay.

     Station 173

     113 @ 439db    Sample log: "leak  in  bottom."   Salinity  and  oxygen
                    agree  with  CTD  and adjoining stations, other samples
                    also appear okay.

     115 @ 592db    Tsuchiya: "o2 lower  than  neighboring  stations."   No
                    analytical problem noted.

     116  @  669db  Tsuchiya:  "o2 lower than neighboring stations."  No
                    analytical problem noted.

     117 @ 771db    Sample log: "was leaking (pushed in)."  Samples  appear
                    to be okay.

     137  @  516db  Tsuchiya:  "o2 lower than neighboring stations."  No
                    analytical problem noted.

     Station 174

     102 @  36db    Sample log: "Bottles were in the sun."  Samples  appear
                    to be okay.

     103  @  72db   Sample log: "Bottles were in the sun."  Samples appear
                    to be okay.

     104 @ 107db    Sample log: "Bottles were in the sun."  Samples  appear
                    to be okay.

     105  @ 138db   Sample log: "Bottles were in the sun."  Samples appear
                    to be okay.

     125 @1532db    Tsuchiya: "o2 too high?  maximum  seems  questionable."
                    O2  does  not  agree  with  CTDO or adjoining stations.
                    Other samples look good.  No problems  noted,  footnote
                    oxygen bad.

     161  @   4db   Sample log: "Bottles were in the sun."  Samples appear
                    to be okay.

     Station 175

     111 @ 534db    Tsuchiya: "o2 looks too high; po4 and no3 look slightly
                    low."  There was what looked like a bubble after sample
                    11 in po4  and  no2.  However,  the  shipboard  results
                    seemed  to  be handled correctly.  If this were a leaky
                    bottle, o2 would be low not high.  Therefore,  we  will
                    leave this level as is.  Oxygen agrees with CTDO.

     117  @ 979db   Sample log: "top vent not closed."  Samples look okay.

     128 @2279db    Sample log: "air got in niskin."  Tsuchiya:  "o2  looks
                    too  high."  Oxygen high compared with CTDO. Other sam-
                    ples okay.  Footnote oxygen as bad, bottle  leak  which
                    may only affect gas samples, ODF recommends deletion of
                    oxygen.

     135 @3991db    Sample log: "bottom cap leak."  Samples look okay.

     Station 179

     206 @ 191db    O2 high, S high, nuts low, CTD  diff  high  Looks  like
                    bottle  6  leak  or lid hangup Footnote bottle leaking,
                    salinity, oxygen and nuts as bad, ODF recommends  dele-
                    tion.

     Station 181

     131 @4565db    Sample log: "small air leak."  Samples look okay.

     Station 183

     106  @  283db  Sample log: "bottle didn't close; lower lid hangup."
                    no sample

     111 @ 636db    Sample log: "bottle leaked."  Samples look okay.

     135 @5164db    Sample log: "bottom leaked."  Samples look okay.

     Station 184

     138 @5439db    Sample log: "bottom end cap leak  (o-ring?)."   Samples
                    look okay.

     Station 185

     117 @1130db    Sample log: "vent open."  Samples look okay.

     135  @5389db   Sample log: "bottom end cap leak."  Samples look okay.

     138 @5547db    Sample log: "top vent open."  Oxygen appears  low  com-
                    pared  with  Sta 181.  Check with final CTDO.  Footnote
                    oxygen bad, bottle leak which may only affect gas  sam-
                    ples. Footnote bottle leaking.

     Station 186

     115  @1030db   Tsuchiya: "Deep po4 is lower by .02 um/l than stations
                    185 and 187."  No analytical problems, other  nutrients
                    reflect this same feature.

     Station 187

     235  @5125db   Sample log: "bottom leak when air valve opened."  Sam-
                    ples look okay compared with adjoining stations.

     238 @5398db    Tsuchiya: "sil slightly too low."  No analytical  prob-
                    lems, other nutrients reflect this same feature.

     Station 189

     312  @ 516db   No nuts, not sampled, no reason.  Nutrients: Failed to
                    take samples.

     364 @ 121db    Tsuchiya: "Verify the salinity minimum and  o2  maximum
                    against  CTD."   The down and up CTD trace is very dif-
                    ferent, o2 is not much help. Salinity agrees with  CTD.

     Station 190

     116  @1016db   Sample  log: "leaking from valve."  Samples look okay
                    compared with adjoining station.

     Station 191

     139 @5013db    Delta-S is -.0023 which is within accuracy of  measure-
                    ment,  but  does  not  fit  adjoining station profiles.
                    Leave as is.  Bottle leaked or  closed  late.  Footnote
                    bottle leaking, salinity, oxygen and nuts bad, ODF rec-
                    ommends deletion.

     Station 192

     106 @ 186db    Delta-S at 186db is 0.0914 No analytical problem noted.
                    Footnote  salinity bad measurement.  Footnote nutrients
                    bad  measurement.   Footnote  oxygen  bad  measurement.
                    Suspect  this bottle had a late closure.  Footnote bot-
                    tle leaking.  ODF recommends deletion of all water sam-
                    ples.

     113  @  513db  Sample  log:  "small  bottom end cap leak."  Samples
                    appear to be okay.  This bottle may have been a problem
                    throughout the cruise.  See Station 193, 202 and inter-
                    mittent stations before and after these  have  comments
                    on this bottle.

    134  @4545db    Delta-S  at  4545db  is  0.0052  Does  not agree with
                    adjoining stations or CTD.  Footnote salinity bad,  ODF
                    recommends deletion.

     Station 193

     113 @ 511db    Delta-S at 511db is -0.0415 JS: "Double trip with 137?
                    CFC values approx. equal."  Salinity too low. Nutrients
                    too  high. Oxygen slightly low.  Bottle appears to have
                    leaked. Footnote bottle as leaking, Oxygen and nuts  as
                    bad, ODF recommends deletion.

     Station 194

     311  @  527db  Sample log: "the ring came of the spigot."  Salinity
                    and oxygen  agree  with  CTD  and  adjoining  stations.
                    Other samples also appear to be okay.

     313 @ 668db    Sample log: "top came off; loose."  Salinity and oxygen
                    agree with CTD and adjoining stations.   Other  samples
                    also appear to be okay.

     Station 195

     128  @3015db   Tsuchiya: "Sil slightly too high."  Sil peak not very
                    good, footnote sil as bad.

     Station 197

     1all           Sample log: "oxygens were drawn out of order."  Oxygens
                    look  a  little  noisy.   Not sure exactly what comment
                    refers to.

     118 @1179db    Delta-S at 1179db is  -0.0807.   Sample  log  indicates
                    some kind of salinity drawing problem, there is no bot-
                    tle 20 listed, but it was drawn.  Could  be  a  drawing
                    problem and drawn at bottle 15.  Footnote salinity bad,
                    ODF recommends deletion.

     131 @3609db    Sample log: "small leak."  Samples look  good  compared
                    to adjoining stations.

     Station 198

     239  @4760db   Sample  log:  "small  bottom  cap  leak when air vent
                    opened."  Samples look okay compared with previous sta-
                    tion.

     Station 201

     106  @ 224db   Sample log: "top valve not closed."  Samples look okay
                    compared with adjoining station.

     161 @   1db    Sample log: "top valve not closed."  Samples look  okay
                    compared with adjoining station.

     Station 202

     113  @ 675db   Delta-S at 635db is -0.0247 JS: "Tripping trouble? See
                    Sta 193. This station is slightly" more subtle but  has
                    same  "double trip" signature.  CFC also almost identi-
                    cal."  This bottle and 37 tripped sequentially  on  the
                    fly  at  about 675db.  This makes all the sample bad at
                    this pressure (635).

     117 @ 973db    Sample log: "vent not closed."  Samples look okay  com-
                    pared with adjoining station.

     137  @  675db  Delta-S at 708db is 0.0166 See 113 tripping problem.
                    This bottle and 13 tripped sequentially on the  fly  at
                    about  675db.   This  makes  all the sample bad at this
                    pressure (708).

     Station 203

     117 @ 982db    Sample log: "small leak."  Samples look  okay  compared
                    with adjoining station.

     122  @1638db   Nuts  look like drawn from 121 Footnote nuts bad, ODF
                    recommends deletion.

     125 @2157db    Oxygen appears high. po4 & sil slightly  low.  Salinity
                    and  no3  look  okay.  Footnote oxygen as uncertain, as
                    well as po4 and sil.

     139 @4495db    Sample log: "was leaking  from  the  bottom."   Samples
                    look okay compared with adjoining station.

     Station 204

     130 @2079db    Tsuchiya: "Deep sil looks too low relative to adjoining
                    stations."  No analytical problem, peak looks good.

     Station 205

     125 @2458db    Low O2, no calc. error.   Does  not  agree  with  CTDO.
                    Footnote oxygen bad, ODF recommends deletion.

     Station 206

     126  @2430db   Delta-S at 2430db is -0.0071 Looks like drawing error.
                    Footnote salinity bad, ODF recommends deletion.

     129 @3195db    Sample log: "bottle did not close; lanyard ball  caught
                    in frame."

     168  @  288db  JS: "Samples do not fit profiles (may just be unusual
                    water)."  Oxygen agrees with CTDO.

     Station 207

     117 @ 961db    Delta-S is 0.0494.  Salt off, same  as  118,  prob  bad
                    draw.   Footnote salinity bad, ODF recommends deletion.

     Station 209

     111 @ 405db    Sample log: "leaking from stopcock even when  vent  was
                    closed."  Samples look okay.

    128  @3037db    Tsuchiya: "Verify that the sudden decrease in sil con-
                    centrations near the sil max (~3000m) from Sta  208  to
                    Sta  209 is real (~136 um/l at Sta 208 and ~132 um/l at
                    Sta 209. There are similar decreases in po4 and no3  at
                    about the same depth range."  No analytical problems.

     Station 210

     206  @  162db  Sample log: "No water, lower lid held open by lanyard
                    (lanyard was too tight)."

     Station 211

     102 @  36db    Sample log: "Bottle  broke  on  recovery,  rosette  hit
                    ship."  No oxygen drawn.

     111 @ 359db    Sample log: "small bottom end cap leak."  Oxygen agrees
                    with CTDO.

     118 @ 969db    Tsuchiya: "verify the decrease in deep po4 (theta  <  5
                    deg)  from Station 210 to 211."  No analytical problems
                    noted.
     Station 212

     121 @1270db    Sample log: "lanyard broke; no sample."

     124 @1833db    Oxygen: Flask broke when opened.  Footnote oxygen lost.

     139  @4102db   Late  closure  on bottle. Nuts high, oxygen and salts
                    low.  Footnote bottle leaking, all water  samples  bad,
                    ODF recommends deletion.

     Station 213

     113  @ 531db   Sample log: "leaked."  Samples look okay compared with
                    adjoining station.

     Station 214

     111 @ 449db    Sample log: "leaked."  Samples look okay.

     Station 216

     162 @  33db    Sample log: "loose spigot."  Samples look okay compared
                    with adjoining station.

     Station 217

     131 @3193db    Sample log: "slight leak."  Samples look okay.

     169  @ 437db   Sample log: "tritium was drawn before oxygen."  Oxygen
                    looks slightly high compared with adjoining station and
                    CTDO, footnote oxygen bad.

     Station 219

     119 @ 956db    Looks like sampling error for nutrients.  Footnote po4,
                    no3, sil, no2 bad, ODF recommends deletion.

     162 @  32db    Sample log: "vent not closed."  Samples look okay  com-
                    pared with adjoining stations.

     Station 220

     113            Sample  log:  "did  not  trip;  no sample."  Pylon was
                    switched before  bottle  13,  so  it  was  missed  (not
                    tripped).

     134            Sample log: "Samples not needed, so do not sample -JHS"

     138 @3636db    Sample log: "leaked from bottom end cap."  Samples look
                    okay.

     139            Sample log: "Samples not needed, so do not sample -JHS"

Appendix 2: Routine hydrographic data not having "2" quality codes
            (Kristin Sanborn, SIO/ODF)

BOTTLES WHERE QUALITY CODES WERE NOT "22222222", SORTED BY ERROR/PROBLEM TYPE

EXPOCODE:          31WTTUNES/2
WHP-ID:            P17C,P16C
CRUISE DATES:      16 July - 25 August 1993

Quality code bytes in the original SIO/ODF .SEA file are in the following order:

  BTLNBR  CTDSAL  SALNTY  OXYGEN  SILCAT  NITRAT  NITRIT  PHSPHT
          PSS-78  PSS-78 UMOL/KG UMOL/KG UMOL/KG UMOL/KG UMOL/KG
 ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* *******

(each record is listed as station, cast/bottle number, quality code)

#SLT lost
125 128 22122222
138 121 22122222
146 117 22122222
171 137 22122222

#OXY lost
128 125 22212222
212 124 22212222

#PO4 uncertain
146 124 22222223
146 125 22222223
146 126 22222223
146 127 22222223
146 128 22222223
146 129 22222223
146 130 22222223
146 131 22222223
146 132 22222223
146 133 22222223
146 134 22222223

#PO4 bad
124 113 22222224
124 120 22222224
124 121 22222224
124 129 22222224
124 130 22222224
137 134 22222224
137 135 22222224
137 136 22222224

#SIL uncertain
166 234 22223222

#SIL bad
195 128 22224222

#SIL bad, NO3 bad, NO2 bad, PO4 bad
203 122 22224444
219 119 22224444

#SIL not drawn, NO3 not drawn, NO2 not drawn, PO4 not drawn
189 312 22229999

#OXY uncertain, NO3 uncertain, PO4 uncertain
203 125 22233223

#OXY bad
131 105 22242222
151 101 22242222
151 102 22242222
174 125 22242222
205 125 22242222
217 169 22242222

#OXY not drawn
131 112 22292222
163 110 22292222
211 102 22292222

#SLT uncertain
136 123 22322222
136 136 22322222
138 131 22322222
141 130 22322222

#SLT bad
131 123 22422222
154 116 22422222
162 137 22422222
167 106 22422222
168 168 22422222
192 134 22422222
197 118 22422222
206 126 22422222
207 117 22422222

#SLT not drawn, OXY not drawn
163 101 22992222
163 109 22992222

#BTL leaking, OXY bad
126 136 32242222
139 111 32242222
142 136 32242222
163 130 32242222
163 131 32242222
163 135 32242222
175 128 32242222
185 138 32242222

#BTL leaking, OXY bad, SIL bad, PO4 bad
148 136 32244224

#BTL leaking, SLT bad, OXY bad
164 135 32442222

#BTL leaking, SLT bad, OXY bad, SIL bad, NO3 bad, NO2 bad, PO4 bad
126 106 32444444
129 209 32444444
133 106 32444444
135 101 32444444
136 101 32444444
136 106 32444444
137 111 32444444
138 111 32444444
143 306 32444444
154 138 32444444
165 235 32444444
179 206 32444444
191 139 32444444
192 106 32444444
193 113 32444444
202 113 32444444
202 137 32444444
212 139 32444444

#BTL samples not drawn
124 132 92999999
129 229 92999999
129 234 92999999
130 111 92999999
150 134 92999999
153 234 92999999
162 116 92999999
167 119 92999999
170 119 92999999
183 106 92999999
206 129 92999999
210 206 92999999
212 121 92999999

Appendix C:  TUNES Calibration Figures (figures available in PDF file)

Figure 1a:	CTD #1 Pre-cruise Cold Pressure Calibration
Figure 1b:	CTD #1 Pre-cruise Warm Pressure Calibration

Figure 1c:	CTD #1 Post-cruise Pressure Calibration
Figure 1d:	CTD #1 Averaged Pre-/Post-cruise Pressure Calibration

Figure 2a:	CTD #2 Pre-cruise Pressure Calibration
Figure 2b:	CTD #2 Post-cruise Pressure Calibration

Figure 3:	 CTD #10 Pre-cruise Pressure Calibration

Figure 4a:	CTD #1 Pre-cruise PRT-1 Temperature Calibration
Figure 4b:	CTD #1 Post-cruise PRT-1 Temperature Calibration

Figure 4c:	CTD #1 Averaged Pre-/Post-cruise PRT-1 Temperature Calibration

Figure 5a:	CTD #2 Pre-cruise PRT-1 Temperature Calibration
Figure 5b:	CTD #2 Post-cruise PRT-1 Temperature Calibration

Figure 5c:	CTD #2 Pre-cruise PRT-2 Temperature Calibration
Figure 5d:	CTD #2 Post-cruise PRT-2 Temperature Calibration

Figure 6a:	CTD #10 Pre-cruise PRT-1 Temperature Calibration
Figure 6b:	CTD #10 Pre-cruise PRT-2 Temperature Calibration

Figure 7a:	TUNES-1 Conductivity Slopes, All CTDs
Figure 7b:	TUNES-2 Conductivity Slopes, All CTDs

Figure 8a:	TUNES-1 Conductivity Offsets, All CTDs
Figure 8b:	TUNES-2 Conductivity Offsets, All CTDs

Figure 9a:	TUNES-1 Residual Conductivity Bottle-CTD Differences All Pressures
Figure 9b:	TUNES-2 Residual Conductivity Bottle-CTD Differences All  Pressures

Figure 10a:	TUNES-1 Residual Conductivity Bottle-CTD Differences  Prs>1500dbar
Figure 10b:	TUNES-2 Residual Conductivity Bottle-CTD Differences  Prs>1500dbar

NOTE: some differences fall outside of the plotted limits.
      Please refer to the bottle data quality codes.

Appendix D:  TUNES Processing Notes

TUNES-2 / WOCE-P17S/P16S CTD Shipboard and Processing Comments

         sta/cast   Comments

         998/01     using CTD-1 from beginning of cruise. TEST cast:
                    btls 20-36 all tripped at 1000m; 3 additional btls
                    tripped at 400m
         124/01     repeat station 123 from leg 1
         125/01
         126/01
         127/01
         128/01     -.1 mmho/cm cond. spike at 148-152 db down;
                    despiked/ok now
         129/01     ABORT at 150m: sensor caps on/pinger off; data not
                    saved
         129/02     1-hr deploymt delay when rosette hit ship hard at
                    initial launch: weights knocked loose, CTD end
                    clamp broken, other misc.breakage.  No cast#
                    assigned to 2-minute first launch/data not used.
         130/01     brief yoyo on down (15 to 12m) at base of T mixed-
                    layer
         131/01
         132/02
         133/01     frequent/high cond. noise (not drop-outs) on down
                    from 810-1300 db, again 1985-bottom; yoyo 50m back
                    down after 2544 db trip to check sensor response:
                    problem occurs when P increases cracked cell?
                    yoyo from 2546-2598 db up; 436,448,478 db levels
                    interpolated: cutouts in raw data signal.
         134/01     replaced cond. cell with new spare prior to cast.
         135/01     cond. problem may still be here, but smaller
                    amplitude
         136/01     cond. problem still here: maybe FSI temp board?
         137/01     switch to CTD-2 beginning this cast
         138/01
         139/01
         140/01
         141/01
         142/01     dipped into water before sensor covers
                    removed/pinger on; trip inner rosette first for
                    freons
         143/03
         144/01
         145/01
         146/01     xmiss cleaned at start of cast
         147/01

         sta/cast   Comments

         148/01     used PRT-1 for primary temperature during cast;
                    used PRT-2 for final data see station 150 PRT
                    comments
         149/01     used PRT-1 for primary temperature during cast;
                    used PRT-2 for final data see station 150 PRT
                    comments
         150/01     PRT-1 T offsets: +.7 deg at 528 db down and two
                    smaller offsets.  PRT-1 definitely sick; used
                    PRT-2 for final data
         151/01     CTD-10 starting here; trip detect only sees outer
                    pylon: CTD data for top 12 trips extracted
                    manually
         152/01
         153/02
         154/01
         155/01
         156/01
         157/01
         158/01
         159/01     pauses at 2549/2742 db trips for winch operator
                    work
         160/01
         161/01
         162/01
         163/01
         164/01
         165/02     inner pylon tripped first for freons
         166/02
         167/01
         168/01     no well-defined mixed layer
         169/01
         170/01     stop at 1812 db down: winch trouble
         171/01
         172/02
         173/01
         174/01
         175/01
         176/01
         177/01
         178/01
         179/02     cast start delayed 10 mins. after rosette hit side
                    of ship: one lanyard broken/repaired, no other
                    damage noted.
         180/02     xmiss check (before or after cast?)
         181/01
         182/01     ABORT at 100m down: complete signal loss; CTD-10
                    flooded
         182/02     back to CTD-1 w/orig. C-sensor, changed shielding
                    around PRT-2 temperature interface.  Cond. problem
                    worse: shorten cast to 2000m/24 btls.  Cond. noise
                    has pressure-direction (down) dependence, up much
                    cleaner.  -.2 mmho/cm cond. spike 252-254 db up:
                    despiked/ok now.  Multiple spikes on up cast, most
                    despiked/ok now.  Some smaller cond. noise still
                    remains.  Yoyo from 294-330 db up.

         sta/cast   Comments

         183/01     back to CTD-2 using PRT-2 for primary temperature.
                    No inner-pylon detect circuit in: CTD data for top
                    12 trips extracted manually.  Ctdoxy signal
                    cutouts top 120 db.  Two DSRTs added to each cast
                    from here to end of cruise to monitor PRT drifting
                    problems.
         184/01     still no inner-pylon detect, CTD data for top 12
                    trips extracted manually; ctdoxy signal cutouts
                    top 70 db
         185/01     pylon detect for inner pylon installed; ctdoxy
                    problem fixed: sensor interconnect cable problem.
         186/01
         187/02     ctdoxy probe acting up till 1900 db down
         188/01     new oxygen sensor; PRT-2 jumped; cond. seems ok
         189/01     ABORT at 300m: CTD-2/PRT-2 + cond. jumping; PRT-1
                    locked up at 32767 (raw data)
         189/02     ABORT at 300m similar problems to cast 1
         189/03     rebuilt CTD-2: CTD-2 card cage in CTD-1 Pressure
                    case w/turret, PRT, endcaps, A/D, digitizer, mmux,
                    P/T/orig.C sensors from CTD-1: still cond. noise:
                    low-side S noise from CTD-1 moved to CTD-2?
                    Ctdoxy sensor malfunctioning, reads 20% of normal
                    values; ctdoxy data not usable.  Delay 27 minutes
                    at 15m down: computer problems.
         190/01     CTD-2 cond. sensor interface board swapped in,
                    ctdoxy sensor wires swapped; using CTD-1 tty/fsk
                    card; ctdoxy still not working see cast 189/03.
                    Cast delayed 15 minutes for cable/connector
                    repairs.  Yoyo from 2968-2978 db up.
         191/01     CTD oxygen useless again: see cast 189/03
         192/01     CTD oxygen useless again: see cast 189/03; pinger
                    died near bottom
         193/01     delay cast start 40 mins.: replaced CTD-1 cond
                    sensor interface.  Replaced ctdoxy sensor w/old
                    one: ok.  Yoyo from 2632-2642 db up.
         194/01     TEST cast to <600m using CTD-2 P-sensor interface:
                    no effect.
         194/02     TEST cast to <600m using CTD-10 T-sensor
                    interface: no effect.
         194/03     CTD-1 P/T sensor interfaces. Same cond. noise as
                    before.
         195/01     experiments w/winch speed vs. cond. noise on
                    downcast
         196/01     found loose FSI-T bulkhead connector, tightened
                    it: changed, but did not eliminate, cond. noise:
                    some stable cond. areas.
         197/01     replaced FSI bulkhead/cleaned cond. sensor guard:
                    coating on PRT/cond.  guard peeling off: large
                    sheet still attached to top of guard: apparently
                    flapped over cond. cell going down, flapped out of
                    the way going up.  Removed coating from guard: no
                    more cond. problem!
         198/02
         199/01
         200/01
         201/01

         sta/cast   Comments

         202/01
         203/01     rosette lowered into bottom (+8m after btm trip):
                    winch went the wrong way; no damage, but bottom
                    cond. spike cut off in p-series.  1418 db level
                    interpolated: cutout in raw data signal.
         204/01     NEW END TERMINATION prior to cast; steep btm/side
                    of seamount
         205/01     problem w/winch or heave compensator from 15m to
                    2233m
         206/01
         207/01     steep bottom
         208/01     yoyo from 17-4 db down
         209/01     -.5 mmho/cm cond. spike (seasnot?) 1056-1070 db
                    down: despiked/ok now
         210/02
         211/01     1-hr delay at cast start: dead signal in-water,
                    immed. back out: slip ring plug slipped/plugged
                    back in and insulation repaired.  Second false-
                    start when cast resumed before computer ready.
                    Data from false starts not saved.
         212/01     heave-compensator disabled 15-260m down as a test
         213/01     bad/high ctdoxy rdgs up: water leaked into sensor
         214/01
         215/01
         216/01
         217/01     rosette briefly out of water before srfc btl
                    closed; lowered back in
         218/01
         219/01
         220/01     descent delayed 5 mins. due to heave compensator

                    TUNES-2: CAST STOPS LONGER THAN 1-MINUTE

       station   down        #minutes        avg.pressure     pressure
        /cast    /up    stopped               (decibars)      range

       124/01    DOWN           2.3                18         (16 20)
       125/01    DOWN           1.9                18         (16 20)
       126/01    DOWN           7.7                 2          (0 4)
                                2.1                18         (16 20)
       127/01    DOWN           3.5                18         (16 20)
       128/01    DOWN           5.0                18         (16 20)
       129/02    DOWN           1.9                18         (16 20)
       130/01    DOWN           1.1                 8         (6 10)
                                2.8                18         (16 20)
       131/01    DOWN           5.1                18         (16 20)
       132/02    DOWN           4.0                16         (14 18)
       133/01     UP            1.6                16         (14 18)
                                2.7              2545       (2544 2546)
       134/01     UP            2.0                16         (14 18)
       135/01     UP            1.6                 1          (0 2)
                                4.7                14         (12 16)
                                1.5               368        (366 370)
       136/01     UP            1.8                18         (16 20)
                                1.7              2308       (2306 2310)
       137/01    DOWN           2.3                17         (16 18)
       138/01    DOWN           6.0                18         (16 20)
       139/01    DOWN           1.9                20         (18 22)
       140/01    DOWN           2.8                20         (18 22)
       141/01    DOWN           2.0                18         (16 20)
       142/01    DOWN           4.6                 2          (0 4)
                                1.9                16         (14 18)
       143/03    DOWN           1.4                 4          (0 8)
                                2.4                21         (20 22)
       144/01    DOWN           2.5                18         (16 20)
       145/01    DOWN           1.8                20         (18 22)
       146/01    DOWN           2.1                18         (16 20)
       147/01    DOWN           1.9                20         (18 22)
       148/01    DOWN           2.9                18         (16 20)
       149/01    DOWN           1.6                20         (18 22)
       150/01    DOWN           2.6                18         (16 20)
       151/01    DOWN           1.8                19         (18 20)
       152/01    DOWN           2.0                20         (18 22)
       153/02    DOWN           2.9                18         (16 20)
       154/01    DOWN           1.9                20         (18 22)
       155/01    DOWN           2.0                22         (20 24)
       156/01    DOWN           3.0                20         (18 22)
       157/01    DOWN           2.1                20         (18 22)
       158/01    DOWN           1.8                19         (18 20)
       159/01    DOWN           2.2                22         (20 24)
       160/01    DOWN           4.2                12         (10 14)
       161/01    DOWN           2.3                22         (20 24)
                                2.2               503        (500 506)
       162/01    DOWN           3.1                22         (20 24)
                                2.0               406        (404 408)
       163/01    DOWN           1.8                22         (20 24)
                                1.3               498        (496 500)
       164/01    DOWN           1.9                20         (18 22)
                                2.2               415        (412 418)

       station   down        #minutes        avg.pressure     pressure
        /cast    /up          stopped         (decibars)      range

       165/02    DOWN           2.3                20         (18 22)
       166/02    DOWN           2.1                22         (20 24)
                                1.6               410        (408 412)
       167/01    DOWN           1.7                21         (20 22)
                                1.2               410        (408 412)
       168/01    DOWN           1.9                26         (24 28)
                                1.6               410        (408 412)
       169/01    DOWN           2.2                20         (18 22)
                                1.2               547        (544 550)
       170/01    DOWN           2.1                20         (18 22)
                                9.6              1822       (1820 1824)
       171/01    DOWN           2.5                20         (18 22)
       172/02    DOWN           2.0                20         (18 22)
                                1.2               426        (424 428)
       173/01    DOWN           2.0                18         (16 20)
       174/01    DOWN           2.5                22         (20 24)
       175/01    DOWN           2.2                20         (18 22)
                                1.0               409        (408 410)
       176/01    DOWN           1.9                20         (18 22)
       177/01    DOWN           2.5                22         (20 24)
       178/01    DOWN           1.7                22         (20 24)
                                1.3               412        (410 414)
       179/02    DOWN           1.4                 8         (6 10)
                                2.0                24         (22 26)
       180/02    DOWN           1.3                19         (18 20)
                                1.1               442        (440 444)
       181/01    DOWN           1.8                22         (20 24)
                                1.8               405        (402 408)
                                1.1              5801       (5798 5804)
       182/02     UP            1.4                 2          (0 4)
                                2.0                16         (14 18)
                                2.6               293        (292 294)
                                1.8               510        (508 512)
                                1.5              2042       (2040 2044)
       183/01    DOWN           2.1                20         (18 22)
       184/01    DOWN           2.6                18         (16 20)
       185/01    DOWN           2.0                22         (20 24)
                                1.4               515        (512 518)
       186/01    DOWN           2.7                20         (18 22)
                                1.4               612        (610 614)
       187/02    DOWN           2.1                18         (16 20)
                                1.1               394        (392 396)
       188/01    DOWN           3.0                20         (18 22)
                                1.5               512        (510 514)
       189/03    UP@            1.2                 2          (0 4)
                                1.3                20         (18 22)
                                1.1               516        (514 518)
                                5.6              3094       (3092 3096)
                                5.4              4442       (4440 4444)
       190/01    UP@            2.1                22         (20 24)
                                1.5               428        (426 430)
                                5.6              2968       (2966 2970)
                                5.5              4224       (4220 4228)
       191/01    UP@            2.2                 2          (0 4)
                                2.4                18         (16 20)

       station   down        #minutes        avg.pressure     pressure
        /cast    /up         stopped          (decibars)      range

                                1.7               362        (360 364)
                                5.2              2924       (2920 2928)
                                5.4              4226       (4224 4228)
       192/01    UP@            2.2                18         (16 20)
                                1.4                44         (42 46)
                                2.2               410        (408 412)
                                5.1              2717       (2714 2720)
                                5.4              4022       (4020 4024)
       193/01    UP@            1.1                 2          (0 4)
                                2.0                18         (16 20)
                                1.4               410        (408 412)
                                5.7              2632       (2630 2634)
                                1.7              3294       (3292 3296)
                                5.2              3818       (3816 3820)
       194/03    UP@            2.2                20         (18 22)
                                1.3               526        (524 528)
                                1.1              1432       (1430 1434)
                                5.4              2862       (2860 2864)
                                5.4              4164       (4162 4166)
       195/01    UP@            1.2                 1          (0 2)
                                1.9                18         (16 20)
                                1.9               404        (402 406)                                             
                                3.4              2184       (2182 2186)
                                5.5              2800       (2796 2804)
                                7.0              3385       (3382 3388)
                                3.3              3439       (3438 3440)
                                5.8              3861       (3858 3864)
       196/01    UP@            2.3                18         (16 20)
                                1.2               450        (448 452)
                                5.3              2674       (2672 2676)
                                5.3              3766       (3764 3768)
       197/01    DOWN           4.3                18         (16 20)
                                1.1               410        (408 412)
       198/02    DOWN           2.3                18         (16 20)
                                1.3              1657       (1654 1660)
       199/01    DOWN           2.5                18         (16 20)
       200/01    DOWN           1.8                18         (16 20)
                                1.0               512        (510 514)
       201/01    DOWN           2.4                18         (16 20)
                                1.4               416        (414 418)
       202/01    DOWN           1.7                18         (16 20)
       203/01    DOWN           2.1                18         (16 20)
       204/01    DOWN           4.8                24         (22 26)
       205/01    DOWN          12.2                19         (16 22)
                                1.3               396        (394 398)
       206/01    DOWN           1.6                18         (16 20)
       207/01    DOWN           2.0                18         (16 20)
       208/01    DOWN           2.1                18         (16 20)
       209/01    DOWN           2.9                18         (16 20)
       210/02    DOWN           1.8                16         (14 18)
                                1.2               408        (406 410)
       211/01    DOWN           3.0                22         (20 24)
       212/01    DOWN           6.5                17         (14 20)
       213/01    DOWN           2.0                18         (16 20)
                                1.1               400        (398 402)

       station   down        #minutes        avg.pressure     pressure
        /cast    /up          stopped         (decibars)      range

       214/01    DOWN           1.8                18         (16 20)
       215/01    DOWN           1.0                19         (18 20)
                                1.1               415        (414 416)
       216/01    DOWN           2.2                18         (16 20)
                                1.1               444        (442 446)
       217/01    DOWN           2.2                17         (16 18)
       218/01    DOWN           2.8                16         (14 18)
       219/01    DOWN           2.1                20         (18 22)
       220/01    DOWN           6.2                18         (16 20)
                                1.2               420        (418 422)

@NOTE: two 5-minute therm soaks on each UP CAST, stas. 183-220

TUNES-2: CTD Temperature and Conductivity Corrections Summary

            PRT              Temperature Coefficients         Conductivity 
Coefficients
 Sta/     Response           corT = t2*T2 + t1*T + t0             corC = c1*C + c0
 Cast    Time (secs)       t2             t1          t0           c1            c0

124/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841     2.23244e-04     0.0012
125/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841     2.23244e-04     0.0031
126/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841     2.23244e-04     0.0065
127/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841     2.23244e-04     0.0065
128/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841     2.23244e-04     0.0059
129/02      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841     2.23244e-04     0.0063
130/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841     2.23244e-04     0.0067
131/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841     2.23244e-04     0.0082
132/02      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841     2.23244e-04     0.0076
133/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841     2.23244e-04     0.0080
134/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -3.80005e-02     0.0045
135/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -3.81843e-02     0.0111
136/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -3.83681e-02     0.0177
137/01      .360       1.28600e-05   -7.32720e-04   -1.5035     2.73821e-04    -0.0261
138/01      .360       1.28600e-05   -7.32720e-04   -1.5035     2.48147e-04    -0.0222
139/01      .360       1.28600e-05   -7.32720e-04   -1.5035     2.22472e-04    -0.0193
140/01      .360       1.28600e-05   -7.32720e-04   -1.5035     1.96798e-04    -0.0179
141/01      .360       1.28600e-05   -7.32720e-04   -1.5035     1.71124e-04    -0.0165
142/01      .360       1.28600e-05   -8.92720e-04   -1.5030     1.45449e-04    -0.0151
143/03      .360       1.28600e-05   -1.01272e-03   -1.5027     1.19775e-04    -0.0137
144/01      .360       1.28600e-05   -1.01272e-03   -1.5027     9.41008e-05    -0.0123
145/01      .360       1.28600e-05   -1.01272e-03   -1.5027     6.84265e-05    -0.0109
146/01      .360       1.28600e-05   -1.01272e-03   -1.5027     4.27522e-05    -0.0095
147/01      .360       1.28600e-05   -1.07272e-03   -1.5025     1.70779e-05    -0.0081
148/01      .500       1.37930e-05   -4.90710e-04   -1.4844     3.38337e-04    -0.0182
149/01      .500       1.37930e-05   -4.90710e-04   -1.4844     3.41332e-04    -0.0183
150/01      .500       1.37930e-05   -4.90710e-04   -1.4844     3.44328e-04    -0.0184
151/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     4.72316e-04     0.0004
152/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     4.60423e-04     0.0011
153/02      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     4.48529e-04     0.0023
154/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     4.36636e-04    -0.0000
155/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     4.24742e-04     0.0002
156/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     4.12848e-04     0.0004
157/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     4.00955e-04     0.0006
158/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     3.89061e-04     0.0008
159/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     3.77168e-04     0.0010
160/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     3.65274e-04     0.0012
161/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     3.53380e-04     0.0014
162/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     3.41487e-04     0.0016
163/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     3.29593e-04     0.0018
164/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     3.17700e-04     0.0020

    
            PRT              Temperature Coefficients         Conductivity 
Coefficients
 Sta/     Response           corT = t2*T2 + t1*T + t0             corC = c1*C + c0
 Cast    Time (secs)       t2             t1          t0           c1            c0

165/02      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     3.05806e-04     0.0022
166/02      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     2.93912e-04     0.0024
167/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     2.82019e-04     0.0026
168/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     2.70125e-04     0.0028
169/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     2.58232e-04     0.0030
170/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     2.46338e-04     0.0032
171/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     2.34444e-04     0.0034
172/02      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     2.22551e-04     0.0036
173/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     2.10657e-04     0.0038
174/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     1.98764e-04     0.0040
175/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     1.86870e-04     0.0042
176/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     1.74976e-04     0.0034
177/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     1.63083e-04     0.0046
178/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     1.51189e-04     0.0049
179/02      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     1.39296e-04     0.0066
180/02      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     1.27402e-04     0.0063
181/01      .240       1.61680e-05   -1.21370e-04   -1.5021     1.15508e-04     0.0055
182/02      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -7.54052e-04     0.0222
183/01      .500       1.37930e-05   -4.90710e-04   -1.4844     4.43169e-04    -0.0220
184/01      .500       1.37930e-05   -4.90710e-04   -1.4844     4.46165e-04    -0.0221
185/01      .500       1.37930e-05   -4.90710e-04   -1.4844     4.49160e-04    -0.0242
186/01      .500       1.37930e-05   -4.90710e-04   -1.4844     4.52155e-04    -0.0224
187/02      .500       1.37930e-05   -4.90710e-04   -1.4844     4.55150e-04    -0.0225
188/01      .500       1.37930e-05   -4.90710e-04   -1.4844     4.58145e-04    -0.0226
189/03      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.39488e-04     0.0172
190/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841     4.87559e-02    -0.0002
191/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841     4.89572e-02    -0.0068
192/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841     4.91585e-02    -0.0134
193/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -5.74023e-04     0.0146
194/03      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -5.57657e-04     0.0141
195/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -5.41291e-04     0.0156
196/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -5.24925e-04     0.0151
197/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0082
198/02      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0082
199/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0082
200/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0082
201/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0082
202/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0082
203/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0082
204/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0082
205/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0082
206/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0082
207/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0082

             PRT             Temperature Coefficients         Conductivity 
Coefficients
 Sta/     Response           corT = t2*T2 + t1*T + t0             corC = c1*C + 
c0
 Cast    Time (secs)       t2             t1          t0           c1            
c0

208/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0082
209/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0086
210/02      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0086
211/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0086
212/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0086
213/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0086
214/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0090
215/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0090
216/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0090
217/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0090
218/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0090
219/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0080
220/01      .325       1.93330e-05   -5.72760e-04   -1.4841    -6.52178e-04     0.0090

SUMMARY OF TUNES CTD OXYGEN TIME CONSTANTS

    Oxygen |   Casts    |        Temperature        | Press. | O2 Grad.
    Sensor |    Used    | Fast(tauTF) | Slow(tauTS) | (tauP) | (tauOG) 
    -------|------------|-------------|-------------|--------|---------
      A    |    Leg1    |    32.0     |    363.0    |  19.4  |   60.0  
     A/B   | Leg2/Downs |    32.0     |    363.0    |  19.4  |   60.0  
      A    | Leg2/Ups@  |    16.0     |    450.0    |  13.5  |  150.0  

@	NOTE: pressure-series upcasts had an inverted elapsed time:
0 dbar times were re-defined as 0, and other times were generated by subtracting 
averaged time from averaged surface time.  This required calculating entirely 
new taus in order to fit the data.

TUNES-2 CTD Oxygen:  Levenberg-Marquardt Non-linear Least-Squares-Fit 
Coefficients

 Sta/      Slope        Offset       Pcoeff       TFcoeff       TScoeff       OGcoeff
 Cast      (c1)          (c2)         (c3)       (c4/fast)     (c5/slow)        (c6)

124/01  9.74036e-04   2.74161e-02  1.38260e-04   1.13660e-02  -3.74159e-02   1.35937e-04
125/01  9.88555e-04   1.42946e-02  1.46805e-04  -8.23080e-04  -2.42034e-02   2.32403e-03
126/01  9.64627e-04   2.19085e-02  1.46160e-04   1.56478e-03  -2.69694e-02   1.39288e-03
127/01  7.20499e-04   9.55390e-02  1.36654e-04   2.30895e-02  -3.92416e-02  -8.73076e-04
128/01  7.85126e-04   8.58324e-02  1.29759e-04   1.87087e-02  -3.71071e-02   5.77933e-04
129/02  9.74450e-04   2.45606e-02  1.40970e-04  -2.42716e-03  -2.34322e-02   4.75858e-04
130/01  9.72792e-04   1.21977e-02  1.51431e-04  -3.75316e-03  -1.88455e-02   6.11484e-03
131/01  9.46839e-04   2.20674e-02  1.49447e-04   2.02056e-03  -2.41925e-02   7.48703e-03
132/02  8.69841e-04   5.28195e-02  1.40260e-04   4.57305e-03  -2.52919e-02   8.28663e-04
133/01  1.23075e-03  -3.70209e-02  1.38253e-04  -3.38737e-02   3.77030e-03  -4.45136e-03
134/01  1.16423e-03  -2.22803e-02  1.41353e-04  -3.17152e-02   3.43710e-03  -7.22666e-03
135/01  1.13587e-03  -2.13681e-02  1.45314e-04  -4.15103e-02   1.36212e-02  -1.44598e-03
136/01  1.14442e-03  -5.48818e-03  1.30485e-04  -2.21766e-02  -5.84958e-03  -4.89250e-03
137/01  8.04538e-04   8.80899e-02  1.30294e-04   1.79691e-02  -3.71009e-02  -3.46420e-04
138/01  9.27807e-04   4.47543e-02  1.39047e-04   5.78485e-03  -2.93921e-02   5.83201e-04
139/01  9.26000e-04   5.28698e-02  1.31956e-04   5.99761e-03  -2.90277e-02  -3.67244e-04
140/01  9.72469e-04   3.33778e-02  1.39136e-04   7.93609e-03  -3.19523e-02   4.51678e-04
141/01  1.02034e-03   2.82425e-02  1.32970e-04   8.15073e-03  -3.45033e-02  -6.18173e-04
142/01  8.78143e-04   6.32930e-02  1.34683e-04   1.31040e-02  -3.30647e-02   1.90743e-03
143/03  9.70027e-04   3.39855e-02  1.38869e-04   6.13234e-03  -3.17918e-02  -5.63932e-04
144/01  9.97689e-04   2.77420e-02  1.37296e-04   9.77747e-03  -3.55768e-02  -1.82198e-04
145/01  1.00357e-03   2.01629e-02  1.43201e-04   7.79951e-03  -3.12180e-02   7.34854e-03
146/01  1.00234e-03   2.37381e-02  1.41278e-04   8.35470e-03  -3.40002e-02  -3.19773e-03
147/01  9.25596e-04   4.63474e-02  1.39812e-04   5.32981e-03  -2.65962e-02   6.16987e-03
148/01  9.43262e-04   4.94159e-02  1.32288e-04   1.36087e-02  -3.74967e-02  -9.84955e-04
149/01  9.08413e-04   6.01087e-02  1.31258e-04   7.29372e-03  -2.96914e-02   3.04312e-04
150/01  1.13607e-03  -2.16355e-02  1.49687e-04   9.08542e-03  -3.85515e-02  -9.85967e-04
151/01  9.86250e-04   2.35871e-02  1.45587e-04   5.27522e-03  -3.14749e-02  -2.00609e-03
152/01  9.79475e-04   3.37289e-02  1.35609e-04   4.46854e-03  -2.88005e-02   8.63516e-04
153/02  1.01440e-03   2.98860e-02  1.30338e-04   4.92377e-03  -3.21539e-02   1.42977e-03
154/01  9.56233e-04   3.86116e-02  1.36852e-04   1.91465e-03  -2.75336e-02   1.62430e-03
155/01  8.43446e-04   8.20899e-02  1.25023e-04   7.79834e-04  -2.26916e-02   1.00613e-03
156/01  8.94453e-04   6.14941e-02  1.32899e-04  -9.68918e-04  -2.36078e-02   5.26077e-04
157/01  9.83516e-04   3.12903e-02  1.37690e-04   1.28305e-03  -2.82337e-02   1.61909e-03
158/01  9.50178e-04   2.48023e-02  1.52902e-04  -2.84830e-03  -2.22188e-02   5.00782e-03
159/01  1.10911e-03  -1.57433e-02  1.45069e-04   4.34918e-03  -3.42891e-02   6.99069e-04
160/01  9.15838e-04   5.65461e-02  1.31994e-04  -2.82383e-03  -2.23812e-02   1.50998e-03
161/01  9.76541e-04   3.67686e-02  1.35698e-04   3.52564e-03  -3.03183e-02   2.38863e-04
162/01  1.00913e-03   2.18993e-02  1.39440e-04  -4.99025e-04  -2.78230e-02   5.73047e-04
163/01  9.92499e-04   2.25870e-02  1.44242e-04  -3.10614e-04  -2.63406e-02   1.92347e-03
164/01  1.01372e-03   2.01795e-02  1.43503e-04  -1.18380e-03  -2.71355e-02  -2.37808e-05
165/02  9.47497e-04   4.61054e-02  1.34169e-04  -1.32815e-03  -2.50594e-02  -4.23704e-04
166/02  1.01222e-03   1.16514e-02  1.47535e-04  -3.01877e-03  -2.72148e-02  -1.62388e-04
167/01  9.65490e-04   3.07138e-02  1.43549e-04  -2.94021e-03  -2.46337e-02   1.54298e-03
168/01  1.01952e-03   9.38912e-03  1.47524e-04  -3.31298e-03  -2.56856e-02   9.19736e-05
169/01  9.92975e-04   2.15173e-02  1.45156e-04  -1.27772e-03  -2.66347e-02  -5.56928e-05
170/01  1.09682e-03  -4.67248e-03  1.43783e-04   4.33293e-03  -3.61059e-02   4.13626e-04
171/01  1.03991e-03   1.51834e-02  1.41128e-04   5.82635e-03  -3.48170e-02  -1.11327e-03
172/02  9.65464e-04   2.88758e-02  1.45327e-04  -1.07821e-02  -1.90955e-02   1.17278e-04
173/01  9.92514e-04   2.54707e-02  1.43603e-04  -1.35774e-03  -2.64658e-02  -3.90692e-04
174/01  1.02221e-03   1.61930e-02  1.44875e-04   6.18773e-03  -3.37413e-02   1.07993e-04
175/01  9.70707e-04   3.81207e-02  1.40143e-04  -2.35929e-03  -2.45734e-02  -3.91433e-05
176/01  1.02346e-03   1.71879e-02  1.43864e-04   1.61324e-03  -2.90824e-02   4.25191e-04
177/01  1.00907e-03   2.90049e-02  1.38135e-04  -1.01364e-03  -2.58912e-02   3.42700e-03
178/01  1.04821e-03   1.43697e-02  1.41951e-04   4.73295e-03  -3.23759e-02   2.37301e-04
179/02  1.03618e-03   1.08475e-02  1.47259e-04  -1.65927e-03  -2.70478e-02   1.12468e-03
180/02  1.02725e-03   8.05786e-03  1.45292e-04  -2.51802e-03  -2.88875e-02  -5.86707e-04
181/01  9.83335e-04   2.96404e-02  1.39107e-04   4.05513e-03  -3.04371e-02  -6.92337e-06
182/02  1.16887e-03   7.62552e-03  8.78018e-05  -2.61066e-02  -9.76593e-03  -3.77702e-03
183/01  1.00920e-03   2.06813e-02  1.43375e-04  -2.72462e-02  -8.78713e-03  -4.85355e-04
184/01  1.01351e-03   1.73297e-02  1.45849e-04  -2.66070e-02  -8.54734e-03  -1.03444e-03
185/01  9.39419e-04   4.11220e-02  1.41664e-04  -6.73055e-03  -1.73737e-02   3.85836e-03
186/01  9.85708e-04   2.94156e-02  1.43114e-04  -5.15553e-03  -2.17635e-02   1.91419e-04
187/02  9.93422e-04   3.03151e-02  1.40169e-04   1.81920e-03  -2.85360e-02   2.29725e-03
188/01  9.92379e-04   1.83591e-02  1.47224e-04   3.31433e-03  -3.26159e-02  -4.28132e-06
193/01  8.56067e-04   7.41068e-02  1.31170e-04  -3.48618e-02   1.45682e-02  -2.31530e-03
194/03  1.01673e-03   3.30716e-02  1.31019e-04  -2.48869e-02  -1.50489e-03  -6.41632e-03
195/01  1.03338e-03   2.20898e-02  1.36240e-04  -2.84714e-02  -8.76995e-06  -9.26474e-03
196/01  8.56847e-04   8.00897e-02  1.28120e-04  -3.22148e-02   1.33820e-02  -1.04290e-03
197/01  9.98900e-04   1.96720e-02  1.45111e-04   9.30220e-03  -3.71486e-02  -4.30105e-04
198/02  9.63034e-04   3.00695e-02  1.45933e-04  -1.22247e-03  -2.79709e-02  -1.23479e-03
199/01  8.90092e-04   4.50071e-02  1.53063e-04   6.98631e-04  -2.34627e-02   1.49480e-03
200/01  9.55612e-04   1.96937e-02  1.63588e-04   6.05485e-03  -3.01778e-02  -3.26536e-04
201/01  9.61216e-04   3.64178e-02  1.44177e-04   2.86506e-03  -2.95201e-02  -9.88325e-04
202/01  9.68779e-04   3.78174e-02  1.42125e-04   2.10321e-03  -3.06230e-02  -2.12457e-03
203/01  9.75186e-04   3.20391e-02  1.46398e-04   1.19479e-03  -2.91412e-02   8.22370e-04
204/01  1.02167e-03   2.29675e-02  1.45919e-04   4.17063e-03  -3.38061e-02  -1.29569e-03
205/01  8.53594e-04   8.25995e-02  1.33500e-04  -1.40165e-03  -2.17228e-02   6.54864e-04
206/01  9.03648e-04   5.93182e-02  1.39662e-04  -2.76579e-03  -2.20259e-02   1.93567e-03
207/01  9.40520e-04   5.16192e-02  1.37779e-04   1.53863e-03  -2.76990e-02  -1.30542e-03
208/01  9.43210e-04   4.38431e-02  1.46352e-04   1.69443e-03  -2.78140e-02  -3.41290e-03
209/01  8.57270e-04   8.25120e-02  1.32823e-04  -2.07116e-03  -2.15492e-02   1.16307e-03
210/02  1.14233e-03  -1.64812e-02  1.49065e-04   1.36421e-02  -4.58470e-02  -5.32877e-03
211/01  1.02694e-03   2.00706e-02  1.45605e-04   8.83728e-04  -3.02670e-02  -7.39584e-04
212/01  1.00621e-03   2.79678e-02  1.44059e-04   6.48505e-03  -3.36940e-02  -1.57985e-04
213/01  8.38116e-04   9.23205e-02  1.27497e-04   1.33727e-03  -2.28328e-02   5.04368e-04
214/01  6.87475e-04   1.37463e-01  1.24238e-04  -1.92717e-03  -1.42103e-02   7.51458e-04
215/01  9.26096e-04   4.83288e-02  1.47684e-04  -9.00041e-04  -2.46545e-02  -1.05974e-03
216/01  1.11954e-03  -1.04200e-02  1.54310e-04   9.97415e-03  -3.95453e-02  -1.27928e-03
217/01  1.02024e-03   3.49490e-02  1.42072e-04   5.76715e-03  -3.22223e-02   5.60629e-04
218/01  1.13903e-03  -1.62749e-02  1.55528e-04   3.12347e-03  -3.42289e-02  -7.74700e-04
219/01  7.96293e-04   1.09757e-01  1.29044e-04  -1.49413e-03  -2.03201e-02   4.02498e-05
220/01  1.00456e-03   3.96412e-02  1.38775e-04   4.36451e-03  -3.09871e-02  -7.55432e-04

E.    Data Quality Evaluations

E.1.  CTD Data Quality Control Report for WOCE cruises P16S and P17S
      (Bob Millard)
      April 9, 1996

The range of variation of potential temperature is from below zero to 27C while 
the salinity varies from 34.3 to 36.3 psu as the potential temperature versus 
salinity plot of figure 1 illustrates. The oxygen values range widely, from near 
zero to 270 mol/kg, as shown in the potential temperature versus oxygen plot of 
figure 2. These two plots contain all 2 decibar observations Plus the water 
sample salinities and oxygens. To the plotting resolution, the salinity, oxygen 
and  temperature data are well behaved.

The evaluation of the CTD data of WOCE cruises P16S and P17S examines the 
following two CTD data sets: individual 2 decibar down-profile data (a total of 
97 station files) and the subset of the up-profile CTD observations stored in 
the bottle file together with the water sample oxygens and salinities. The CTD 
processing documentation is pretty comprehensive, covering the laboratory and in 
situ calibrations along with problems encountered with the various instrument 
combinations used during this cruise. The documentation has good bit of detail 
to help explain problems identified in the data set. Both the CTD salinity and 
oxygen data in the bottle file (P16s17s.HYD) and the individual 2-decibar down-
profiles for WOCE cruises P16S and P17S are found to be well matched to water 
sample data and generally free of spurious observations. The CTD data set is a 
credit to the personnel responsible for processing these data as creating such a 
consistent and good quality data set from three instruments with several 
conductivity and temperature sensor combinations is not an easy undertaking.

To assess the CTD quality of the CTD data the following data checks were carried 
out:

Calibration checks:  CTD and water sample Salinity and Oxygens

Checks involve both the individual 2 decibar profiles and the bottle file CTD 
subset. The calibration checks are divided into an assessments at all depths and 
then just the deeper layer (i.e. pressures greater than 1000 decibars). The 
calibration checks of salinity and oxygen involved looking at the differences of 
the CTD minus the water sample values both the down and up-profile CTD salinity 
and oxygen data were examined against bottle values. The salinity differences 
presented are formed using the bottle file CTD data while oxygen differences 
presented are created by interpolating the down-profile 2-decibar profiles CTD 
oxygens at the bottle depths. The interpolated down-profile CTD oxygens found to 
be nearly identical to those in the water sample file with only differences 
occurring in the upper 500 decibars.

Check for spurious salinity and oxygen values deep:

An evaluation of the CTD salinity and oxygen noise level and check for spurious 
data values. To check for spurious salinity and oxygen observations in the 2 
decibar CTD data the standard deviation (RMS) of the high-pass filtered oxygen 
and salinity with wavelengths between 4 and 25 decibars is summarized in the 
deep water depth ranges to the cast bottom. The RMS scatter value is plotted 
versus station. Stations with a large scatter compared to the cruise norm were 
plotted versus pressure with suspect data values (values greater than 5 standard 
deviations) marked on the plots for inspection.

Vertical stability check.

A check for density inversions provides additional information about spurious 
salinity and/or temperature values particularly in the near surface region where 
this method is more sensitive than looking at the high wave number salinity 
variability. The vertical gradient of potential density (first difference) is 
calculated and checked for decreases in density anomaly with depth exceeding one 
of two thresholds: (-0.0075 and -0.01 kg/m3). 

Salinity calibration

The bottle file salinity differences are plotted versus station number, first at 
all pressures (figure 3a) and then the subset below 1000 decibars with a station 
average value indicated by the solid line in figure 3b. The third panel, figure 
3c, is a plot of salinity differences versus pressure below 500 decibars. Both 
plots versus station (3a and 3b) show the CTD salinity (conductivity) to be well 
matched to the water sample salts, the only evidence of a station off-set are 
stations 159 and 189. Station 189 has a few unflagged questionable deep water 
sample file CTD salts that create this apparent mis-calibration. The down-
profile interpolated salinity differences below 1000 decibars (not shown) 
reinforce station 159 to be 0.0015 psu fresh and also doesn't indicate station 
189 to be mis-calibrated suggesting the CTD salinities in the water sample file 
are incorrect. Figure 3c begins at 500 decibars to permit an expanded salinity 
range and suggestions that the CTD salinity is well calibrated in the vertical. 
The few large salinity differences below 1000 dbars all occur between stations 
189-195 (see figure 3b). A histogram of salinity differences is shown for all 
pressures in figures 5c and below 1000 dbars in figure 5d. The standard 
deviation of the salinity differences below 1000 decibars is 0.0024 psu but 
reduces to 0.0017 psu when a few questionable differences greater than +/-0.02 
psu are removed.  Most of the large salinity differences are due to erroneous 
CTD salinities in the water sample file of stations 181 and 189. 

A series of waterfall plots of up-profile CTD salinity minus up water sample 
differences DS= ( Sctd_up - WS) psu are given in figures 7 a-d. Again, 
questionable salts are observed in stations 159, 181, and 189. For Station 189, 
the large salinity differences occur only with the up-profile CTD salinities and 
the down-profile salinities look fine. This is the case for station 181 as well 
where it appears the CTD may have lift the bottom! So only station 159 seems to 
require further adjustment as the pot. temp. versus salinity plot indicates. 

Oxygen calibration 

Figures 4 a,b,c show the down-profile oxygen differences versus station, overall 
and deep, and versus pressure. The plots of the up-profile oxygen differences 
were examined but plots are not included as they are identical except shallow 
and do not change any conclusions concerning oxygen calibrations. Figure 4c 
begins at 500 decibars to permit an expanded oxygen range and suggests that the 
CTD oxygen might be systematically underestimated by 1 to 2 mol/kg (the same 
was seen in the bottle file comparisons) in the depth range of around 4000 
decibars. Figure 4a indicates that there are a few large oxygen differences 
between stations 177 & 183. The station average oxygen difference below 1000 
decibars (figure 4b) suggest that the CTD oxygens match the deeper water 
samples, except perhaps stations 135, 193, 194 and 207 which are examined more 
closely in the Delta-oxygen waterfall plots. A histogram of oxygen differences 
for all pressure levels figure 5a and below 1000 dbars figure 5b. The oxygen 
differences below 1000 dbars appear normally distributed with a standard 
deviation of 1.29 mol/kg. 

A series of waterfall plots consisting of down-profile CTD oxygen minus up water 
sample differences Dox= (OXctd_dwn - WS) mol/kg versus station are given in 
figures 6 a-d. Each station is labeled and the separation between profiles is 10 
mol/kg. Again stations 135, 193, 194 and perhaps 207 appear to be anomalous. 
The deeper CTD oxygens of these stations read low compared to the water samples, 
which was noticed previously in the plot of all oxygen differences versus 
pressure (figure 4c). 

Spurious salinities and Oxygens

The standard deviation of the high-pass filtered salinity (between vertical 
wavelengths of 4 and 25 decibars) from 2500 decibars to the bottom is shown in 
figure 8a. The standard deviation of the high-pass filtered salinity below 2500 
decibars is shown in figure 8a. The bottom pressure is plotted versus station 
number in figure 8c. The average RMS CTD salinity scatter over the cruise of 
0.00021 psu becomes as low as 0.00017 psu (stations 140-147) which is consistent 
with the salinity noise level found for other cruises. Figure 8a indicates that 
the first seven stations (stations 124-130) have an elevated noise level 50 
percent higher than most of the remainder of the cruise. Stations 189, 194 and 
196 are also anomalously high and this is traced to some spurious salinity 
values that need to be flagged, perhaps because they are upcasts. The station 
averaged RMS oxygen noise level is twice as large as the best cruises examined 
(~0.1 mol/kg) and is probably set by the oxygen current quantizing. Stations 
207, 209 and 211 stand out as having abnormally large RMS oxygen scatter which 
seem to be traceable to regions of spurious oxygen variability as indicated in 
figure 8b. A second plot of the standard deviation of the high-pass filtered 
salinity and oxygen between 1198 and 2500 decibars is shown in figure 9a and b. 
There arc two station groups which are considerably above the background 
salinity variability: stations 148-150 and stations 183-189. Both of these 
groups of stations were collected with CTD #2 using PRT-2. The report notes 
additional salinity noise for the first group of stations due to a larger 
physical separation between T/C sensors, but I could not find any reference to 
problems with salinity for stations 183 to 188. 

The stability of all 2 decibar CTD data is checked by looking at potential 
density differences that exceed one of two thresholds. A plot of the pressure 
levels at which these instabilities occur (table I) is shown in figure 10 with 
potential density differences exceeding -0.0075 kg/m3/dbar, marked with an (x), 
and -0.01 kg/m3/dbar, marked with a (*). A tabular listing of these 40 points 
with negative density gradients exceeding -.0075 kg/m3/dbar is given below. The 
data set has only 4 levels exceeding -.01 kg/m3/dbar. The instabilities are in 
the shallow depths regions less than 500 decibars that have the largest 
temperature and salinity gradients. 

Detailed comments on individual or groups of stations 

Stations 133- 136: CTD Oxygens (02 drifts low at bottle stops). The 2 decibar 
                    station is from the up-profile and the 02 depletion is noted 
                    in the data report!  May want to flag in quality word. See 
                    figure 11. 

Oxygen calibration  (see figure 4) 
                   Station 135 low below 1500 dbars; 
                   Station 193 CTD 02 low below 3000; 
                   Station 194 CTD 02 low below 3000; 
                   Station 207 CTD 02 low below 3200 dbars 
                   Stations 183-184 surface oxygens had. The quality word for 
                    02 is set to bad but perhaps should also set CTD 02 = -9 
                    since the 02's are not useful? 

Stations 193-196:  CTD Oxygens (02 drifts low what appear to be bottle stops). 
                    Data report notes that the CTD profiles 189-196 are from the 
                    up-cast! 
                   CTD deep oxygens are noisy for stations 207, 209 and 211 as 
                    suggested earlier in RMS plot. Perhaps filter or mark 
                    quality word? See figures 12, 13, & 14. 

Stations 148-150:  salinity noisy: see salinity minimum in figure 15. There are 
                    density inversion of up to -0.004 kg/m3. Requires 
                    documentation and perhaps should be flagged in data files. 
Station 183-188    salinity noisy: see salinity minimum in figure 16. There are 
                    density inversion of up to -0.004 kg/m3. Requires 
                    documentation and perhaps should be flagged in data files. 
                   Salinities noisy for stations 189. 193. 194, 195, 196. Only 
                    station 189 has clearly identified salt spikes (figure 17) 
                    while stations 193-196 fewer salt spikes but a generally 
                    higher salinity noise, perhaps due to data being collected 
                    on the upcast. Suggest Flagging salinity spikes in quality 
                    word. 

Station 159        CTD salinity high .0015 psu. See theta/S figure 18 

Stations 181 & 189 low CTD salinities in water sample file: Need to be flagged 
                    in the quality word.

Table 1: dsg/dp > -.0075 kg/m3/dbar

                       dsg/dp         station #        Prs dbars
                   ---------------  --------------  --------------
                   -7.8641805e-003  1.2800000e+002  1.4000000e+002
                   -8.8297845e-003  1.3600000e+002  1.7000000e+002
                   -9.7508236e-003  1.3700000e+002  2.7400000e+002
                   -8.3715948e-003  1.3700000e+002  3.1000000e+002
                   -7.6583882e-003  1.3800000e+002  2.1200000e+002
                   -8.6767688e-003  1.4100000e+002  3.2600000e+002
                   -7.8341546e-003  1.4200000e+002  2.8800000e+00?
                   -8.0255380e-003  1.4300000e+002  3.3400000e+002
                   -8.4706133e-003  1.4400000e+002  1.2800000e+002
                   -7.9266174e-003  1.4400000e+002  3.4400000e+002
                   -7.9858524e-003  1.4800000e+002  2.3800000e+002
                   -7.5826407e-003  1.4800000e+002  2.6000000e+002
                   -1.0002281e-002  1.4800000e+002  3.0800000e+002
                   -9.8196501e-003  1.4800000e+002  3.1600000e+002
                   -1.0194750e-002  1.4800000e+002  3.2400000e+002
                   -7.6654652e-003  1.4900000e+002  1.3200000e+002
                   -9.8661496e-003  1.4900000e+002  2.4000000e+002
                   -9.4343715e-003  1.4900000e+002  3.0000000e+002
                   -9.7408253e-003  1.4900000e+002  3.3400000e+002
                   -9.2506939e-003  1.4900000e+002  3.7000000e+002
                   -8.0809873e-003  1.5000000e+002  2.2400000e+002
                   -7.7992862e-003  1.5000000e+002  3.0800000e+002
                   -8.4964802e-003  1.5000000e+002  4.5400000e+002
                   -8.9271953e-003  1.5100000e+002  3.7400000e+002
                   -7.7591976e-003  1.5100000e+002  4.3000000e+002
                   -7.9234132e-003  1.5100000e+002  4.3800000e+002
                   -8.0958725e-003  1.6500000e+002  1.8800000e+002
                   -8.0027661e-003  1.7000000e+002  4.02000000+002
                   -1.0618018e-002  1.8200000e+002  1.52000000+002
                   -7.7939928e-003  1.8300000e+002  2.1600000e+002
                   -9.1669738e-003  1.8300000e+002  3.1600000e+002
                   -8.3398096e-003  1.8300000e+002  3.2200000e+002
                   -9.1135829e-O03  1.8500000e+002  3.6000000e+002
                   -1.0028792e-002  1.8500000e+002  3.7000000e+002
                   -8.8489481e-003  1.8600000e+002  2.0000000e+002
                   -8.5536518e-003  1.8700000e+002  2.5600000e+002
                   -9.3649987e-003  1.8700000e+002  3.0200000e+002
                   -8.7831869e-O03  1.8800000e+002  3.1600000e+002
                   -8.0227023e-003  1.9300000e+002  3.3200000e+002
                   -8.8509689e-003  2.1200000e+002  2.2400000e+002

Table2: dsg/dp>-.01kg/m3/dbar

                 dsg/dp        station #       Prs dbars      comments
            ---------------  --------------  --------------  ------------
            -1.0002281e-002  1.4800000e+002  3.0800000e+002  fix S at 306
            -1.0194750e-002  1.4800000e+002  3.2400000e+002  ok qual. wd
            -1.0618018e-002  1.8200000e+002  1.5200000e+002  ok qual. wd
            -1.0028792e-002  1.8500000e+002  3.7000000e+002  ok qual. wd

E.2.  Data Quality Evaluation of TUNES Leg II (P17S/P16S) Hydrographic Data
      (A. Mantyla)
      4 January 1994

The TUNES II cruise has produced a very good data set for the data sparse 
region of the central Pacific. The cruise P.I.'s have made a detailed 
comparison of the TUNES II data with other near-by WOCE legs and with the old 
SCORPIO expedition; and have shown the results of the comparisons in the final 
cruise report submitted with the data. The agreement in dissolved oxygen among 
the recent cruises was excellent, salinity agreement good; and nutrient 
differences somewhat greater than hoped for in the WOCE guidelines. WOCE cruise 
nutrients have not met expectations elsewhere on other cruises, so the 
guidelines may be overly optimistic.

There were far fewer rosette trip malfunctions on this leg compared to the 
first leg, aside from the occasional lanyard hang-ups that nearly always occur 
on CTD-rosette cruises. However, there were problems with the CTD's, a CTD had 
to be assembled from two cannibalized CTD's. The results were not entirely 
satisfactory, as several of the CTD salinities listed for the bottle trips were 
clearly questionable; use of the listed CTD salinity would result in an 
instability, while use of the bottle salinity results in a smooth and stable 
profile. None of the CTD data were flagged as a problem by the data 
originators, but I have flagged several CTD salinities as questionable, 
particularly near stations 189-193. There were the typical spread of 
differences between the CTD and bottle salinities in the main pycnocline, 
probably due to "quick" trips before the rosette bottle could flush out enough 
to collect a water sample representative of the intended sampling depths. Few, 
if any of those levels were flagged since it is a common problem and one 
recognizes that rosette water samples tend to be smeared out a bit.

The CTD oxygen data at the bottle trip levels were not supplied; they would 
have been useful to confirm the considerable oxygen structure seen in the 
bottle data.  The cruise report indicates the sample drawing temperature was 
recorded, but not used in the concentration calculation. The potential error 
could be as large as 0.2mM, an amount that is negligible compared to the 
reagent/seawater blank uncertainty. From the cruise report, it is not clear 
which reagent blank was used for this cruise. WOCE procedures specify distilled 
water reagent blanks, and page 40 of the cruise report states that was what was 
used; however page 25 of the report states "a generic seawater blank was 
applied to the ODF oxygen data." The cruise report should be corrected to 
reflect what was actually done on the cruise.

As on TUNES I, the data on this leg have been looked over very carefully by the 
originators. I have some qualms about accepting some of the originators "bad 
data" flags for points that only appear to be slightly off for no known reason 
and are within expected accuracy limits, or for oxygen data that looks fine, 
but has a sample log sheet comment "air leak". If an air leak does not appear 
to affect the sample, the comment is not sufficient reason to flag the oxygen 
as "bad". I have changed some of the "4" flags to "3", or even "2" based on 
comparisons with nearby stations at the same potential temperature.

The following are some specific problems that should be looked at:

STATION 136, 0db:
        Water sample data was flagged bad on the basis of a large CTD/bottle 
        salinity difference. However, there is a greater than 0.5 salinity 
        gradient between 0db and 34db, and comparisons usually do not agree 
        well in strong haloclines. O2 and nutrients particularly NO2, confirm 
        the water samples are ok. Also, at 4212db, the CTD salinity is 
        questionable, bottle salinity is ok, based on adjacent station 
        THETA - S profiles.

STATION 148, 4013db:
        O2, Sil and PO4 flagged "bad". However, note sharp drop in THETA. The 
        data is the same as on adjacent stations "at the same potential 
        temperature", a benthic front effect. The data is most likely ok. 
        Also, CTD salt at 33db is questionable (unstable), bottle salt 
        (stable) confirms CTD salt unlikely.

STATION 158; mixed layer:
        39db and 82db data nearly identical in all properties; 2db 
        temperature .017C COLDER and more saline, thus unstable. CTD 
        temperature would have to be much warmer to be stable. If CTD 
        temperature is ok, suggest flag bottle salt and O2 questionable.

STATION 197, 64db:
        O2 and nutrients look like water is from deeper in the water column, 
        perhaps near 200m.  Salinity could be slightly off also. Leaker? NO2 
        verifies data definitely not from 64db. Suggest flag data doubtful.

STATION 202, 675db, samples 113 and 137:
        Both listed at 675db, but the two CTD temperatures differ by 0.6C, 
        they are probably the CTD temperatures at the original intended trip 
        depths at 635db and 708db. List 675db temperature for both. The close 
        agreement of the water sample data from the 2 bottles, and the large 
        +/- CTD/bottle salinity differences at the intended depths led the 
        data originators to assume both tripped "on the fly" at about 675db. 
        The water samples were clearly wrong for the originally planned 
        depths, and are flagged "bad", but they look ok at 675db. The oxygen 
        data in particular agree to 0.1mM and are at a local maximum, similar 
        to adjacent stations. This is an important level, so I would suggest: 
        Flag the two bottles "4" (did not trip correctly), accept the water 
        samples as ok, and list the correct CTD temperature and salinity for 
        675db. 

STN|CAST|SAMP|
NBR| NO | NO |CTDPRS|CTDSAL |SALNTY |OXYGEN|SILCAT|NITRAT|NITRIT|PHSPHT| QUALT1| QUALT2| 
---|----|----|------|*******|*******|******|******|******|******|******|-------|-------| 
124| 1  | 13 | 454.3|       |       |      |      |      |      | 2.56 |~~~~~~4|~~~~~~3| 
124| 1  | 20 |1392.4|       |       |      |      |      |      | 2.70 |~~~~~~4|~~~~~~2| 
124| 1  | 21 |1581.0|       |       |      |      |      |      | 2.68 |~~~~~~4|~~~~~~2| 
124| 1  | 22 |1780.0|       |       |      |      |      |      | 2.82 |~~~~~~2|~~~~~~3| 
124| 1  | 29 |2989.4|       |       |      |      |      |      | 2.62 |~~~~~~4|~~~~~~3| 
124| 1  | 30 |3185.2|       |       |      |      |      |      | 2.61 |~~~~~~4|~~~~~~3| 
124| 1  | 33 |3691.7|       |       |      |      |      |      | 2.54 |~~~~~~4|~~~~~~3| 
126| 1  | 16 | 640.4|       |       | 76.1 |      |      |      |      |~~2~~~~|~~3~~~~| 
126| 1  | 36 |4451.6|       |       |171.9 |      |      |      |      |~~4~~~~|~~2~~~~| 
131| 1  |  5 | 134.5|       |       |181.4 |      |      |      |      |~~4~~~~|~~3~~~~| 
136| 1  |  1 |   0.2|       |35.7454|214.0 |  1.38| 1.85 | 0.03 | 0.36 |~444444|~222222| 
136| 1  | 36 |4212.1|34.6838|34.6906|      |      |      |      |      |23~~~~~|32~~~~~| 
137| 1  | 34 |3919.8|       |       |      |      |      |      | 2.43 |~~~~~~4|~~~~~~3| 
137| 1  | 35 |4127.2|       |       |      |      |      |      | 2.42 |~~~~~~4|~~~~~~3| 
137| 1  | 36 |4289.0|       |       |      |      |      |      | 2.43 |~~~~~~4|~~~~~~3| 
148| 1  |  2 |  32.7|36.4731|       |      |      |      |      |      |2~~~~~~|3~~~~~~| 
148| 1  | 36 |4012.8|       |       |171.0 |132.72|      |      | 2.40 |~~44~~4|~~22~~2| 
151| 1  |  1 |   2.7|       |       |204.8 |      |      |      |      |~~4~~~~|~~3~~~~| 
151| 1  |  2 |  44.3|       |       |204.9 |      |      |      |      |~~4~~~~|~~3~~~~| 
161| 1  |  1 |   4.1|       |35.7044|      |      |      |      |      |~2~~~~~|~3~~~~~| 
161| 1  | 33 |3462.1|       |34.6848|      |      |      |      |      |~2~~~~~|~3~~~~~| 
163| 1  | 30 |2964.9|       |       |167.5 |      |      |      |      |~~4~~~~|~~2~~~~| 
164| 1  | 35 |3677.3|       |34.6873|175.0 |      |      |      |      |~44~~~~|~22~~~~| 
177| 1  | 61 |   2.7|       |       |244.7 |      |      |      |      |~~2~~~~|~~3~~~~| 
189| 3  | 26 |2836.6|34.6501|       |      |      |      |      |      |2~~~~~~|3~~~~~~| 
189| 3  | 31 |4135.5|34.6907|       |      |      |      |      |      |2~~~~~~|3~~~~~~| 
189| 3  | 38 |5494.0|34.7130|       |      |      |      |      |      |2~~~~~~|3~~~~~~| 
193| 1  |  3 |  74.5|35.4213|       |      |      |      |      |      |2~~~~~~|3~~~~~~| 
193| 1  | 26 |2440.2|34.6079|       |      |      |      |      |      |2~~~~~~|3~~~~~~| 
194| 3  | 12 | 597.6|34.3478|       |      |      |      |      |      |2~~~~~~|3~~~~~~| 
194| 3  | 37 | 749.8|34.2438|       |      |      |      |      |      |2~~~~~~|3~~~~~~| 
194| 3  | 32 |4166.5|34.6949|       |      |      |      |      |      |2~~~~~~|3~~~~~~| 
194| 3  | 33 |4429.8|34.6969|       |      |      |      |      |      |2~~~~~~|3~~~~~~| 
194| 3  | 34 |4691.3|34.6996|       |      |      |      |      |      |2~~~~~~|3~~~~~~| 
194| 3  | 38 |5171.2|34.6881|       |      |      |      |      |      |2~~~~~~|3~~~~~~| 
195| 1  | 28 |3015.2|       |       |      |132.66|      |      |      |~~~4~~~|~~~3~~~| 
196| 1  | 34 |4290.1|34.6956|       |      |      |      |      |      |2~~~~~~|3~~~~~~| 
197| 1  |  2 |  64.3|       |35.5434|217.3 |  1.47| 0.59 | 0.04 | 0.16 |~222222|~333333| 
198| 2  | 20 |1284.3|       |34.4182|      |      |      |      |      |~2~~~~~|~3~~~~~| 
202| 1  | 13 | 675.0|34.3752|       |      |      |      |      |      |2~~~~~~|3~~~~~~| 
202| 1  | 37 | 675.0|34.3632|       |      |      |      |      |      |2~~~~~~|3~~~~~~| 
203| 1  | 25 |2157.2|       |       |      |      |      |      | 2.49 |~~~~~~3|~~~~~~2| 
217| 1  | 69 | 437.4|       |       |171.1 |      |      |      |      |~~4~~~~|~~3~~~~| 
219| 1  |  5 | 132.9|35.8746|       |      |      |      |      |      |2~~~~~~|3~~~~~~| 
  

E.3.a  Data Quality Evaluation of CFC Data
       (F.A. Van Woy)
       January 13, 1995

We recently ftp'd the quality word changes that I made for Tunes leg2, 
Pl6S_P17S. I believe that a reasonable assessment has been done. If the data 
originator wishes that I reconsider my choices, I will need to be provided with 
the following:

1) CFC air concentrations for each station
2) Calibration curves used for calculations
3) Chromatograms
4) Sample blanks applied and how determined
5) Stripper efficiency results
6) Contour plots

It is recommended on future cruises that the observer draw and run more 
replicate samples along with running more deep "blank" samples to assess the 
sample blank more thoroughly.

I believe that a reasonable quality assessment of the data has been done without 
the above items and any additional effort would take a fairly intensive 
involvement from this laboratory.

      NBR  CASTNO SAMPNO   CTDPRS    CFC-11    CFC-12   QUALT1 QUALT2
      ---  ------ ------   ------    ------    ------   ------ ------
      124     1     5       114.0     1.768     0.993     28     33
      124     1     36     4562.4     0.008               8~     3~
      125     1     3        77.8               0.943     ~2     ~3
      125     1     10      267.7               0.100     ~2     ~3
      126     1     1         0.2               0.916     ~8     ~3
      126     1     2        42.0               0.902     ~8     ~3
      126     1     3        82.4               0.929     ~2     ~3
      126     1     4        96.9               0.950     ~2     ~3
      126     1     5       116.7               1.010     ~8     ~3
      126     1     14      461.5               0.026     ~2     ~3
      126     1     16      640.4     0.050     0.032     22     33
      127     1     1        10.3     1.866     0.891     28     33
      127     1     2        37.9               0.906     ~2     ~3
      127     1     3        78.5               0.917     ~8     ~3
      127     1     4        93.3               0.955     ~2     ~3
      127     1     5       107.2               0.985     ~8     ~3
      128     1     2        52.5               0.908     ~8     ~3
      128     1     3        75.9               0.886     ~8     ~3
      128     1     5       143.8               1.064     ~2     ~3
      128     1     6       185.6               1.165     ~2     ~3
      128     1     7       231.8               0.549     ~2     ~3
      128     1     8       283.5               0.116     ~2     ~3
      128     1     9       334.3               0.049     ~2     ~3
      128     1     10      384.7               0.035     ~2     ~3
      129     2     17      871.9     0.007     0.009     22     33
      129     2     28     2979.9     0.095               4~     3~
      130     1     10      308.6               0.091     ~2     ~3
      131     1     20     1313.4     0.008     0.009     22     33
      132     2     11      336.8               0.078     ~2     ~3
      132     2     12      407.4               0.031     ~2     ~3
      132     2     20     1326.0     0.000     0.011     88     23
      133     1     18      921.3     0.009     0.005     27     32
      143     3     6       172.8     1.714     0.921     22     33
      144     1     11      453.8               0.051     ~2     ~3
      146     1     11      464.9               0.102     ~2     ~3
      146     1     12      515.4               0.067     ~2     ~3
      148     1     37      565.2               0.064     ~2     ~3
      149     1     12      463.4               0.000     ~2     ~4
      152     1     5       127.2     1.746               2~     3~
      153     2     6       182.7     1.614     0.986     28     33
      154     1     1         1.9     1.425               2~     3~
      155     1     8       363.5     1.414     0.790     22     33
      157     1     16      737.6     0.087     0.061     22     33
      158     1     18      746.8     0.085     0.062     22     33
      158     1     19      798.7     0.031     0.032     22     33
      159     1     21      863.5               0.035     ~2     ~3
      164     1     18      921.4               0.034     ~2     ~3
      165     2     2      2264.7     0.020               2~     3~
      166     2     21     1375.8     0.011               2~     3~
      167     1     15      738.9     0.261     0.297     82     33
      167     1     18      934.6     0.095     0.071     22     33
      171     1     16      733.6     0.337     0.219     22     33
      173     1     7       158.3     2.061     1.174     22     33
      173     1     37      515.6     1.036     0.568     22     33
      173     1     20     1079.6               0.049     ~2     ~3
      173     1     21     1232.8               0.022     ~2     ~3
      180     2     38     5641.6     0.023               2~     3~
      182     2     34     1628.4     0.022               8~     3~
      185     1     68      288.8     2.017     1.076     22     33
      185     1     11      520.0     1.283     0.803     22     33
      186     1     37      927.1     0.255     0.153     22     33
      199     1     20     1023.7               0.047     ~2     ~3
      206     1     37      635.1               0.301     ~2     ~3
      207     1     12      493.1               0.458     ~2     ~3
      212     1     17      764.5               0.100     ~2     ~3
      214     1      3       95.3     1.754     0.968     22     33
      214     1     68      278.7     1.949     0.907     22     33
      214     1     69      328.7     1.837     0.837     22     33
      214     1     70      388.9     1.529     0.658     22     33
      214     1     11      449.1     1.041     0.450     22     33
      214     1     12      511.7     0.716     0.298     22     33
      214     1     13      574.9     0.450     0.188     22     33
      214     1     37      646.7     0.198     0.089     22     33
      215     1     61        1.5     1.680     0.950     22     33
      215     1     62       33.1     1.660     0.931     22     33
      215     1      3       78.2     1.681     0.933     22     33
      215     1     64      123.9     1.677     0.943     22     33
      215     1      5      153.7     1.672     0.943     22     33
      215     1      6      177.7     1.671     0.926     22     33
      215     1      7      201.5     1.674     0.912     22     33
      215     1     68      223.9     1.573     0.890     22     33
      215     1     69      247.6     1.602     0.870     22     33
      215     1     70      296.4     1.467     0.806     22     33
      216     1     61        2.8     1.692     0.921     22     33
      216     1     62       32.6     1.630     0.905     22     33
      216     1      3       62.0     1.677     0.928     22     33
      216     1     64      102.8     1.703     0.922     22     33
 

E.3.b  Final CFC Data Quality Evaluation (DQE) Comments on P17S_P16S.
       (David Wisegarver)
       Dec 2000

During the initial DQE review of the CFC data, a small number of samples were 
given QUALT2 flags which differed from the initial QUALT1 flags assigned by the 
PI. After discussion, the PI concurred with the DQE assigned flags and updated 
the QUAL1 flags for these samples.

The CFC concentrations have been adjusted to the SIO98 calibration Scale (Prinn 
et al. 2000) so that all of the Pacific WOCE CFC data will be on a common 
calibration scale.

For further information, comments or questions, please, contact the CFC PI for 
this section 
                        R. Fine (rfine@rsmas.miami.edu)
                                       or
                     David Wisegarver (wise@pmel.noaa.gov).

Additional information on WOCE CFC synthesis may be available at: 
                          http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/cfc

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

E.4.  P16S17S TUNES-2 Final Report for AMS 14 C Samples
      (Robert M. Key)
      July 5, 1996

1.0 General Information

WOCE section P16S17S was the second in a series of three cruise legs referred to 
as "TUNES". Jim Swift of SIO was chief scientist for this leg. This report 
covers details of data collection and analysis for the small volume (AMS) 
radiocarbon samples. The reader is referred to "Documentation for WOCE 
Hydrographic Program section P16S17" by J. Swift as the primary source for 
cruise information. Of 97 stations, 25 were sampled for radiocarbon. The AMS 
station locations are shown in Figure 1 and summarized in Table 1

Table 1: P16S17 Station Data

                     Date                       Bottom
            Station  1991  Latitude  Longitude  Depth (m)
            -------  ----  --------  ---------  ---------
              125    7/22   -6.512   -135.012   4474
              127    7/22   -7.522   -135.003   4387
              129    7/23   -8.513   -134.982   4507
              132    7/24  -10.055   -134.957   4444
              135    7/25  -11.487   -134.700   4277
              143    7/28  -15.377   -133.893   4221
              147    7/29  -17.348   -133.470   4384
              153    7/30  -20.282   -132.827   4414
              156    7/31  -21.768   -132.532   3822
              161    8/2   -24.212   -132.675   3810
              166    8/3   -26.643   -133.295   4037
              169    8/5   -28.102   -133.680   4192
              172    8/5   -29.560   -134.065   4177
              176    8/7   -31.510   -134.617   4303
              179    8/8   -33.015   -135.028   4468
              180    8/12  -37.513   -150.517   5527
              184    8/13  -35.485   -150.508   5372
              187    8/15  -34.008   -150.522   5303
              191    8/16  -31.997   -150.500   5167
              195    8/16  -30.013   -150.487   4412
              198    8/18  -28.497   -150.497   4948
              202    8/20  -26.510   -150.497   4739
              206    8/21  -24.495   -150.485   4917
              210    8/22  -22.503   -150.513   4463
              215    8/24  -20.008   -150.505   3729
    

14 C samples were additionally collected for measurement by the large volume 
technique on 9 stations (132, 143, 153, 166, 172, 180, 187, 198 and 210). For 
information on the large volume samples, the reader is referred to the data 
report by Key (1996). AMS sampling was used for the upper thermocline and large 
volume sampling for the deep and bottom waters.

2.0 Personnel

14 C sampling for this cruise was carried out by Rich Rotter (Princeton). 14 C 
analyses were performed at the National Ocean Sciences AMS Facility (NOSAMS) at 
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Salinities and nutrients were analyzed by 
the SIO CTD group and the Oregon State Univ. group respectively. R. Key 
(Princeton) collected the data from the originators, merged the files, assigned 
quality control flags to the 14 C and submitted the data files to the WOCE 
office (7/96).

3.0 Results This 14 C data set and any changes or additions supersedes any prior release.

3.1 Hydrography

Hydrography from this leg have been submitted to the WOCE office by the chief 
scientist and described in the previously mentioned report.

3.2 14 C

Most of the D 14 C values reported here have been distributed in two data 
reports (NOSAMS, 1995, 1996). Those reports included preliminary hydrographic 
data and 14 C results which had not been through the WOCE quality control 
procedures. This report supersedes any previous 14 C data distributions.

At this time 472 of 529 samples collected have been measured and reported. 
Replicate measurements were made on 13 of the samples. These replicate analyses 
are tabulated in Table 2. The table shows the mean and standard deviation for 
each set of duplicates. For these few samples, the average standard deviation is 
5.7. This precision estimate is approximately correct for the time frame over 
which these samples were measured. For a summary of the improvement in precision 
with time at NOSAMS, see Key, et al. (1996). In the final data reported to the 
WOCE office, the error weighted mean and error weighted standard deviation of 
the mean are given for replicate analyses (WOCE QC code 6).

4.0 Quality Control Flag Assignment

Quality flag values were assigned to all 14 C measurements using the code 
defined in Table 0.2 of WHP Office Report WHPO 91-1 Rev. 2 section 4.5.2. 
Measurement flags values of 2, 3, 4, 6 and 9 have been assigned to date. 
Approximately 50 samples remain to be measured. With a few exceptions, these 
samples will be completed. Currently, the unmeasured samples are incorrectly 
coded with a flag value of 9 (no sample collected) rather than 1 (sample 
collected) or 5 (no result reported). The choice between values 2 (good), 3 
(questionable) or 4 (bad) is involves some interpretation. There is very little 
overlap between this data set and any existing 14 C data, so that type of 
comparison was difficult. In general the lack of other data for comparison led 
to a more lenient grading on the 14 C data.

When using this data set for scientific application, any 14 C datum which is 
flagged with a "3" should be carefully considered. My subjective opinion is that 
any datum flagged "4" should be disregarded. When flagging 14 C data, the 
measurement error was taken into consideration. That is, approximately one-third 
of the 14 C measurements are expected to deviate from the true value by more 
than the measurement precision. No measured values have been removed from this 
data set. 

Table 2: Summary of Replicate Analyses

              Sta-Cast- delta14C  Err  Mean(a)  Standard 
              Bottle                            Deviation(b)
              --------- --------  ---  -------  ---------
              215-1-13     17.5   2.7    16.7      1.1 
                           15.9   3.3      
              215-1-15(c) -21.5   3.1   -14.4     10.1 
                           -7.2   2.8      
              215-1-16    -75.9   2.6   -71.4      6.4 
                          -66.9   2.8      
              215-1-17   -100.6   2.9   -99.2      2.0 
                          -97.8   2.5      
              215-1-18   -146.9   4.5  -140.1      9.7 
                         -133.2   2.5      
              215-1-20   -168.6   3.2  -164.2      6.2 
                         -159.8   2.7      
              215-1-21   -186.9   2.7  -184.8      3.0 
                         -182.6   2.6      
              215-1-22   -201.1   2.1   206.0      6.9 
                         -210.8   2.1      
              215-1-24   -217.4   3.4  -219.9      3.5 
                         -222.4   2.4      
              215-1-37     -6.9   2.7   -11.9      7.0
                          -16.8   2.9       
              215-1-61    102.5   3.0   106.7      5.9 
                          110.8   3.2       
              215-1-64    119.7   4.2   112.0     10.9 
                          104.3   3.2       
              215-1-68    130.8   3.5   130.0      1.1 
                          129.2   3.0       
              a. Error weighted mean reported with data set
              b. Error weighted standard deviation of the mean reported with data set.
              c. Only first run retained for data set

Table 3 summarizes the quality control flags assigned to this data set. For a 
detailed description of the flagging procedure see Key, et al. (1996). As more of 
the Pacific data set becomes available, it is possible that some of these flag 
values may be modified. Any additional data received for this leg will be 
reported to the WOCE office as they be-come available.

5.0 Data Summary

Figures 2-5 summarize the AMS 14 C data collected on this leg. Only D 14 C mea- 
surements with a quality flag value of 2 are included in the figures. Figure 2 
shows the D 14 C values with 2s error bars plotted as a function of pressure for 
the upper two kilometers of the water column. This figure clearly demonstrates 
the sampling strategy used during the TUNES legs. That is, AMS sampling was 
almost totally limited to the upper 1500 meters of the water column. Large 
volume Gerard barrel sampling was used to cover the deep and bottom waters. This 
strategy was chosen primarily because the collection cost for AMS 14 C samples 
is significantly less than for the Gerard technique. At the time of this cruise, 
it was known that the AMS technique was less precise than the large volume 
technique, however Figure 2 clearly demonstrates that AMS precision is easily 
sufficient to resolve the vertical gradients inD 14 C, at least in the upper 
kilometer. The data in Figure 2 fall into two fairly distinct groups in the 250-
1000 meter depth range. The stations included in the group with the lower D 14 C 
values for a given depth are those which are equatorward of 16S (Stations 125-
143). The stations south of station 147 tend to group together at somewhat 
higher values for a given depth, regardless of the longitude (to first order). 
This separation is due to a doming of the D 14 C isopleths to shallower depths 
toward the Equator.

Figure 3 shows the D 14 C values plotted against silicate for samples from the 
upper 2 kilometers of the water column. The straight line shown in the figure is 
the least squares regression relationship derived by Broecker et al. (1995) 
based on the GEOSECS global data set. According to their analysis, this line (D 
14 C = -70 - Si) represents the relationship between naturally occurring 
radiocarbon and silicate for most of the ocean. They interpret deviations in D 
14 C above this line to be due to input of bomb-produced radiocarbon. 

Table 3: Summary of Assigned Quality Control Flags

                                Flag  Number
                                ----  ------
                                   2  443
                                   3  11
                                   4   5
                                   6  13

Clearly, this relationship is not ideal for the P16S17 data set. The data points 
having silicate values greater than or equal to 60 mmol/kg almost certainly have 
no bomb-radiocarbon component and should therefore lie on, rather than below, 
the line as seen in Figure 3. For these data the slope of the line needs to be 
steeper or/and the intercept needs to be low-er. A least squares fit of the data 
from samples between 1 and 2 km depth (n=73; R 2 =.92) gives an intercept of -
693 which is easily within error of Broecker's -70, but the intercept value of 
-1.26.04 is significantly steeper than the -1. calculated for the GEOSECS 
global data set.

Figure 4 and Figure 5 are objectively contoured sections (LeTraon, 1990) of the 
D 14 C distribution for the upper kilometer of the water column (Station 125-179 
and 180-215, respectively). Obvious in Figure 4 is the doming of the isopleths 
toward the Equator and the subsurface location of the maximum D 14 C 
concentration for most of the section. In both sections, from the southern end 
to approximately 25S and a depth of approximately 600m to the bottom on the 
section is thermostad region referred to by McCartney (1977, 1982) and Tsuchiya 
and Talley (1996) as Subantarctic Mode Water. Within this tongue of relatively 
low salinity water, the D 14 C isopleths are parallel to the isopycnals (Key, et 
al., 1996). 

6.0 References and Supporting Documentation

Key, R.M., P16S17S TUNES-2 Final Report for Large Volume Samples, Ocean Tracer
    Laboratory, Technical Report 96-4, 14pp, July 3, 1996.

Key, R.M., WOCE radiocarbon program reports progress, WOCE Notes, 8(1),12-17, 
    1996

Key, R.M., WOCE Pacific Ocean radiocarbon program, Radiocarbon, submitted, 1996.

Key, R.M., P.D. Quay and NOSAMS, WOCE AMS Radiocarbon I: Pacific Ocean results; 
    P6, P16 & P17, Radiocarbon, submitted, 1996.

LeTraon, P.Y., A method for optimal analysis of fields with spatially variable 
    mean, J. Geophys. Res., 95, 13543-13547, 1990.

McCartney, M.S., 1977, Subantarctic mode water, In: A Voyage of Discovery, M. 
    Angel, ed., George Deacon 70th Anniv. Volume, Deep-Sea Research 
    (suppl.):103-119.

McCartney, M. S., 1982, The subtropical recirculation of mode waters, J. Marine 
    Research., 40(suppl.):427-464.

NOSAMS, National Ocean Sciences AMS Facility Data Report #95-030, Woods Hole 
    Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, 02543, 1995.

NOSAMS, National Ocean Sciences AMS Facility Data Report #96-019, Woods Hole 
    Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, 02543, 1996.

Peng, T.-H., R. M. Key and H. G. stlund, Temporal variations of bomb 
    radiocarbon inventory in the Pacific Ocean, Marine Chem., submitted, 1996.

Swift, J., "Documentation for WOCE Hydrographic Program section P17C",    
    unpublished WHP manuscript.

Tsuchiya, M., and L.D. Talley, Water-property distributions along an eastern 
    Pacific hydrographic section at 135W, J. Mar. Res., 54(3), 1996. 

Figure 1: 14 C station locations for WOCE P16S17 (TUNES-2). Stations indicated 
          by a dot were sampled only in the thermocline using the AMS technique. 
          Stations indicated by a + were sampled over the entire water column 
          using AMS to the thermocline and large volume sampling for deep and 
          bottom waters.

Figure 2: AMS D 14 C results for P16S17 stations shown with 2s error bars.Only 
          those measurements having a quality control flag value of 2 are 
          plotted. The lower grouping of data points is from stations north of 
          16S.

Figure 3: D 14 C as a function of silicate for P16S17 AMS samples. The straight 
          line shows the relationship proposed by Broecker, et al., 1995 (D 14 C 
          = -70 - Si with radiocarbon in  and silicate in mmol/kg).

Figure 4: D 14 C concentration in the upper kilometer of the meridional portion 
          of TUNES leg 2(Stations 125-179; WOCE line P17C) along 135W. Gridding 
          done using the method of Letraon (1990); all samples measured using 
          the AMS technique (Key, 1996a,b; Key, et al., 1996). For most of the 
          section the maximum concentration is found below the surface.

Figure 5: D 14 C concentration in the upper kilometer of the meridional portion 
          of TUNES leg 2 (Stations 180-215; WOCE line P17C) along 155W. 
          Gridding done using the method of Letraon (1990); all samples measured 
          using the AMS technique (Key, 1996a,b; Key, et al., 1996). For the 
          northern portion of the section the maximum concentration is found 
          below the surface 

DATA PROCESSING NOTES

Date      Contact      Data Type           Data Status Summary
--------  -----------  ------------------  -----------------------------------
01/04/94  Mantyla      NUTs/S/O            DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO
          
40/09/96  Millard      CTD                 DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO
          
07/07/98  Lupton       HELIUM              Submitted for DQE

07/07/98  Lupton       HELIUM              Submitted for DQE
          
01/19/99  Willey       CFCs                Data rcvd @ WHPO
          I received the CFC-11/12 datasets for the following WHP lines:

          EXPOCODE        31WTTUNES/2     WHP-ID  P17S,P16S
          EXPOCODE        31WTTUNES/1     WHP-ID  P17C
          EXPOCODE        316N138/12      WHP-ID  P19C
          EXPOCODE        318MWEST_4_5    WHP-ID P21E/W
          EXPOCODE        316N138/3       WHP-ID  P6E

          Each file looks fine and has been placed in the proper archived 
          directory on our machine so that they can be merged in with the 
          rest of the values.
          -Steve Diggs
          
          I just ftp'd our cfc files to the /INCOMING/RFine_cfcs directory.  
          The files named *.sea are hydro files with our final cfc values 
          and quality bytes merged in.  The files named *_cfcs.dat are files 
          that include station, cast, bottle, CFCs and quality bytes.  
          Please let me know if you
          have any problems and I'll let you know if we have any changes 
          (hopefully not...).

02/17/99  Bartolacci   CFCs                Data Merged/OnLine
          P16s(31WTTUNES_2), p17c(31WTTUNES_1), and p19c(316N138_12) have 
          all had cfc data from Rana Fine merged and updated into them.  The 
          tables and files have been updated to reflect this change.  Data are 
          public.

04/29/99  Bartolacci   DELC13              Data and/or Status info 
          Requested from P. Quay 

10/08/99  Evans        DELHE3              Submitted for DQE

10/20/99  Willey       CFCs                Final Data Rcvd @ WHPO
          This is a follow-up to last month's message requesting that all of 
          our Pacific and Indian Ocean CFCs be made accessible to the 
          public.  Our cruises are; (Pacific) P17C, P1716S, P06E, P19C, 
          P17N, P21E, and (Indian) I09N, I05W/I04, I07N, I10. 

01/18/00  Key          DELC14 LV           Final Data Rcvd @ WHPO

02/04/00  Kozyr        ALKALI/PCO2/TCARBN  Final Data Rcvd @ WHPO 
          (DQE Complete)

06/21/00  Bartolacci   helium/delhe3       Data Updated
          not yet merged into btl file

07/12/00  Buck         CFCs                Data Merged
          Moved RFine_cfcs_p1716s.sea and RFine_cfcs_p1716s_cfcs.dat from 
          /usr/export/ftp-incoming.2000.02.14/RFine_cfcs
          
          The RFine files are different from the FINE_WILLEY files.  The 
          RFine files look newer.  I ran Bren's code on it and the data from 
          the  RFine_cfcs_p1716s_cfcs.dat file has been merged into 
          p16shy.txt.

07/25/00  Johnson      DOC                 ODF Report rcvd @ WHPO
          I transferred files over to the ftp-incoming directory the easy 
          way (for me)...  You will find the following "new" directories in 
          /usr/export/ftp-incoming on whpo:
          
          p16a_p17a
          p17c_p17s_p16s
          p17e_p19s
          
          I already gave you p19c (which I see is in P19Cdoc).  I thought it 
          was redundant to put long names in every filename, so I made the 
          directory name with the cruise lines, and the files are all the 
          same.  The figs files are all figxx.ps (where xx should indicate 
          the figure numbers referenced in the documentation).  I also 
          included ps and ascii versions of the original documentation and 
          applicable appendices.  (appendix a and b will be missing - they 
          are outdated now and shouldn't be included in anything.)

10/02/00  Anfuso        HELIUM              Website Updated
          Data merged into online Bottle file: (helium, delhe3)
          
          Helium data from L. Evans merged into hyd file. Updated file on 
          line. Note: Some helium data from the Evan's group replaced data 
          values that preexisted in the hyd file. These preexisting data 
          were duplicate samples drawn by a different helium group.

11/21/00  Uribe        DOC                 Submitted
          2000.11.21  KJU
          File contained here is CRUISE SUMMARIES and NOT sumfiles.  Files 
          listed below should be  considered WHP DOC files. Documentation is 
          online.
          
          2000.10.11 KJU
          Files were found in incoming directory under whp_reports. This 
          directory was zipped, files were separated and placed under proper 
          cruise. All of them are sumfiles.
          Received 1997 August 15th.

02/06/01  Stuart       DELC13              Submitted

06/22/01  Uribe        CTD/BTL             Website Updated: CSV File Added
          CTD and Bottle files in exchange format have been put online.

11/16/01  Bartolacci   CFCs                Data Ready to be Merged
          Updated CFCs ready to be merged  I have placed the updated CFC 
          data file sent by Wisegarver into the P16s original directory in a  
          subdirectory called 2001.07.09_P16SP17S_CFC_UPDT_WISEGARVER
          This directory contains data, and several copies of documentation 
          and readme files (because multiple submissions were attempted, 
          files appear to be duplicates). data are ready for merging

01/08/02  Uribe        CTD                 Website Updated: CSV File Added
          CTD has been converted to exchange using the new code and put 
          online.

01/22/02  Hajrasuliha  CTD/BTL             Internal DQE completed
          created .ps files, check with gs viewer. Created *check.txt file

04/17/02  Anderson     BTL/SUM             Data Reformatted
          SUM file reformatted, lvs file from Key reformatted:  salnty, 
          oxygen, silcat, nitrat, nitrit, phspht, revprs, revtmp, delc14, 
          delc13, c14err
          
          Reformatted the .sum file to conform with the accepted WHP format. 
          Put online. Reformatted the .lvs file from Key. This needs to be 
          linked to the web site.
          
          Reformatted .lvs file p16s17slv.data from Key found in: 
          .../onetime/pacific/p16/p16s/original/2000.01.18_KEY_C14-LV.dir 
          
          Data file a cast 4 for stations 198 and 210.  The .sum file does 
          not have a cast 4.  This needs to be resolved.

05/06/02  Muus         DELC13              Data Merged into BTL file
          Data merged into online file, new csv file online  P17S DELC13 
          merged into bottle file and put on line together with new exchange 
          file. Removed "1" flags  from QUALT words. 
          
          Notes on P16S/P17S  merging     May 6, 2002  D.Muus
          
          1. Merged P17S DELC13 from:
             /usr/export/html-
             public/data/onetime/pacific/p17/original/20010206_C13_P17_STUART.e
             mail into bottle file (p16shy.txt 19990216WHPOSIODMB)
          
          2. Only sample reference in C13 data file is station, cast and 
             niskin. SAMPNO appears same as BTLNBR in bottle file so no 
             apparent problem.       
           
          3. Changed quality flag "1"s in QUALT1 to "9"s. Copied QUALT1 to 
             QUALT2 after checking that no QUALT2 flags differed from QUALT1 
             other than being "1"s or "9"s.
          
          4. Arnold Mantyla DQE recommendations were in QUALT1 except for:
             Sta 158 Ca 1 Sample  1    1.8db
                 202    1        13  675.0db
                 202    1        37  675.0db
             which require CTD processing expertise.
                 1) Is 158/1/1 CTD temp ok?
                 2) Calculate corrected Sta 202 up-cast CTD temp and salinity at 
                    675db.
             Left these flags unchanged.
             
          5. No DELC13 data for the P16S stations.
          
          6. Made new exchange file for Bottle data.
          
          7. Checked new bottle file with Java Ocean Atlas.

05/24/02  Anderson     DELC13              Data Merged into BTL file
          Data merged into online file, new CSV file created  Merged DELC13 
          into online file p16shy.txt (20020502WHPOSIODM). The DELC13 data 
          was retrieved from Bob Key's ftp site in May of 2001. Dana Stuart 
          sent a new file  May 24, 2002. A quick comparison indicates that 
          the values are the same.
          
          Made a new exchange file. 
          
          Notes:
          
           Merged DELC13 into online file p16shy.txt (20020502WHPOSIODM).
          
           File with DELC13 was retrieved from Bob Key's ftp site in May of 
            2001.
          
           Key's file contained both P16S and P17S DELC13 data.  I did not 
            merge the DELC13 from Key's file into the P17S part since Dave 
            Muus had already done that using a file sent by Dana Stuart 
            20010206 which contained only P17S DELC13 data.
          
           Compared Key's file with file received from Dana Stuart on May 24, 
            2002. Values appear to be the same.

06/28/02  Uribe        LVS                 LVS data linked to website

06/28/02  Anderson     LVS                 Data Updated
          Corrections made, file needs to be linked to web site.  
          Reformatted lvs file p16s17slv.data from Key found in 
          p16s/original/2000.01.18_KEY_C14-LV.dir. This file needs to be 
          linked to the web site.
          
09/23/02  Kappa        DOC                 Cruise Reports Updated, OnLine
          Added: to both the Text version of the Cruise Report and the new PDF 
                 Version: 
           Report on Large Volume Samples (R. Key); 
                  Report on AMS 14C (R Key);
                  DQE Reports on CTD, BTL and CFC data; 
                  these Data Processing Notes 
          PDF Version also has: 
                  links from the table of contents to appropriate text, 
                  links from figure and table references in the text to
                   the appropriate figures and tables.
          Deleted Appendices A & B as per M. Johnson's instructions that they
                   are both out of date.